Jan. 6 panel ramps up discussions with Trump cabinet officials

Former Trump cabinet official Steven Mnuchin and chief of staff Mick Mulvaney have spoken with the Jan. 6 committee in recent days.

Mulvaney, who has been discussing much of the committee’s hearing as a CNN commentator, was seen walking into the building where the panel conducts its interviews.

Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told reporters Thursday that Mnuchin had also come in for an interview, but did not specify when the former Treasury Secretary met with the panel.

He also said the committee is negotiating with former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about speaking with investigators. 

“I’m happy to see that they are, you know, coming around,” Thompson said.

The interviews come as the Jan. 6 committee is expanding its probe into cabinet members’ discussions around using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

In a recently shared video from the committee, White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson said President Trump only agreed to do a video address on Jan. 7 over fear that cabinet officials were having that discussion.

Hutchinson said Trump was told to think “about what might happen in the final 15 days of your presidency if we don’t do this. There’s already talks about invoking the 25th Amendment. You need this as cover.”

Cabinet members appeared to make demands of Trump if they planned to keep him in office.

Then-Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia organized a meeting of Cabinet officials to “steady the ship” amid calls to use the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, ultimately issuing a memo of demands to the president.

“While president, you will no longer publicly question the election results — after Wednesday, no one can deny this is harmful,” Scalia wrote in the memo shared by the committee.

Mulvaney told reporters that he was asked by the panel to come, according to a video shared by an NBC News reporter. Asked what he planned to tell them, he said, “The truth. How about that for a start.”

Mychael Schnell contributed

Source: TEST FEED1

Is Jerome Powell as wrong on the job market as he was on inflation?

Now we know. The economy did in fact contract for two quarters in a row, falling a modest 0.9 percent in the second three months of the year after a 1.6 percent drop in the first quarter.

That does not mean, claims the White House, in a ludicrous effort to spin the bad news, that we are in a recession. No siree; it just means that, well, we’ve had two down quarters (which historically has always meant a recession).

That the White House would adopt this bury-your-head-in-the-sand approach is understandable. President Biden assumed the Oval Office amid a vibrant, broad recovery; damaging policies like his war on fossil fuels and excess federal spending have now spurred inflation and torched our growth.

But it was Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s comments the day before the GDP release that attracted our attention and rang alarm bells. Powell, answering reporters’ questions on the heels of a 75 basis-point rate hike, also demurred when asked if the U.S. was in a recession.

No, he said, “I do not think the U.S. is currently in a recession. And the reason is, there are just too many areas of the economy, performing too well. I would point to the labor market in particular.” 

Which makes one wonder whether Powell reads the news.

Yes, the labor market has been strong, but there is every indication that we are at an inflection point, and the next direction is down.

Over the past three months, there has been a slow but steady increase in the number of companies that have slowed or stopped hiring. There have also been quite a few that have announced letting workers go. Remember: Layoffs were virtually non-existent just six months ago. Employers were struggling to find workers; few dared decrease their ranks.

That has changed, albeit slowly. There is no question that it is still hard to find qualified employees. Over the past year, as millions have retired and millions more have declined to go back to work, partly because they were supported by overly-generous federal and state benefits, managers everywhere scrambled to add staff.

Today, the panic is gone. Recent soundings from groups like the National Federation of Independent Businesses show that inflation, and not the hiring squeeze, is the main issue for small firms. In a recent survey, nearly one third of small employers said that to offset rising prices they were reducing employee-related costs like pay, hours worked or…the number of employees. 

Softening demand in various sectors has led to businesses pausing their hiring and to layoffs. Ecommerce companies like car dealers Carvana and Vroom, which saw demand soar during the pandemic and since throttle lower, have laid off people.  

Compass, an online real estate powerhouse, has cut its employee count about 10 percent, adjusting to a higher mortgage rate environment. GoPuff, a grocery delivery app, is also reducing its headcount. Other companies that benefited from a locked-down environment, like Pelaton and Netflix, have also laid off people.

Big Tech is also responding to a possible downtick in demand, with Twitter, Apple and Alphabet all announcing a slowing of hiring. Meta, reacting just recently to a revenue drop, said it would reduce its headcount; Amazon declared it was overstaffed at some warehouses and Shopify laid off 10 percent of its workforce. 

It isn’t just tech firms that are letting workers go. Ford Motor Company has announced that it plans to lay off as many as 8,000 salaried employees, General Motors, which had prepared to accommodate 1 million job applications as it geared up to produce electric vehicles, has now instituted a hiring freeze.

In biotech, the news is similar. Invitae has announced it will let go 1,000 employees and CytomX Therapeutics, a San Francisco-based company working on cancer cures, is shrinking its staff by 40 percent.

On Wall Street, what was just months ago a hiring frenzy has definitely cooled. Goldman Sachs, where revenues dropped 23 percent in the last quarter, said it will slow hiring and reinstate annual performance reviews. Black Rock has said it would reduce recruitment, and Morgan Stanley said layoffs are on the table if business conditions worsen.

So where does Powell see that super-tight job market? In the rear-view mirror. Job gains have been robust, to be sure, but now they are declining. In June, the U.S. added a healthy 372,000 jobs. But that was down from 384,000 in May, 714,000 in February and 504,000 in January.

Meanwhile, the four-week moving average of unemployment claims has been trending higher. Last week, claims surprised economists by jumping to the highest level since last November. Continuing claims are also rising.

The Federal Reserve System, with its $5 billion budget and tens of thousands of employees, is meant to be ahead of the news, not behind it. This Fed has been spectacularly late to the party on anticipating and diagnosing inflationary pressures, and even more sluggish in responding to soaring prices. There were many red flags that the Fed missed, including that consumers were flush with government largesse and buoyed by rising stock and home prices.

For sure, the pandemic threw all economic calculations and expectations off course. And it is true that having GDP growth turn negative when hiring is still positive is unusual. Top economist Ed Hyman, who has not been predicting a recession, acknowledged the strange mix of data, concluding, “We have never seen anything like this.”

But now the Fed needs to tune into what is happening in the real world — and in particular how its efforts to crush inflation may be weakening not only demand but also labor markets.

It is good news that Powell indicated flexibility going forward, and, as usual, indicated that the Fed would be driven by data.

Otherwise, it could drive this country’s economy straight into a ditch. The recent record is not encouraging.

Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company. Follow her on Twitter @lizpeek.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden to unveil Obamas' official White House portraits in September

After pandemic- and Trump-related delays, the official portraits of Barack and Michelle Obama are finally scheduled to be unveiled by President Biden at the White House.

The portraits of the 44th president and the former first lady will be seen publicly for the first time on Sep. 7, an Obama spokesperson said Thursday.

The portraits were originally expected to be revealed last fall, but a ceremony was reportedly delayed due to COVID-19.

The tradition of a first-term president unveiling an official portrait of their immediate predecessor has usually taken place in the White House’s East Room. But during his presidency, Donald Trump declined to host Obama for such a ceremony. Obama was also opposed to participating in the tradition with Trump, according to news reports.

Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki said last year that Biden expected to extend the traditional acknowledgement to Trump.

“I have not been given any indication that we would break with tradition in that regard,” Psaki said after Biden’s presidential inauguration.

The works of art of the Obamas that are poised to be unveiled at the White House are different from the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery likenesses that were revealed to much fanfare in 2018.

Those portraits, by artists Kehinde Wiley and Amy Sherald, have since traveled the country as part of a nationwide exhibition.

The artists behind the Obamas’ official White House portraits are expected to be revealed at the September ceremony.

Source: TEST FEED1

We can do more for the 90 percent — time to fix the ‘accredited investor’ regulation

As our nation enters the post-pandemic age, many Americans are concerned about the future. The price of everything — gas, housing, and groceries — is soaring. Small businesses, the engine of economic growth, are facing a looming recession. If this country is going to emerge from the economic mess created by the current White House and beat China for the next 50 years, we must start by making it easier for small businesses to get the capital they need to succeed and allow more Americans to share in that growth and the prosperity of our markets, not just the wealthy.

We’re working in Congress to do that, based on what we learned from our combined years of experience helping Americans save for retirement and achieve financial security. Our past work has made it easier and less expensive for people to invest in public companies. Innovations like commission-free stock trading, low-cost brokerage accounts, and diversification through index funds are the result of smart, bipartisan legislation.

But due to outdated regulations from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), most Americans are prohibited from investing in a wide variety of businesses. Unless you’re rich enough, or what’s called an “accredited investor” — meaning you make more than $200,000 a year or are worth at least a million dollars — you’re only allowed to invest in our public markets. Meanwhile, new businesses are staying private for longer because bad policy from Washington has made it increasingly expensive for companies to become and remain public. There are now half the number of companies in the stock market today compared to 20 years ago, which means fewer options for everyday investors who are limited to the public markets. That means over 90 percent of households don’t get a chance to invest in the next Google or Tesla while they’re still a startup, or in the very things many on the left demonize for making a lot of money, like private equity and venture capital.

That’s not fair. And it’s not smart. The current accredited investor rules favor the rich and affluent and, in our view, effectively discriminate against the poor and minority communities. The SEC estimates only 1.3 percent of accredited investors are Black and 2.8 percent are Latino, even though they make up nearly a third of all Americans.

At a time when your bank account is yielding less than one-tenth of one percent, we believe more people should have the opportunity to invest in opportunities that our regulators have reserved for the wealthy for decades. The Biden administration and Democrats like to talk about inclusivity, reducing income inequality, and the Black wealth gap. If they were serious about economic opportunity, one of the easiest but impactful reforms would be to modernize the SEC’s “accredited investor” definition and get big government out of the way of people investing in their communities and new businesses. Republicans are committed to improving our financial system to not only protect retail investors, but also to support our entrepreneurs and democratize investment opportunities for everyone.

Let’s be clear, investing in the private markets can be risky due to the limited opportunities to sell, usually higher fees, and less standardized reporting and disclosure compared to the public markets. These are some reasons why investing in things like startups and real estate projects have been limited to accredited investors. But it’s important to remember that core disclosure and anti-fraud protections under federal securities laws have always applied to private market investments, just as they have to public markets ones. There are commonsense and easy changes that can move the opportunity needle without adding risk. Former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton got the ball rolling by allowing individuals with certain financial certifications to be accredited investors. He also gave the Commission the ability to designate additional qualifying professional certifications, designations, and other credentials.

While current SEC Chairman Gary Gensler could use this authority to bring more retail investors into the private markets safely, he’s too busy being the environmental czar, including forcing public companies to disclose his preferred greenhouse gas statistics even though they can’t be collected and have no relevance to investing decisions. What’s worse, it appears Gensler is requesting public comment on the accredited investor definition, presumably to make it even more difficult for most Americans to qualify. In response, the SEC’s Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee expressed concerns that raising the financial thresholds could have disproportionate impacts on various demographic groups, making the definition less inclusive and widening the nation’s already wide racial wealth gap. The Advisory Committee also argued that a homogeneous pool of accredited investors would negatively impact the diversity of entrepreneurs who raise capital, decreasing inclusion in capital formation.

We agree. We can increase small business access to capital and give all informed investors, regardless of wealth, access to crucial private market opportunities. As Clayton remarked, “Congress and the SEC have taken a number of steps to expand Main Street investors’ access to certain aspects of our private capital markets with appropriate protections.” This has been successful and it’s clear our government should stop impeding the potential for a more robust, inclusive economy powered by small businesses and Main Street investors.

Gensler already has some of the authority he needs to get more investors access to the private markets to grow their wealth and provide capital for growing companies. And Congress can do even more to expand retail access to the private markets responsibly. House Republicans like French Hill, Patrick McHenry, David Schweikert, and Rodney Davis have all introduced legislation that would expand opportunities for prospective investors and entrepreneurs, and these ideas are part of our agenda for 2023. The SEC should follow suit, roll up its sleeves like our inspirational entrepreneurs, retail investors, and job-creators do every day and work together to expand opportunities for wealth creation and entrepreneurship.

French Hill represents the 2nd District of Arkansas and is a member of the Financial Services Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship and Capital Markets Subcommittee and Byron Donalds represents the 19th District of Florida and is a member of the Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth.

Source: TEST FEED1

Uber doesn’t have to offer wheelchair-accessible rides in every market, judge rules

Story at a glance


  • A California judge ruled this week that Uber is not required to offer wheelchair-accessible vehicles for disabled customers.  

  • The ruling comes after three people who use non-foldable wheelchairs sued the company arguing that it was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.  

  • Judge Richard Seeborg found that none of the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence that the company could run a cost-effective wheelchair-accessible program.  

Uber is not required to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles, a California judge ruled this week.  

Two plaintiffs from New Orleans who use motorized wheelchairs sued the company for their lack of wheelchair-accessible vehicles, saying it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Another plaintiff, Scott Crawford from Jackson, Mississippi, used the same argument to also file a lawsuit.  

The ADA requires that companies make reasonable efforts to provide  services to people with disabilities that are equivalent to the services they offer to others. 


America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.


But U.S. District Chief Judge Richard Seeborg ruled in San Francisco on Monday that Crawford and the Louisianna co-plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that the ride-share company violated the law, according to PBS. 

In the ruling, Judge Seeborg also argued that the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence that Uber could run a cost-effective wheelchair-accessible service in both cities, according to The Verge.  

Even if Uber were to set up a wheelchair-accessible service, disabled passengers would potentially have to wait long periods of time for those vehicles, Seeborg said according to the outlet.  

Uber argued that offering wheelchair-accessible vehicles would be too costly, roughly $800,000 a year in New Orleans and $550,000 in Jackson, and would be too difficult to roll out in either city.  

Costs were based on a 16-hour service window on weekdays and 10 hours per weekend day, according to PBS.  


READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

ENTIRE POLICE DEPARTMENT RESIGNS IN MISSOURI

UN CALLS FOR US, OTHERS TO END ‘IMPUNITY’ FOR POLICE VIOLENCE AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE

RACIAL CONTROVERSY ERUPTS AROUND ROYALS AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE

PRINCIPAL ESCORTED OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION AFTER DELIVERING FIERY SPEECH

Source: TEST FEED1

Veterans’ groups lash out after GOP blocks toxins bill: ‘I'm sick and tired of this bulls—’

Veterans’ advocacy groups lashed out on Thursday after Senate Republicans blocked a much-anticipated bill aimed at expanding care for veterans who were exposed to toxins during military service.

The Sgt. First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our PACT Act was the product of a year of negotiations between the House and the Senate, and Wednesday’s vote was largely expected to be a victory for veterans in need of care.

But the majority of GOP senators voted against advancing the bill, infuriating its Democratic sponsors and the veterans who have been pushing for it, who focused their ire on Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

“This is total bulls—,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said during a press conference in front of the Capitol on Thursday.

“We had strong bipartisan support for this bill. And at the 11th hour, Senator Toomey decides that he wants to rewrite the bill, change the rules, and tank it.”

Tom Porter, executive vice president of governmental affairs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, pointed out that some Republicans who voted against the bill are veterans.

“How can fellow veterans turn their backs, and stab us in the back like that,” Porter said.

The Senate voted 55-42 to advance the PACT Act, falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. The upper chamber passed the bill last month by an overwhelmingly bipartisan 84-14 vote, and the House passed the bill earlier this month by a vote of 342-88.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who initially voted yes, changed his vote to no and brought a motion to reconsider.

The failed vote came on the heels of Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) unveiling a budget reconciliation bill which addresses climate, health, and taxes. However, Gillibrand said she didn’t think Wednesday’s vote was in retaliation for the package.

In floor speeches on Tuesday and Wednesday, Toomey said he opposed the bill because it moves $400 billion from discretionary spending to mandatory spending, which he called a “budgetary gimmick.”

The Pennsylvania Republican proposed to amend the bill by moving that funding back to discretionary spending, which is subject to annual Congressional appropriations.

After Wednesday’s vote, Toomey said the failed cloture vote allows the upper chamber to amend the bill, adding that it was a “pretty easy fix.”

“Once that’s done, this bill sails through this chamber and goes to the President and gets signed into law,” he said.

In a floor speech on Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that Toomey’s amendment should’ve been offered for a vote.

“Even on legislation this major and this costly, the Democratic leader tried to block the Senate from any semblance of a fair amendment process,” McConnell said, referring to Toomey’s amendment.

“As written the legislation will not just help America’s veterans as designed, it would also allow Democrats to effectively spend the same money twice and enable hundreds of billions in new unrelated spending on the discretionary side of the federal budget,” he said.

But veterans’ advocates weren’t buying Toomey’s arguments on Thursday, as they lashed out at him and the GOP for blocking the care that veterans’ need.

“Every day that this delay goes on, veterans are unable to receive care,” said Lawrence Montreuil, legislative director for The American Legion. “This is wrong. We will not stand by and allow veterans to be denied their duly owed health care.”

The PACT Act would’ve expanded Department of Veterans’ Affairs benefits to veterans who served in the post 9/11-era who were exposed to toxic burn pits during their military service.

It would’ve also added 23 burn-pit related illnesses to the VA’s list of presumptive service connection, meaning that veterans wouldn’t have to prove that their illness was caused by military exposure. And it would have expanded care for veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Guam, American Samoa, and Johnston Atoll.

The legislation was named after Sgt. First Class Heath Robinson, who died in 2020 following from toxic exposures during his service in Kosovo and Iraq.

Robinson’s mother-in-law, Susan Zeier, became emotional on Thursday while responding to Wednesday’s vote. 

“They voted for all of us to suffer. They are endorsing our suffering,” Zeier said. “The next time I come back here, it better be to sign the damn bill at the White House because I’m sick and tired of this bullshit.”

Despite their anger, lawmakers vowed to keep pushing to pass the bill. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said he’s pushing for lawmakers to stay in Washington until the bill is passed, though it’s unclear if his efforts will succeed given the Senate is expected to leave town next week.

Gillibrand vowed to keep bringing up the bill through unanimous consent request until it passed. But she also encouraged advocates to pressure the 25 Republicans who changed their votes to reconsider.

“We have to go to these 25 offices,” she said. “We have to make sure every one of these senators understands that they have just sentenced veterans to death because they will not have the health care that they have earned.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Just 1 in 4 say two parties good enough to represent Americans' political views: poll

Story at a glance


  • A new USA Today/Suffolk University poll found nearly a quarter of Americans aren’t happy with their options when it comes to political parties.

  • About 26 percent said they believe a third party is necessary. 

  • That wish could come true, with former Democratic New York City mayoral candidate and presidential candidate Andrew Yang announcing a new political party called the Forward Party. 

Americans don’t appear to be happy with their current political party options, as a new national poll reveals a quarter of registered voters believe a third party is necessary. 

A new national USA Today/Suffolk University poll reveals about 26 percent of people surveyed believe a third political party is necessary, while about 33 percent indicated multiple parties are necessary. 

Only about 24 percent said the current two Democratic and Republican parties are good enough. 

The results come as President Biden’s economic approval rating hit 30 percent — five points below what it was in April. It’s also 11 points below former President Trump. 


America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 


The USA Today/Suffolk University poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters across the country and found almost 76 percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track.  

When asked if the elections for Congress were happening today, about 44 percent said they’d vote for the Democratic candidate, while about 40 percent said they chose the Republican candidate. 

However, almost 47 percent said they’d like to see a new elected Congress that mostly stands up to Biden, while about 42 percent said they’d like to see one cooperate with the president. 

The stark new survey data comes on the heels of former Democratic New York City mayoral candidate and presidential candidate Andrew Yang announcing a new political party, called the Forward Party. 

It represents a convergence of three separate political parties, Yang’s Forward Party, the Renew America Movement and the Service America Movement. All three are made up of Democrats, Republicans and independents. 

According to the Forward Party’s website, it intends to reject political extremes and work on issues for the unrepresented majority in American politics.  

“The Forward Party will create a political home for everyone willing to set aside the partisan extremes and find practical ways to make this country better. We won’t be checking IDs to see if people are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents,” says the Forward Party’s website. 

Forward Party will not have its own candidates on the upcoming midterm election ballots but will offer up support for select candidates. The new political party hopes to achieve legal recognition in 15 states by the end of this year and in almost all U.S. states by the end of 2024.  

Data indicates it may be a good time to introduce a new political party but it remains to be seen if the Forward Party will be accepted by Americans. 

Source: TEST FEED1

House passes chips and science bill, sending measure to Biden’s desk

The House passed a $280 billion bill on Thursday to strengthen the domestic chip manufacturing industry and finance scientific research in a bid to boost the United States’s competitiveness on the global stage, sending the measure to President Biden’s desk for final approval.

The legislation, titled the CHIPS and Science Act, cleared the House in a 243-187-1 vote. Twenty-four Republicans supported the measure, and one Democrat voted present.

The Senate approved the measure in a bipartisan 64-33 vote on Wednesday, receiving support from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The bill’s passage through both chambers marks a significant congressional achievement and the culmination of more than a year of negotiations over legislation to increase the U.S.’s competitive edge against China.

The House and the Senate initially each passed their own China competition bills, referred to as “America COMPETES” and “USICA,” respectively, but conference negotiations between the two chambers had stalled for weeks. 

Lawmakers ultimately came to a consensus on the CHIPS and Science Act, which will allocate $54 billion for chips and public wireless supply chain innovation, including $39 billion that will go towards financial assistance to build, expand and modernize semiconductor facilities in the U.S. It also includes $11 billion for research and development by the Department of Commerce.

The measure seeks to establish a 25 percent tax credit for investment in semiconductor manufacturing and funnel $81 billion to the National Science Foundation (NSF), $20 billion of which will go towards an NSF directorate.

House Republican leadership revealed on Wednesday evening that it would whip against the bill, reversing from its position earlier in the day that it would not advise conference members on how to vote on the measure.

The about face came hours after Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced that they struck a $369 billion deal on a climate, taxes and health care package, capping off months of negotiations between Democrats.

Last month, McConnell warned his colleagues across the aisle that he would tank the domestic semiconductor bill if Democrats went ahead with a reconciliation package. Roughly two weeks later, Manchin said he would not get behind climate spending in a reconciliation package, significantly decreasing Democrats’ odds of approving a measure by the November midterm elections.

But shortly after the Senate passed the semiconductor bill, Manchin said he reached an agreement with Schumer on the reconciliation package, frustrating many Republicans in the House.

The whip memo referenced the reconciliation package and expressed concerns with the impact the measure would have on the deficit and inflation.

Source: TEST FEED1

DC mayor requests National Guard over migrants bussed to capital

Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) asked the D.C. National Guard to activate and help manage an influx of migrants to the capital.

The mayor’s office reports that Republican Govs. Greg Abbott  (Texas) and Doug Ducey (Ariz.) have sent nearly 200 buses carrying more than 4,000 migrants from the southern border to the capital in protest of President Biden’s immigration policy.

In a July 22 letter obtained by The Hill sent from Bowser to White House officials, the mayor called the influx of migrants “cruel political gamesmanship from the Governors of Texas and Arizona” and called for federal support of her request to engage the National Guard.

“Our ability to assist people in need at this scale is very limited. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and working with the Biden/Harris Administration on a real solution, Governors Abbot and Ducey have decided to use desperate people to score political points,” Bowser wrote.

In her request for the administration’s assistance, Bowser noted that the governors were bussing migrants to the capital to take a stand against the federal government, which D.C. houses, “not because Washington DC is their destination.”

Already dealing with issues like homelessness and emerging crises like the monkeypox outbreak in the city, D.C. is now “overwhelmed” by the surge of migrants, D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Director Christopher Rodriguez wrote in a July 19 letter obtained by The Hill, requesting the National Guard on Bowser’s behalf.

“With pledges from Texas and Arizona to continue these abhorrent operations indefinitely, the situation is dire, and we consider this a humanitarian crisis—one that could overwhelm our social support network without immediate and sustained federal intervention,” Rodriguez wrote. 

The request would ask the National Guard to aid NGOs and help with migrant transportation, assisting in ways “not dissimilar to the use of military personnel and facilities for other humanitarian missions, including assisting Afghan refugees,” the letter stated.

The National Guard’s work in the capital, if approved, would continue “indefinitely,” according to the request.

Source: TEST FEED1

Manchin says he didn't pull a fast one on GOP with deal on Inflation Reduction Act

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Thursday pushed back on speculation around the timing of his agreement with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on a mammoth partisan spending plan not long after Republicans voted with Democrats to advance a key bipartisan bill on semiconductors.

Manchin was pressed by reporters on a call Thursday over whether Democrats pulled “a fast one” on Republicans, given the timing of his announcement with Schumer to advance a bill dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes climate measures and tax reform provisions.

“No, you know, I sure hope they don’t feel that way. I mean, I understand that they are but I don’t know why,” Manchin told reporters. 

Manchin’s announcement came shortly after the chamber passed a scaled-down bill aimed at boosting U.S. competitiveness with China and semiconductor production in a 64-33 vote.

Senators had previously worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft an expanded version of the bill, but those plans fell apart after Republicans opposed the larger measure due to Democratic efforts to pass a partisan spending bill through a complex process known as budget reconciliation.

The budget maneuver, used by Senate Republicans in 2017 to advance then-President Trump’s signature tax law, would allow Democrats to pass legislation in the upper chamber without GOP support, bypassing a legislative filibuster.

However, Democrats would need the support of all their members in the 50-50 split Senate to secure passage, absent Republican buy-in.

Manchin, a key centrist holdout in spending talks, supported earlier provisions aimed at prescription drug cost reform. But he resisted to signing onto climate and tax provisions in the negotiations with Schumer at the time, following a recent report from the Labor Department showing inflation hit a four-decade high last month.  

Some Democrats were surprised by the recent announcement by Manchin. However, Republicans bristled with the news not long after, accusing Manchin of flip-flopping.

“Everything he said he was against, now he’s for,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of the republicans who voted with Democrats, said on Thursday afternoon. “And I just wonder what the transaction was that got him to ‘Yes.’”

Cornyn said that while he doesn’t view the passage of the China competitiveness bill and Inflation Reduction Act as connected, he told reporters, “it does poison the well.”

“Things work around here, even though we’re political adversaries,” he also said. “There has to be some modicum of that when people tell you something, you can believe them and that’s pretty well eviscerated.”

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who also voted to pass the China competitiveness bill on Wednesday, told reporters the following day that he doesn’t regret his vote but is strongly opposed “to what they’re trying to do here with this massive tax bill.”

Asked by reporters if he thought Manchin behaved dishonestly, Daines added, “You have to ask Sen. Manchin that.” 

Top House Republicans have also been urging their members to vote against the China competitiveness bill following Manchin and Schumer’s announcement Wednesday. The lower chamber is voting on the semiconductor bill Thursday. 

Peter Sullivan contributed.

Source: TEST FEED1