Tag Archives : Build House

Cassidy says Schumer-Manchin deal injects 'incredible amount of uncertainty into the economy'

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) on Sunday knocked the Inflation Reduction Act championed by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and centrist swing vote Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), saying the bill could lead to a recession despite its sponsors’ claims that it will tamp down rising prices.

“It may be disinflationary by causing a recession. They’re interjecting an incredible amount of uncertainty into the economy just as we entered a recession,” Cassidy told Jonathan Karl on ABC’s “This Week.”

The measure is a scaled-down version of Build Back Better Act that Manchin stymied last year.

The $670 billion reconciliation bill announced last week would invest in domestic energy, lower prescription drug costs, combat climate change and reduce the deficit by closing tax loopholes on wealthy individuals and corporations. 

“Much of what he says about this bill is just not true,” Cassidy said Sunday of Manchin’s comments earlier on the ABC program when the West Virginia Democrat defended his support of a climate and tax deal against claims that the measure could increase inflation over a year and a half

Cassidy instead argued that the bill would instead raise taxes and lead to higher costs for consumers.

“I think what we’re doing is inducing [manufacturers] to move to Asia. You can have a disinflationary program by causing a recession. I think this is going to lead to a worse recession.”

–Updated at 11:49 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

In redefining recession, Dems turn to fuzzy math and governing by gaslighting

The term “fuzzy math” was first introduced during the 2000 presidential campaign by Republican nominee George W. Bush. He used it to describe Democratic nominee Al Gore’s criticism of Bush’s economic proposals as they pertained to tax cuts and how to spend a budget surplus. 

Fast forward to 2022 and fuzzy math has been reintroduced to our politics. This time it pertains to a Democratic proposal to spend $700 billion on the ironically named “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.” 

That’s right: Democrats, including President Biden, are pushing the argument that injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into an economy that is heading towards 10 percent inflation (current rate, 9.1 percent) and probably just entered a recession (commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) and that spending $300 billion on green energy initiatives and $370 billion on “deficit reduction” is just the cure our ailing economy needs. 

And right on cue, many of the headlines refer to the prospect of the act becoming law as a potential big win for Democrats and the game-changer the party needs to hold on to the House and Senate. 

CNN: “In a major boost to Democrats, Manchin and Schumer announce deal for energy and health care bill.”

Politico: “Somehow, someway, Joe Biden is back in the game. After enduring a brutal year, Biden is suddenly on the verge of a turnaround that, the White House believes, could salvage his summer — and alter the trajectory of his presidency.”

Politics USA: “Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin Reach Deal on Revamped Build Back Better That Is A Massive Win For Democrats And America.”

But is the public really pumped up about an incompetent government spending more money with inflation at its highest since 1981? 

A NewsNation poll this week found that 94 percent of voters say they’re somewhat or very concerned about rising prices, with 66 percent feeling “very concerned.” Nearly two-thirds rank inflation as their chief concern. 

Democrats and their media allies have become adept at euphemism; it’s central to their messaging. It’s not a crisis at the border, it’s a “challenge.” Antifa is not an organization; it’s “an idea.” It’s not an unborn baby or even a fetus. It’s the “products of conception.” Riots aren’t riots. They’re “mostly peaceful protests.” Infrastructure spending is not about improving roads and bridges. Infrastructure includes child care and paid leave. 

And now, with inflation approaching 10 percent, we have the Inflation Reduction Act. 

There are things Democrats can do to reduce inflation, such as cutting spending. But, instead, Democrats want to inject $700 Billion into the economy, which, they claim, will reduce inflation. 

As for those who object to more spending amid a recession, the president insists we’re not even in one despite two consecutive quarters of negative growth, sky-high inflation and stagnant wages.

“The Inflation Reduction Act will add another $370 billion in clean-energy tax credits in reconciliation, including incentives to accelerate domestic production of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and critical-materials processing. That doesn’t sound like a recession to me,” Biden said last week after news came of the economy contracting by 0.9 percent.

The Inflation Reduction Act would also significantly raise taxes on corporations. In a related story, here’s what Joe Biden’s old boss had to say as president during a recession. 

“You don’t raise taxes in a recession,” then-President Obama said in 2010. “The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession.”

An old saying is that the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. With the party in power in Washington, the stupidity seems limitless. And voters are very much onto it: Biden is polling lower than any other first-term president since such polling began. That includes Jimmy Carter. That includes Donald Trump. Both men lasted one term. In recent Quinnipiac University and New York Times polls, Biden sits at 31 and 33 percent approval, respectively.

Fuzzy math is back. Only this time, we’re drowning in debt. We’re spending what we don’t have. The result is sky-high prices for everything from food and gas to lumber. Any sensible leader would put the brakes on spending while acknowledging that the economy is indeed in a recession. 

But not these leaders, who believe fuzzy math and governing by gaslighting is a successful strategy. 

Joe Concha is a media and politics columnist.

Source: TEST FEED1

Kentucky governor: Death toll from flooding at 26, expected to grow

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) on Sunday said the death toll from the state’s severe flooding and rainstorms is at 26 and is expected to climb as rescue missions continue. 

“Our death toll right now is at 26, but I know of several additional bodies, and we know it’s going to grow. With the level of water, we’re going to be finding bodies for weeks, many of them swept hundreds of yards, maybe a quarter mile plus from where they were lost,” Beshear told moderator Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” 

The governor reported that four of the 26 deaths were children and that he fears “we’ll find at least a couple more as well.”

Water and power are out throughout the state, and rainstorms are unrelenting.

A heat wave expected next week may make conditions even harder for rescuers, who have recovered at least 1,432 people in the state, according to an update from the governor’s office Saturday.

Beshear said Sunday that “it’s going to take some time to get a firm grasp” on how many Kentuckians are missing. 

“It’s tough. This is one of the most devastating, deadly floods that we have seen in our history. It wiped out areas where people didn’t have that much to begin with,” Beshear said.

Source: TEST FEED1

McDonough says VA looking at abortion care options in states with new restrictions

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough on Sunday said his department is examining how to best protect abortion access to veterans after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, but he declined to provide a specific path forward.

CNN “State of the Union” co-anchor Jake Tapper asked McDonough to respond to a letter from 24 Senate Democrats calling on the department to allow abortion services at veteran hospitals.

“We’re going to make sure that they have access to the full slate of that care, because that’s what we owe them,” McDonough said.

The letter, led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), argues that the VA has statutory authority to provide abortions. The senators said the department should immediately begin a rulemaking process to change current regulations, which prevent it from providing abortions and abortion counseling as part of its medical benefits package.

When asked on Sunday if the VA would pay for veterans living in states with abortion restrictions to fly to areas where they can receive an abortion, McDonough declined to say.

“We’re looking expressly at these questions about how we guarantee the life and the health of our veterans, our women veterans, those 300,000 who rely on us for their care,” McDonough said. 

“I don’t have any announcements to make on that this morning, Jake, but we’re looking very closely at that to ensure that there’s no diminution and no reduction of services to them,” he added.

The Supreme Court’s decision last month overturning the constitutional right to abortion has set off a flurry of so-called trigger laws and other bills in state legislatures that restrict abortion access, also fueling intense fury among Democrats.

“My preference is that they not face risk to their lives as a result of this decision from the court,” McDonough said on CNN “We’re going to make sure that we’re in a position to take care of them.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Progressives need to stop making plans around ending the filibuster

The Supreme Court’s radical shift to the right — sharply narrowing states’ ability to regulate firearms or prevent religious coercion in schools, hobbling federal efforts to fight climate change and public health threats, overruling Roe v. Wade, and much more — has brought even more insistent demands for abolishing the filibuster. Doing so now seems to be the first step in most prominent progressives’ plans for correcting what the court and the Trump administration have done or for safeguarding our teetering democracy. 

Obsessing about the filibuster will lead to disaster.

First, the filibuster is not going anywhere. And second, the progressive cause would be devastated if it did. The longer progressives focus on the get-rich-quick scheme of eliminating the filibuster, the more time will be lost for developing viable plans to protect open democracy and defeat efforts to reverse almost a century of progress. This is time we cannot afford to waste. 

The debate over the filibuster exemplifies much that is wrong with progressive discourse today. Some loud voices, many stunningly ill-informed, seized on eliminating the filibuster as the cure-all for every problem. Many others have jumped on the bandwagon, much preferring this seemingly quick and easy fix to the difficult choices and hard work that would otherwise be required. When anyone dares to express contrary views, they are harshly condemned, their arguments largely ignored. 

In fact, the filibuster is not going anywhere. Many assume that, because only Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) voted to preserve the filibuster, all other Democratic senators are on-board. They are not. We do not have 48 senators willing to cast decisive votes to end the filibuster; we may not even have 40. 

But the shrill, unreasoning venom unleashed on those questioning the anti-filibuster orthodoxy has led other Democratic supporters of the filibuster to hide behind Manchin and Sinema. By driving senators with thoughtful reasons for supporting the filibuster underground, progressives give up any chance of engaging and possibly changing their minds. The delusion that the filibuster’s defeat is within reach has prevented the progressives from making other plans.   

A central claim of this orthodoxy is that the filibuster serves no useful purpose because Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will end it as soon as Republicans regain power. Yet filibuster opponents have no answer to the most obvious response: If that is so, why did McConnell not even attempt to end the legislative filibuster in his six previous years as Majority Leader? 

Doing so would have enabled him to achieve dramatic policy victories. If he could pass any legislation with just a simple majority, he could easily have added some inducements to the bill repealing the Affordable Care Act that would have brought at least one of the Republican dissenters on board. 

Absent the filibuster, Congress would have enacted in 2017 a statute to hobble the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and other federal agencies even more severely than the recent Supreme Court decisions did. 

Congress could easily have passed legislation preempting state and local gun safety laws even more effectively than the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decision. Many restrictions on civil rights would be uncontroversial within the Republican caucuses. And President Trump’s Mexican border wall would have been fully funded and built by now if it only took a simple majority. 

Some of these moves could have been reversed when a Democratic Congress is subsequently paired with a Democratic president. But most worthwhile policies take time to implement and cannot achieve much if they are torn down each time Republicans win an election. And even in more ordinary times, U.S. voters liked to alternate the parties in power.

And if anyone had any doubts before, it should be clear now that the Supreme Court will not intervene against even the most extreme laws that a Republican Congress might enact. 

Another myth is that the filibuster can be modified to exempt this or that issue but otherwise preserved.  Any change would mean brazenly disregarding Senate rules, which require 67 votes to modify the filibuster. Once Democrats did this for their issues, Republicans would surely reciprocate.

Progressives’ real problem is losing way too many elections.

We have this Supreme Court because millions of progressives refused to vote for Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. Both were uninspiring, but neither would have nominated Samuel Alito or Brett Kavanaugh.

We have this Senate thanks to Democrats’ close losses in various blue and purple states — plus the inability of most Democrats not named Joe Manchin to win in red states.

Progressives can only protect the gains of the past and continue to move forward if they persuade more people that they are right on key issues. That means both electing more progressive officials and making more Republicans fear defeat unless they moderate their views and compromise. That is not a quick solution, but it is the only one that will work.

With authoritarianism a real threat, we should be strengthening constraints on what a reactionary Congress can do, not tearing down the few checks that remain.

David A. Super is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Economics at Georgetown University Law Center. He also served for several years as the general counsel for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Follow him on Twitter @DavidASuper1

Source: TEST FEED1

Jon Stewart knocks Cruz no vote on burn pit bill

Comedian and former “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart on Sunday knocked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for voting no on a bill to aid military veterans exposed to toxic burn pits during their service. 

“The bill that Ted Cruz voted yes on had the exact same funding provisions as the bill he voted no on. It’s the exact same bill. None of this makes any sense,” Stewart told moderator Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” 

Stewart also pushed back on Cruz’s claims that the bill is a “budgetary trick” by the Democrats to make some discretionary spending mandatory.

“That’s just a word salad that he’s spewing into his coffee cup on his way to God knows where, as veterans sit in Washington, D.C., in the sweltering heat, demanding that they pass this legislation that they’ve been fighting for, for 15 years,” Stewart said 

The bill would expand health care coverage for veterans exposed to toxins and burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senate Republicans blocked the bill last week. Though all Democrats and eight Republicans voted in favor, the bill was five votes short of the amount needed to bypass the upper chamber’s filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats will bring the bill forward a second time on Monday.

“At some point, we all have to live in reality. And what he is saying is just factually incorrect,” Stewart said Sunday, referring to Cruz.

Cruz said in a video on Twitter last week that the bill “gives a $400B blank check—separate from vets care—for unrelated pork that will supercharge inflation.”

–-Updated at 10:26 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Manchin mum on whether Democrats should hold Congress after midterms

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Sunday sidestepped questions about whether he hopes his party retains control of Congress after this year’s midterm elections.

“I think the Democrats have great candidates that are running. They’re good people I’ve worked with. And I have a tremendous amount of respect and friendship with my Republican colleagues,” Manchin told moderator Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” 

“So I can work on either side very easily.”

The centrist senator otherwise declined to comment on any hopes he has for the midterms.

“I don’t play the politics that way. I don’t like it that way. That’s not who I am.”

Manchin has often bucked his party in key votes of the current 50-50 Senate, dooming President Biden’s Build Back Better infrastructure bill over his inflation fears and becoming the sole Democrat vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Last week, however, he brokered an unexpected deal with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 — a bill Biden has also backed. 

“I can’t decide what’s going to happen in Kansas or California or Texas. I really can’t. I’ve always taken the approach: whoever you send me, that’s your representative and I respect them. And I respect the state for the people they send, and I give it my best to work with them, to do the best for my country,” Manchin said Sunday.

Source: TEST FEED1

Manchin refuses to say whether he would support Biden in 2024

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Sunday would not answer directly when asked if he would support President Biden if he ran for reelection in 2024.  

“I’m not going I’m not getting into 2022 or 2024,” Manchin told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

“Whoever is my president, that’s my president. And Joe Biden is my president right now.”

The centrist senator has spent the past week sidestepping questions about whether he’d endorse Biden, who has been plagued by low approval ratings, as the leader of his party. A Gallup poll on Friday, for example, found a record low of 38 percent of respondents approve of the job he is doing as president.

The questions to the West Virginia Democrat came after Manchin brokered an unexpected deal with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 — a bill Biden has also backed. 

“This type of legislation wouldn’t happen unless the president of the United States was involved. And he gave his blessing and signed off on it. I can assure you that, and I appreciate that more than anybody knows,” Manchin, whose vote has been critical an evenly split Senate, said Sunday.

The $670 billion reconciliation bill is a scaled-down version of the Build Back Better Act, which Manchin stymied.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats across the country can learn from Tim Ryan’s success

As national Democrats strategize ahead of the midterms, the party would be wise to take note of the Democratic Senate candidate in Ohio, Rep. Tim Ryan. Ryan is emerging as a sleeper candidate to flip a solid red seat blue — and is arguably becoming a model for the Democratic Party going forward. 

Indeed, amid a national political environment that is highly unfavorable toward Democrats, Ryan has a realistic chance of winning a reliably Republican Senate seat in a state that Donald Trump won by 8-points in both 2020 and 2016. 

Recent polling from Suffolk University shows Ryan’s opponent, Trump-endorsed “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance, leading by just three points, while some polls conducted by Democratic strategy groups put Ryan slightly ahead. 

Ryan’s relative strength in the race is largely due to his campaign’s strategic successes in three crucial areas: He is running toward the center on key issues, appealing to blue-collar voters and making a concerted effort to reach out to both Republicans and Democrats.  

To be sure, this used to be the overarching campaign strategy for the Democratic Party — however, to the party’s detriment, the establishment and leadership have abandoned this approach in favor of promoting a far-left agenda that appeals to a small fraction of the electorate. 

To his credit, Ryan is running to the political center and has moved to the right of President Biden and party leadership on key issues like crime and policing, China, trade and the economy. 

One of Ryan’s campaign ads makes clear his unequivocal opposition to defunding the police, and another underscores his views on the need to fight back against China and invest in Ohio manufacturing. In addition, he routinely criticizes his own party for not doing enough to counter inflation. 

To that end, Ryan is making a concerted effort to appeal to working class and blue-collar voters — a coalition that was once the core of the Democratic base, but slowly moved away from the party as it has become more progressive and ‘woke.’ Put another way, these are the voters that backed Barack Obama in 2008 but voted for Donald Trump in 2016. 

Regaining the support of these voters — especially those concentrated in the rust belt — is essential to the Democrats’ chances of keeping the White House in 2024 and winning closely contested races in this year’s midterms. 

Ryan has connected with these voters by staying on message about making the economy work for the middle class again — by bringing manufacturing jobs back to the state, taking an aggressive stance on inflation and proposing a working-class tax cut. 

Perhaps most importantly, Ryan has attempted to do during his campaign what President Biden promised to do during his presidential run: take a conciliatory tone, stop finger-pointing and listen to the other side.  

It is a near-extinct approach in American politics today — yet it is one that Americans so desperately want to see resurrected. 

Ryan has embraced it. His campaign released an ad that ostensibly combines Biden’s ‘Soul of the Nation’ appeal with Trump’s ‘America First’ stance and argues that we “can’t afford to be Democrats and Republicans right now, we have to be Americans first.” Another ad supports and applauds a signature Trump policy — tariffs on China — where Ryan says that he “agreed with Trump on trade.”  

Ryan’s frequent appearances and ads on Fox News are helping him connect with voters on the other side of the aisle. Currently, his campaign is running a spot on the conservative news network, which features prominent network hosts Tucker Carlson and Bret Baier heaping praise on him and his policies. 

In addition, Ryan, as a lifelong Ohioan, has been running a relentless campaign ground game, making campaign stops at county fairs, small businesses and factories to talk about state-specific issues rather than national feuds or culture wars. 

While Ryan’s approach has regrettably lost its prominence in Democratic politics over the last decade, this strategy is clearly his best path to winning the Ohio Senate seat — and is also Democrats’ best path to remaining politically viable in 2022, 2024, and beyond. 

Of course, it will still be an uphill battle for Ryan, a 10-term congressman, to win in a state Donald Trump carried easily in the past two elections. That being said, even a narrow loss for Ryan will be a win for Democrats and will give them a roadmap for staying competitive in battleground races in future elections. 

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to former President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

NASA knocks Chinese officials for falling debris

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson is calling out China for failing to share information about debris from a rocket booster falling back to Earth.

“All spacefaring nations should follow established best practices, and do their part to share this type of information in advance to allow reliable predictions of potential debris impact risk,” the former senator said in a statement on Saturday.

The China Manned Space Agency reported Saturday that debris from a rocket crashed in waters off the Philippines, according to several news outlets.

China’s “heavy-lift” Long March 5B rocket is especially dangerous, Nelson said, and carries “a significant risk of loss of life and property” with potential impact from debris.

Sharing information about space debris “is critical to the responsible use of space and to ensure the safety of people here on Earth,” Nelson added. 

NASA also criticized China last year, saying it neglected to report debris from another Long March 5B. Nelson said at the time that Beijing had failed to “act responsibly and transparently in space.”

Source: TEST FEED1