Rick Scott says it will be tough for Republicans to take Senate in 2022

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Rick Scott said on Sunday that it will be tough for GOP lawmakers to take back the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections. 

During an appearance on CBS’s “Face The Nation,” moderator Margaret Brennan asked the Republican senator from Florida if it will get harder for Republicans to take control of the House and Senate chambers in November, citing victories for Democrats such as lower gas prices, the Inflation Reduction Act advancing and the military strike that killed al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri last week. 

In response, Scott pointed to critical race theory, the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, immigration and inflation, adding that his party has “good candidates” even though Democrats are “outracing” them at the moment. 

“I mean, they have to defend inflation, high gas prices, you know, the Afghan withdrawal, an open border, critical race theory, defund the police, that’s what they have to defend because that’s … what Biden is known for, and that’s what that’s basically what Democrats are known for. … Look it’s an election year. It’s going to be a hard year,” Scott told Brennan. 

“We have 21 Republicans up, only 14 Democrats. The Democrats are outracing us, but we have good candidates. And, I believe Joe Biden is going to be our key here.”

Brennan also played Scott a clip of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) during a “Fox News Sunday” appearance saying he believes this year’s elections for control of the Senate will be “very tight.”

 “If things are so bad, then why is it going to be so tight for Republicans?” Brennan asked Scott. 

“Well, first of all, we have very good candidates. I mean, the Democrats are raising good money. So we’ve got to be able to get our message out, so you know, we have to raise our money. We have to work hard, you know, we went through a lot of primaries, but I believe we’re gonna I believe we’re gonna win but it’s gonna be hard,” Scott replied. 

“We got to raise your money, we got to work really hard for candidates- have to work really hard. Everybody is gonna to help our candidates, but I’m optimistic.” 

Scott also voiced his opposition to the new Inflation Reduction Act, which on Sunday advanced to a vote in the Senate, saying the bill is  “a war on Medicare.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Van Hollen says China's Xi manufactured crisis over Pelosi trip to Taiwan

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on Sunday said Chinese President Xi Jinping decided to “manufacture a crisis” over a visit from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to the self-governing island nation of Taiwan, a trip that outraged Beijing and led to the cancelation of agreements with the U.S.

While some have questioned the value of Pelosi’s visit, Van Hollen told NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd that her trip was important, arguing the U.S. needs “to be very clear that China doesn’t get to dictate which U.S. officials go to Taiwan and when they go to Taiwan.”

“We send congressional delegations frequently. A former Speaker of the House has been to Taiwan in the past. And what President Xi decided to do was manufacture a crisis over Pelosi’s visit,” Van Hollen said, adding that the Chinese leader is “seeking an unprecedented third term as leader of China. And this is saber rattling and, you know, chest bumping by President Xi.”

Pelosi became the highest-ranking U.S. official to touch down on Taiwan in 25 years when she led a congressional delegation to the island nation last week.

China, which sees Taiwan as part of China under its One China policy, has increased aggressive rhetoric about the island and has ordered more military drills around the nation in recent years, raising fears of a possible invasion.

But Van Hollen told NBC on Sunday that a Chinese invasion was not “inevitable” and could be prevented.

“We need to help Taiwan make that as difficult as possible for China. And we’ve been doing that by supplying Taiwan with military assistance,” the senator said. “We need to continue to do that to make Taiwan into the porcupine so that when, you know, China looks at Taiwan, it realizes that this is going to be a hell of a fight and not a winnable fight.”

After Pelosi’s visit last week, China authorized unprecedented military drills, surrounding the island with ships and aircraft and firing missiles over the nation, which landed near Japan.

China, which had repeatedly warned and threatened the U.S. and Taiwan ahead of the visit, sanctioned Pelosi and ended mutual agreements with the U.S. aimed at fighting climate change and dangerous drugs.

Van Hollen on Sunday said the U.S. is not in a cold war with the People’s Republic of China, but added “a lot of that depends on what China does next.”

“There’s no doubt that President Xi has escalated, you know, China’s actions against Taiwan even before the Pelosi visit and has been more aggressive throughout the region,” he said. “At the same time, we have been trying to cooperate with them on these other measures, as you say. I believe they’ll be back at the table on those measures.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Sen. Rick Scott says Inflation Reduction Act is 'a war on Medicare'

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) voiced his opposition to the landmark climate, tax, and health legislation the Senate is in the process of voting on, characterizing the bill is “a war on Medicare.” 

During an appearance on CBS’s “Face The Nation,” moderator Margaret Brennan asked Scott if there are any incentives he agrees with in the new legislation, noting his state’s dependency on the Affordable Care Act and the Congressional Budget Office saying the bill will reduce the deficit to $100 billion within a decade. 

“Here’s the way I look at it. Right now, this bill actually ought to be called the war on seniors act,” Scott said. “I mean, this is a war on Medicare.”

He added that the $280 billion cut in Medicare included in the legislation will greatly affect senior citizens. 

“Margaret, it’s $280 billion that would have been spent it was anticipated to be spent, it’s not going to be spent now and the drug companies that will be doing more research are not gonna be able to spend the money on research there will be life-saving drugs that seniors will not get,” Scott said. 

Brennan noted that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates on one percent of new drugs will be affected with the new change, Scott disagrees, saying there shouldn’t be making budget cuts toward medicare and raising taxes. 

“This is going to continue to drive us into further a bigger recession than we are looking at where we are right now. labor participation rates slow, wages not set with inflation, two quarters of negative GDP, we this is Joe Biden has pushed us and these plans are pushing us into a recession,” Scott told Brennan. 

Scott’s remarks came after Vice President Harris broke a 50-50 vote in the Senate on Saturday to advance the Inflation Reduction Act.

The proposed legislation aims to address climate change issues, lower the cost of prescription drugs and reform the tax code.

Scott’s colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham also voiced his disapproval of the proposed legislation, saying the bill will “make everything worse.”

“This is gonna make everything worse. I voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, voted for gun legislation,” Graham told CNN’s “State of the Union” moderator Dana Bash on Sunday.  “I’m not gonna vote for this.”

Source: TEST FEED1

McConnell gets win on Trump in NATO vote

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) clinched a victory on Wednesday when the Senate — including 48 of the chamber’s 50 Republicans — voted overwhelmingly to admit Finland and Sweden to NATO.

The resolution, which cleared the chamber in a bipartisan 95-1 vote, was a top priority for the Republican leader, who wanted to send a signal about the direction of a GOP that had drifted toward isolationism under former President Trump.

Trump throughout his presidency was a critic of NATO. It was a part of the “America First” agenda that reverberated with parts of the GOP base after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars but also divided Republican officeholders.

McConnell visited war-torn Ukraine with a congressional delegation in May and made stops in Finland and Sweden during that trip. During the debate over bringing those countries into NATO, he argued that doing so made the U.S. stronger, not weaker.

The GOP leader definitely won the battle, even if he lost Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), the only member of either party in the Senate to vote “no.”

Most strikingly, Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) both shifted in their votes. The two were the only senators to vote against resolutions in 2017 and 2019 adding Montenegro and North Macedonia, respectively, to NATO. 

On Finland and Sweden, the two libertarian-leaning lawmakers took a different stance: Lee voted for the resolution, and Paul voted present.

“There’s a real and dangerous world out there, and it’s very easy to talk about U.S. isolationism or U.S. restraint or U.S. disengagement from the world, and then it’s quite another matter voting in favor of that. And I think that’s, you know, what we saw with Sen. Paul and Sen. Lee not voting against Sweden and Finland joining NATO,” Luke Coffey, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, told The Hill.

Hawley argued on the Senate floor and in an op-ed that the U.S. should not focus on expanding security commitments in Europe, because the “greatest foreign adversary” facing America is China. He had backed adding North Macedonia to NATO in 2019.

Trump repeatedly criticizes McConnell, who blasted the former president for his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol in a floor speech shortly after the president’s impeachment trial. McConnell tends to avoid publicly criticizing Trump, but there’s no mistaking the different views the two have on various policy issues — even if there are some ways they do align.

NATO and foreign policy has generally been one of the areas of divide.

Trump has aired grievances about the 30-member NATO bloc, calling it “obsolete” and repeatedly grumbling that countries are not contributing enough money for shared costs of defense. At one point during his presidency, he reportedly advocated for pulling the U.S. from NATO.

Ahead of the vote on Wednesday, McConnell openly admitted that he was worried about the isolationist wing of the party that has been fueled by Trump.

“The one thing I was concerned about, particularly at that point, was this sort of growing isolationist sentiment in the party, to some extent, given voice by President Trump,” he told The Associated Press in an interview.

In remarks on the Senate floor that day, the Republican leader did not hold back in addressing potential opposition to the resolution.

“If any senator is looking for a defensible excuse to vote ‘no,’ I wish them good luck,” McConnell said. “This is a slam dunk for national security that deserves unanimous bipartisan support.”

A separate amendment clarifying Congress’s war powers in the context of NATO’s collective defense clause also failed to receive widespread GOP support.

Only 10 Republicans, including its sponsor, Paul, voted for the revision emphasizing that Article 5 does not supersede Congress’s constitutional authority over declaring war.

Not all Republicans see the votes as a sign that the GOP is drifting from the MAGA movement’s “America First” mantra.

Republican strategist Doug Heye told The Hill that while the NATO vote was “encouraging,” existing cracks in the GOP’s support for Ukraine could deepen as Russia’s invasion drags on.

“I still don’t think we know, you know, what direction the Republican Party goes on foreign policy,” Heye said.

“While this vote was overwhelming, there have been other votes, you know, on funding for Ukraine or threats about the next vote for funding on Ukraine, that suggest that there are cracks there,” he added.

The Senate in May passed a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine in an 86-11 vote, with all opposition coming from the Republican Party. Hawley, Paul and Lee were all among those who voted “no.” On the House side, 57 Republicans opposed the supplemental.

Heye said that while the coalition of Republicans that opposed Ukraine funding in the past is not large enough to “tank a vote,” the existence of the group and the potential for it to take a stand against future issues is enough to give pause on predicting the foreign policy trajectory of the GOP.

He’s far from the only Republican with that view.

“I don’t think it’s growing, I don’t think it’s shrinking. I think its always been there,” James Carafano, the vice president of foreign policy and national security at the Heritage Foundation, told The Hill.

He argued that Trump’s “America First” philosophy has been conflated with the anti-interventionist movement, asserting that the Trump credo is based in the belief that U.S. foreign policy should be rooted in interests at home.

“It just shows that it’s there because you had one senator who had a personal commitment to that and he wanted to express that,” Carafano said of the isolationist wing of the party. “That’s part of the patchwork of the Republican movement. It always will be.”

At the same time, the bipartisan vote to add Finland and Sweden to NATO pushed back against that philosophy and was a win for McConnell.

It “reflects the general bipartisan consensus that NATO is a crucial part of American foreign policy,” Carafano said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Merrick Garland’s complicated Trump prosecution calculus

From Day One, Attorney General Merrick Garland has faced a dilemma: How to deal with Trump. The pressure from within the Democratic Party to prosecute Trump has been enormous. But a Trump acquittal would be a political catastrophe.

Navigating a Trump prosecution has become much more difficult of late. After a year where Trump looked like he was too crippled to run, the collapse of President Biden’s approval ratings has made a Trump return to the White House a very real possibility. At the same time, the Jan. 6 hearings have not just damaged Trump, they have turbocharged Democratic rage. The sum and substance is that not prosecuting Trump is becoming practically impossible.

It is no secret that Democratic voters despise Trump; in fact, they disapprove of Trump much more than Republicans approve of him. Hating Trump is the superglue that holds together the rickety, squabbling Democratic coalition.

According to a recent YouGov Benchmark, Trump has an 84 percent unfavorable rating among Democrats — 77 percent “very unfavorable.” With liberals, the numbers are even worse: 88 percent unfavorable and 83 percent very unfavorable. For Republicans, Trump has an 80 percent favorable, but only 55 percent very favorable. Reuters-Ipsos puts Trump at 86 percent unfavorable (73 percent very unfavorable) with Democrats, while Republicans are at 73 percent favorable (38 percent very favorable).

The Morning Consult July 17 poll has Trump at 90 percent unfavorable with Democrats.

Democrats overwhelmingly think Trump has responsibility for the Jan. 6 riot. According to YouGov, 44 percent of those polled think Trump engaged in illegality, but that rises to 79 percent among Democrats and 80 percent among liberals. Reuters-Ipsos polls Democrats at 83 percent believing Trump is “fully” or “largely” responsible, as opposed to 24 percent of Republicans.

Of course, convicting an individual in a court of law is much, much more difficult than convicting someone in the court of public opinion.

Risky business

Prosecuting Trump is risky territory for Garland. Not only is Trump going to fight any prosecution tooth and nail, he is also likely to go to any lengths to win.

Being a presidential candidate will call into question the propriety of any prosecution, although most Democratic voters are unlikely to care. Any prosecution is going to be a circus in which any slip-up by Garland or his team would be disastrous. Garland also needs to get Trump on a felony. A misdemeanor or civil penalty would be viewed as a weak, anti-climactic result — Republicans would celebrate and ridicule Garland, while Democrats would rage at him.

But worst of all would be an acquittal. If Trump were tried and acquitted, he could just coast off that victory right into the White House.

Not knowing the full extent of the evidence the Justice Department has or what else the Jan. 6 Committee will uncover, it is impossible to truly handicap a Trump trial — which leaves us with trying to consider what would be the best political strategy for Garland that recognizes there will always be uncertainty as to getting an actual conviction. Any way you cut it, there will be a lot of risk.

Garland could just go for Trump right away, hoping that a prosecution will add to Trump fatigue among GOP voters. If Trump thinks he will lose the Republican nomination (or a general election), he will likely make up some kind of excuse to get out. But it is equally likely that Trump will use his “martyr” status to his advantage and cast any Republican primary opponent as being in cahoots with the Democrats.

If the national Democratic leadership really wants Trump to run, viewing him as the most vulnerable Republican, they could encourage an impulsive move to prosecution. After all, boosting the “enemies of democracy” is the main focus of the Democratic Party these days. But it’s one thing to help get a few far-out candidates for Congress, it’s another to risk re-electing Trump.

What seems much more likely is that Garland will start on the outside and work his way in. By that I mean he will see if he can prosecute people in Trump’s inner circle who were part of the decision-making process leading up to Jan. 6. A trial featuring a senior staff member or two would help satisfy Democrats braying for blood.

Trying people around Trump would have several side benefits. For one thing, such a trial might yield evidence to use against Trump. It would also put pressure on Trump himself and increase Republican voter concern about backing a damaged candidate. GOP voters might well rally around a martyred Trump, but hardly any will care about a barely recognizable staffer. Even better, a trial might lead to a plea bargain. If there is one thing known about Trump, it’s that he rather casually throws people overboard. Should Trump leave a loyal staffer hang out to dry, that staffer might just agree to hang Trump.

Any trial or set of trials against Trump staffers would also chew up time for Garland — which would help with a Trump prosecution. If Garland is able to collect a strong enough case against Trump, he could well want to indict Trump into 2024. In the collision between demands for justice/getting Trump and the risk to the integrity of the American political system, getting even is likely to win out.

If Garland were to indict in early 2024, completing an actual trial before the November election would be quite unlikely, thus allowing Garland to escape the potential nightmare of a Trump acquittal. If Trump is not the Republican nominee — or if he loses in 2024 — a conviction or acquittal is almost immaterial. If Trump is convicted, any Republican President would at least strongly consider a Gerald Ford-style pardon (Trump is headed to prison if a Democrat wins).

If Trump is acquitted and a Democrat is president, Trump is likely still finished as he would be way past his political expiration date at age 82 in 2028. Even Trump would have a very hard time hanging on to relevance that far into the future. If a Republican wins in 2024, an acquitted Trump would be boxed out until 2032. An acquitted Trump would be a whole different kind of trouble for another Republican in the White House, but he won’t be back.

For Democrats frothing for a Trump indictment, they may have to wait.

Unless Garland has an absolutely open-and-shut case — or he is ready to play with fire — the attorney general is likely to slow-play a Trump prosecution. But for those around Trump, I would suggest lawyering up.

Keith Naughton, Ph.D., is co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm. Naughton is a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant. Follow him on Twitter @KNaughton711.

Source: TEST FEED1

Stacy Abrams on Biden 2024: 'If he runs again, I'm there to support him'

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams on Sunday said she will support President Biden if he decides to run for re-election in 2024 amid growing calls among Democrats for Biden to rethink seeking another term.

“If he chooses to run again, I’m there to support him,” Abrams, who is running for governor in Georgia, told CNN’s “State of the Union” co-host Dana Bash. “I absolutely support him.”

Biden’s approval ratings continue to hover around or just below 40 percent in most polls as his administration struggles to manage a cascading series of setbacks, from high inflation to state bans on abortion and a spate of deadly mass shootings.

A CNN poll last month showed three in four Democrats do not want Biden as the 2024 Democratic party nominee, although the president has fired back and said most Democrats do want him to run.

The mounting controversy has brought several Democrats to outright say they do not support him for the 2024 race.

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) as well as Democratic candidate for governor in South Carolina Joe Cunningham and a pro-Bernie Sanders progressive group have each said Biden should not run in 2024.

Meanwhile, several Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) are dodging questions about a potential Biden 2024 run.

Abrams on Sunday said if Biden were to call her to announce he was running, she would tell him to “do his best job.”

“And that right now, our focus has to be on what’s happening,” she said. “The strongest predictor of what will happen in 2024 is governors across this country winning on the values of protecting women’s right to choose, reducing gun violence and making certain we have an economy that is strong.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Republicans, Latino voters and an eye on Nevada

There is no better test this year of whether Republicans are making substantial inroads with Latino voters, once solidly Democratic, than Nevada.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), the only Latina in the U.S. Senate, is the party’s most endangered incumbent. Hispanics comprise as much as 20 percent of the Nevada electorate. She needs to win them almost 2 to 1 to stave off Republican challenger, Adam Laxalt, the former state attorney general and grandson of Nevada political legend, the late Paul Laxalt, who was a governor and a U.S. Senator.

Republicans, including Donald Trump in 2020, have cut into Democrats’ advantage with Hispanic voters, particularly non-college educated males.

“We always thought that if we got more Latinos to vote, the Democratic vote would grow exponentially,” notes Ana Iparraguirre, who has studied the data on Latino voting for the Democratic polling firm, GBAO Strategies. “In 2020 we got more Latinos to vote, but support for Democrats did not grow.”

There is a debate — using different data and analyses — over how much of a shift there has been to Republicans, and why. The Atlantic’s Ron Brownstein, who has followed this as closely and carefully as any journalist, concludes: “The best evidence in polling and election results suggests the claim of a fundamental shift among non-college educated Latino voters is, at best, wildly premature.” At a minimum, he suggests, there is a small shift.

Republicans have argued that the patriotism and cultural conservatism of Latinos will redound to the GOP’s advantage. That’s questionable. Latinos generally mirror other Democrats in views on social issues like abortion and guns, says Michelle Mayorga, also a GBAO strategist. “Many Catholic Hispanics are pro-choice on abortion.”

However, Democrats have been hurt when linked, often unfairly, with the slogans pushed by the small left wing of the party, such as “defund the police” or “open borders.” In Florida, especially with second- and third-generation voters with roots in South American countries, charges that Democrats are socialists resonated.

Moreover, Ms. Iparraguirre says, while the big social issues aren’t hurting, some of the “woke” stuff, like using gender neutral “Latinx” may be: “This is definitely not something they self-identify as.”

The main driver of any change, most exerts venture, is economics. Most working-class Latinos did well during the Trump years, at least before COVID hit. That apparently affected some voting habits.

Republicans are counting on an economy with raging inflation this year. The heaviest concentrations of Latino votes are in large states: California, Texas and Florida, as well as New Mexico. Yet they comprise as much as 4 percent to 5 percent in places like Georgia, North Carolina and Wisconsin — and could make the difference in tight races.

The swing states with the largest Latino vote are Arizona and Nevada, both with competitive Senate, gubernatorial and down-ballot contests this November. In Nevada, the GOP is encouraged by voter registration gains that have cut into the Democrats’ advantage.

Laxalt, predictably, focuses heavily on inflation and high gas prices. These really hurt the sizeable working-class citizens in this geographically large state.

The Republicans also are making a concerted effort to cut into the Democrats’ support among Latinos by running Spanish language commercials and with a dedicated “Latinos for Laxalt” organization.

Republicans may have been handed another break with fissures among the Democrats. The Nevada Democratic Party, led by the late Sen. Harry Reid, used to be one of the most effective state parties in the country. Last year, the left-wing Democratic Socialists staged a coup, and they now run the party. The former — and more formidable — faction has set up a parallel organization.

Abortion may offset some GOP advantages on the economy. Three decades ago, Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum protecting the right to abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy; after that, it is protected only if the mother’s life or health is endangered.

Cortez Masto is strongly pro-choice, while Laxalt, previously an anti-abortion hard liner, is equivocating and squirming. She is making abortion rights a campaign centerpiece, charging that Laxalt, as attorney general, sought to limit birth control access — and, as a senator, would vote for a federal abortion ban.

She has been running ads in Spanish targeting Latino voters for more than four months and has held numerous events with the community.

The Democratic Senator — according to Jon Ralston, the longtime journalistic sage on state politics with the Nevada Independent — is a stronger candidate, has raised a lot more money and is more disciplined. He says Laxalt, a big Trump supporter who has embraced the “Big Lie” that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, “is really a terrible candidate. He’s no Paul Laxalt.”

In what could be the tightest Senate race in the country, it comes down to the better candidate versus the more favorable conditions — with the outcome in Latino hands.

Al Hunt is the former executive editor of Bloomberg News. He previously served as reporter, bureau chief and Washington editor for The Wall Street Journal. For almost a quarter century he wrote a column on politics for The Wall Street Journal, then The International New York Times and Bloomberg View. He hosts Politics War Room with James Carville. Follow him on Twitter @AlHuntDC.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats fail to overrule parliamentarian on insulin price cap as GOP votes no

Senate Democrats fell short of an effort Sunday to overrule a decision by the parliamentarian that effectively struck down a proposal sponsored by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) to cap out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 a month for people not covered by Medicare.  

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the ranking member of the Budget Committee, sought to enforce the parliamentarian’s ruling that Warnock’s cap on insulin prices violated the Byrd Rule because it would set prices in the commercial market and therefore couldn’t pass with a simple majority vote.  

Senate Democrats insisted on a vote to waive the procedural objection to put Republican senators on record, including Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the most vulnerable member of the GOP conference, on the record as opposing a popular proposal to rein in insulin prices.  

The Senate voted 57 to 43 to waive the procedural objection against the insulin price cap but Democrats scored a symbolic victory with seven Republicans voted with the Democrats: Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska). 

“We’re going to force them to vote no and put them on the record,” said one Democratic senator before the vote, explaining the political strategy ahead of a vote lawmakers knew ahead of time was going to fail.  

All 43 “no” votes came from Republicans. 

The vote was unusual as the majority party rarely insists on a vote to overrule the parliamentarian’s decision on whether a legislative proposal is protected by the special budgetary rules that allow it to pass with a simple-majority vote.  

Senate Health Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said colleagues who voted to override the parliamentarian would allow “people to get insulin at $35 a month.” 

“Thirty-seven million people in our country have diabetes, and it’s absolutely wrong that many of them cannot afford the insulin they need to live,” she said. “I’ve heard from people in my state who risk their life and ration insulin to make ends meet, all the while drug companies are jacking up prices. 

“The cost of insulin has tripled over the last decade,” she said.  

Democrats won a partial victory, however, because the parliamentarian allowed Warnock’s $35 insulin cap to apply to Medicare beneficiaries, which could influence prices in the private market.  

A Democratic aide called the cap on insulin for people covered by Medicare “a big deal.”  

The aide noted that one in every three Medicare beneficiaries have diabetes and more than 3.3 million Medicare beneficiaries use common forms insulin, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.  

Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D) told reporters on Sunday morning that Democrats knew well before the vote that the parliamentarian ruled a cap on insulin prices in the private market a violation of Senate rules.  

“She knocked it out.  They added it back in and basically, you know, wanted to tempt us to, I guess, vote against it,” Thune said, while taking aim at Democrats for “overruling the parliamentarian.” 

He said the effort to overturn the parliamentarian undermined the integrity of Senate procedure and Senate rules.  

“It undermines the whole reconciliation process if you if you start doing that,” he said. “So, I mean, I think there’s a right way and wrong way to do it. They want to get that vote, there’s a lot of ways they can get that vote, but doing it this way, was the wrong way to do it.” 

Warnock pushed back on Thune’s remarks, telling The Hill ahead of the vote that the blame would fall on Republicans if a major portion of the insulin cap fell out of the bill.  

“The parliamentarians’ rules are not self-enforced,” Warnock said. “So, [the] only when we don’t do what 20 Other states have already done, many of them red states, is if folks here decide to put politics in front of the people.” 

“We can get this done and if it doesn’t get done, it’s on them,” he said. 

The vote on Sunday comes a day after another provision was struck from the bill that sought to lower drug prices by targeting drug companies with price increases that outpaced the rate of inflation.  

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP senator: More serious economic issues could be coming 'very shortly'

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) on Sunday said there could be “more serious economic issues coming very shortly” for Americans, pointing to news the economy shrank in the last two quarters and that wages are not keeping up with inflation.

“What you’re actually seeing, we believe, might be a precursor to what’s to come,” Rounds told ABC’s “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos. “You’re going to find out the larger companies such as Walmart are talking about starting to reduce the number of people that they’re going to be employing.”

Inflation has hit a 40-year high, while two consecutive quarters of negative gross domestic product (GDP) is in an indicator the U.S. may be in a recession.

Still, 528,000 jobs were added in July and the unemployment rate dipped to 3.5 percent, extending a healthy trend of job growth that counters the negative outlook. The Biden administration has pushed that message to suggest the U.S. is not in a recession.

Rounds on Sunday explained that strong job growth was a good sign, but stressed wages are not keeping up with inflation.

“I don’t think we can necessarily say that that is not a precursor yet to probably some more serious economic issues coming very shortly,” he said on ABC. “We hope that we’re building our way out of a recession but you don’t do that by raising taxes. You do it by promoting and expanding businesses, getting the economy rolling again.”

The senator also told Stephanopoulos that if Congress passes the highly anticipated Inflation Reduction Act, which aims to increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations, “Americans are going to feel” the consequences.

“What you’re going to see are normal American families actually see the impact of what happens whenever you put new taxes on our economy,” he said. “Now they talk about it being on big corporations but as big corporation raise prices they do pass it all down.

“So from our perspective, we will see those tax increases coming down the line and Americans are going to feel it,” he added.

Source: TEST FEED1

How an Afghan refugee’s experience can inform our support for Ukrainian refugees

Refugee crises are no longer extraordinary. After Kabul’s fall to the Taliban last August, close to a 100,000 Afghans sought refuge in the United States. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has pushed 100,000 Ukrainians to flee to our shores, and millions more to seek refuge in neighboring European countries. Yet, each time, we treat the crisis reaching American shores as if it’s one of a kind. As the news headlines fade, we move on without learning from what has happened — and the next refugee population may suffer because of it. 

I don’t want that to happen for the Ukrainians, just as I didn’t want it to happen for the Afghans. It’s personal for me. In January 2020, while deployed to Afghanistan, my interpreter, Sahil, saved my life. So, when the Taliban threatened his life, I helped Sahil and his family to come to the United States. Upon arrival, Sahil asked, “Where will I live? What will I do for work?” We struggled to find answers.

Sahil was not alone — those questions have plagued all arriving Afghans, amid a five-fold increase in refugee admissions compared to 2020. This surge overwhelmed the nine resettlement agencies (RAs) who are sponsored to find refugees housing and employment.

As we welcome Ukrainians, it’s important for all of us — public and private sector organizations, as well as individuals — to do better by them. Let’s consider Sahil’s two questions.

Where will I live? By the spring of 2022, an estimated 4,000 Afghan refugees remained in temporary housing, such as hotel rooms. Temporary housing is, on average, 160 percent more expensive than permanent housing and it delays school enrollment and employment — as well as access to Medicaid, income support and food stamps, all of which require having a permanent residence. The national shortage of affordable rental housing will require long-term policy reforms. But today, there are several short-term solutions that RAs, government agencies, and individuals can adopt.

First, RAs could partner with financial institutions to co-sign rental leases, bypassing leasing barriers and opening more housing to refugees. Costs likely will be modest because refugee default rates for other types of loans are low, ranging from 5 to 15 percent. Estimates are that the total co-signing cost could be less than $380 per person. Along the same lines, loan programs to support a larger rent down payment could ease landlord concerns and unlock access to additional housing, while also helping refugees build credit history, an important milestone in their integration.

Secondly, individuals and community groups can volunteer to provide housing, as we have for Sahil’s family. Because of this, Sahil has been able to save his “welcome” funds and apply the money to a future home down payment. Not everyone needs to open their homes to help. The State Department Sponsor Circle Program allows small groups to directly support families resettling in their community. For example, a 10-person community group could pool funding to co-sign a one-year lease for around $135 per month, about the cost of an average household cable bill.

What will I do for work? Constrained by language barriers, a lack of U.S. work experience, and pressure to make ends meet, refugees often settle for entry-level jobs in warehousing, retail and food service. These roles tend to have limited occupational mobility and unpredictable schedules, which can leave refugees stuck in a cycle of poverty. Given that there are 11.4 million job openings, employers are not only ready for refugees but also happy to hire them. More than 70 percent of employers report lower turnover rates among their refugee employees. Let’s look at how to help.

First, RAs could steer refugees toward the expanding number of registered apprenticeships that offer “earn while you learn” paths. Research shows that workers can earn $240,000 more over the course of their lifetimes by participating in these programs. RAs can also partner with government agencies, employers, industry and trade associations to create similar pathways for refugees to enroll in.

Second, the rise in remote work means that refugees with the right skills can work outside their place of residence. Furthermore, RAs can seek out nonprofits and companies that offer fully-funded online training programs with high job placement rates in sectors from technology to the trades. Sahil successfully joined one such program and has been hired as an information technology specialist. He could delay entering the labor market to train because of my family’s generosity, but government refugee cash assistance programs could help others seek upskilling. Their higher-paying careers will generate more tax revenue, thus offsetting the cost of such assistance.

Lastly, employers can lower barriers without dropping standards. While many refugees bring rich professional experience, automated job application systems often screen them out for their lack of U.S. education and experience. Bigger firms could flag refugee applications and local hiring managers could work with local RAs to find qualified candidates. 

Let’s learn from what Sahil has gone through to help others like him. The refugee crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine will not be the last our nation’s shores see. Neither our institutional memory nor our response capability need be as short as a 24-hour news cycle.  

Matt Watters is on the board of directors of No One Left Behind, a nonprofit focused on helping Special Immigrant Visa applicants. He is an associate partner at McKinsey and Company, where he led a pro bono study with the International Rescue Committee, the largest resettlement agency in the U.S., to scale Afghan refugee services in 2022. He deployed to Afghanistan in 2020 as a U.S. Special Forces sergeant. The views expressed here are his own.

Source: TEST FEED1