ReportWire

Tag: joe biden

  • ‘Bombshell’: Rupert Murdoch Leaked Joe Biden 2020 Ads To Jared Kushner

    ‘Bombshell’: Rupert Murdoch Leaked Joe Biden 2020 Ads To Jared Kushner

    Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch handed Donald Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushnerconfidential information” about then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign ads before they aired on the conservative network, according to a new court filing.

    The leaks provided Kushner with “a preview of Biden’s ads before they were public,” according to court documents released Monday as part of the $1.6 billion defamation suit by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.

    “During Trump’s campaign, Rupert provided Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, with Fox confidential information about Biden’s ads, along with debate strategy,” read the filing.

    It’s unclear exactly how Murdoch assisted with “debate strategy.”

    Dominion is suing Fox News over the unfounded claims pushed by several of the network’s hosts that the company’s voting machines were used to flip the election in favor of Biden.

    Elsewhere in the filing, Murdoch acknowledged Fox News hosts “endorsed” conspiracy theories about Donald Trump winning the 2020 election.

    Critics described the Murdoch-Kushner news as a “bombshell.”

    “These actions by Rupert Murdoch seem illegal,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). “At the very least, it would appear to be a campaign contribution of significant value, well over federal campaign limits.”

    “Trump falsely accused Biden of ‘spying on his campaign,’” commented the progressive PAC MeidasTouch. “Today, it was revealed that Trump and Fox News colluded to *actually* spy on Biden’s campaign. Every accusation is always a confession.”

    Fox has repeatedly defended itself amid the lawsuit, claiming it is “more about what will generate headlines than what can withstand legal and factual scrutiny.”

    Source link

  • First lady on Biden’s plan to run in 2024: ‘I’m all for it’ | CNN Politics

    First lady on Biden’s plan to run in 2024: ‘I’m all for it’ | CNN Politics

    Tune in for the full interview with first lady Dr. Jill Biden during a special CNN Primetime event, “Jill Biden Abroad,” at 9 p.m. ET on Thursday.



    CNN
     — 

    First lady Jill Biden did not hesitate when asked if there was any chance her husband would not run for reelection in 2024.

    “Not in my book,” she told CNN in an interview Saturday during a five-day trip that saw her visit Namibia and Kenya. “I’m all for it, of course.”

    Her comments are the latest indication that President Joe Biden is on the verge of launching a reelection bid, even as a formal declaration has yet to be made.

    President Biden is well known for engaging in extended deliberations when it comes to major political decisions. The first lady emphasized it’s ultimately a decision that is up to her husband and left an opening for him to decide against a run as well.

    “It’s Joe’s decision,” she said. “And we support whatever he wants to do. If he’s in, we’re there. If he wants to do something else, we’re there too.”

    The president joked in an interview with ABC News last week that he had to call his wife “to find out” whether he was running in 2024. He stressed that his intention “has been from the beginning to run. But there’s too many other things we have to finish in the near term before I start a campaign.”

    Jill Biden told CNN that the president’s surprise trip to Ukraine last week and domestic issues have kept him busy in recent days, adding that “nothing’s been planned as yet.”

    Critics have pointed to the 80-year-old president’s age as a factor in another run. Biden would be 82 by the 2024 inauguration and 86 by the end of a potential second term. But the first lady said his trip to Ukraine showed that he still has the energy for another presidential campaign and another four years in office.

    “How many 30-year-olds could travel to Poland, get on the train? Go nine more hours, go to Ukraine, meet with President (Volodymyr) Zelensky?” she said. “So, look at the man. Look what he’s doing. Look what he continues to do each and every day.”

    Jill Biden said she’s not frustrated by all the “will he or won’t he” speculation and wouldn’t confirm whether a decision on a 2024 run has been made or when it might be announced.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court to hear Biden’s student loan forgiveness arguments Tuesday. 3 things to know

    Supreme Court to hear Biden’s student loan forgiveness arguments Tuesday. 3 things to know

    Supreme Court.

    Douglas Rissing | Istock | Getty Images

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments over President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, starting a decision-making process that will affect the balance sheets of tens of millions of Americans.

    The nine justices will consider two legal challenges to Biden’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for borrowers: one from six GOP-led states (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina) and another backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization.

    Long before the president acted, Republicans had criticized loan forgiveness as a handout to well-off college graduates. They also argued that the president didn’t have the power to forgive consumer debt on his own without authorization from Congress.

    More from Personal Finance:
    How to figure out what you can spend on rent
    What is a ‘rolling recession’ and how does it impact you?
    Almost half of Americans think we’re already in a recession

    Biden’s policy has faced at least six lawsuits since it was rolled out in AugustDozens of Republican members of Congress have also filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan should be ruled unlawful.

    There’s no precedent in U.S. history for the kind of sweeping debt forgiveness that the White House has promised to deliver, although consumer advocates point out that large corporations and banks have been bailed out by the government after going through their own crises. And they say that canceling a large share of education debt is necessary to relieve the many borrowers struggling from a broken lending system.

    “The court must see these lawsuits as the partisan sham they really are and protect the Biden administration’s historic relief plan,” said Ben Kaufman, director of research and investigations at the Student Borrower Protection Center. “Borrowers deserve better than to be treated like political pawns — lives and livelihoods are at stake.”

    Here are three things to know.

    1. Millions already approved for loan forgiveness

    Although the Biden administration had to take down its loan forgiveness application portal shortly after it rolled out its plan because of the legal challenges, the U.S. Department of Education has already been able to “fully approve” more than 16 million people for the relief and even sent their paperwork to loan servicers.

    If the Supreme Court decides the administration can carry out its plan, these borrowers could see their debts lowered or erased quickly, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

    “It should take one to two weeks for the servicers to implement,” Kantrowitz said.

    More than 10 million borrowers are likely also eligible for the relief, and those who didn’t already apply should have another opportunity to do so if the policy survives.

    2. Justices to consider if president can cancel debt

    At an estimated cost of about $400 billion, Biden’s plan to forgive student debt is one of the most expensive executive actions in history.

    The justices are likely to examine whether the president has the power to implement such a sweeping policy.

    The Biden administration insists that it’s acting within the law, pointing out that the Heroes Act of 2003 grants the U.S. secretary of education the authority to make changes related to student loans during national emergencies. The country has been operating under an emergency declaration due to Covid-19 since March 2020.

    However, opponents of the policy say the administration is incorrectly using the law, which was passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

    “It is not an across-the-board get-out-of-debt provision that an administration can invoke at will,” the six Republican-led states note in their lawsuit against the plan.

    Biden officials point out that the public health crisis has caused considerable financial harm to student loan borrowers and that its debt cancellation plan is necessary to stave off a historic rise in delinquencies and defaults.

    The court’s conservatives have been very aggressive in striking down the decisions of Congress and the president.

    Gregory Caldeira

    political science professor at Ohio State University

    Student loan borrowers were having problems repaying their debt before Covid. Only about half of borrowers were in repayment in 2019, according to an estimate by Kantrowitz. A quarter — or more than 10 million people — were in delinquency or default, and the rest had applied for temporary relief measures for struggling borrowers, such as deferments or forbearances.

    These grim figures led to comparisons to the 2008 mortgage crisis and built pressure on Biden to deliver relief.

    3. Legal experts say forgiveness plan faces tough odds

    Gregory Caldeira, a political science professor at Ohio State University, said he wouldn’t be surprised if the highest court rules against Biden.

    “The court’s conservatives have been very aggressive in striking down the decisions of Congress and the president,” Caldeira said.

    For a number of reasons, Dan Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, also predicts student loan forgiveness won’t survive the Supreme Court.

    He said the conservative justices believe government agencies exert too much authority and “violate the separation of powers.” In addition, he said, the concept of loan forgiveness seems to run counter to their notions of individual responsibility.

    Such a politically fueled decision, however, is likely to further damage the public’s perception of the judicial branch, Urman said.

    “Striking down forgiveness will add to growing skepticism that the conservative justices vote for conservatives, and the liberal justices vote for liberals,” Urman said.

    Just 25% of Americans have confidence in the highest court, a Gallup poll found over the summer.

    Source link

  • The Case for a Primary Challenge to Joe Biden

    The Case for a Primary Challenge to Joe Biden

    Joe Biden seems like he’s running again, God love him.

    He will most likely make this official in the next couple of months, and with the support of nearly every elected Democrat in range of a microphone. That is how things are typically done in Washington: The White House shall make you primary-proof. The gods of groupthink have decreed as much.

    Unless some freethinking Democrat comes along and chooses to ignore the groupthink.

    In private, of course, many elected Democrats say Biden is too old to run again and that they wish he’d step away—which aligns with what large majorities of Democrats and independents have been telling pollsters for months. The public silence around the president’s predicament has become tiresome and potentially catastrophic for the Democratic Party. Somebody should make a refreshing nuisance of themselves and involve the voters in this decision.

    Yes, this would be a radical move, and would anger a bunch of Democrats inside the various power terrariums of D.C., starting with the biggest one of all, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. There would be immediate blowback from donors, the Democratic National Committee, and other party institutions. But do it anyway. Preferably before Biden makes his final decision, while there’s an opening. If approached deftly, the gambit could benefit the president, the party, and even the challenger’s own standing, win or lose.

    There has to  be one good Challenger X out there from the party’s supposed “deep bench,” right? Someone who is compelling, formidable, and younger than, say, 65. Someone who is not Marianne Williamson. Someone who would be unfailingly gracious to Biden and reverential of his career—even while trying to end it.

    Before we start tossing out names, let’s establish a big to be sure. To be sure, primaries can be very bad for presidents seeking reelection. There is good reason no incumbent has been subjected to a serious intraparty challenge in more than three decades—not since the Republican Pat Buchanan launched a populist incursion against President George H. W. Bush in 1992. A dozen years earlier, President Jimmy Carter had endured an acrid primary challenge from Senator Edward Kennedy. Both Carter and Bush managed to hold off their challengers, but they came away battered and wound up losing their general elections.

    Biden, however, is a special case, for two reasons. The first concerns the disconnect between how affectionately most Democrats view him versus their desire to move on from him. Recent surveys show that 60 percent of Democrats don’t want Biden to run again. These spigots of cold water in the polls have been accompanied by icy buckets of liberal commentary and chilly assessments from (mostly) anonymous elected Democrats in the press. By contrast, large majorities of Republicans wanted Donald Trump to seek reelection in 2020, and an overwhelming consensus of Democrats wanted Barack Obama to run again in 2012. Same with Republicans and George W. Bush in 2004, and Democrats and Bill Clinton in 1996.

    Why should Biden not enjoy the same coronation? He’s done a good job in the eyes of the people who voted for him in 2020. His party overperformed in the midterms. He seems to be humming along fine—feisty State of the Union here, muscular visit to Ukraine there, and endless jokers to the right. He has achieved important things, has clearly enjoyed the gig, and appears quite eager for more. The difference in Biden’s case, of course, goes directly to the second reason for his special predicament. It begins with an 8.

    Allow me to point out, as if you don’t already know this, that Biden is old. He is 80 now, will be 82 on Inauguration Day 2025, and will hit 86 if he makes it all the way through a second term. He was born during the Roosevelt administration (Franklin, not Teddy, but still).

    The Delaware Corvette has flipped through the odometer a time or two. I’ve pointed this out before, in this publication. The White House did not like that story. But it was true then, and it’s truer now—by eight months, and a lot more Democrats are getting a lot more anxious.

    “This is not a knock on Joe Biden, just a wish for competition,” says Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, one of a tiny number of elected Democrats who have expressed on-the-record trepidation about Biden’s plans. Phillips couches the absurdity of this in terms of free enterprise. “In the business world, if the dominant brand in a category had favorability ratings like the current president does, you would see a number of established brands jump into that category,” Phillips told me. “Believe me, there are literally hundreds in Congress who would say the same thing,” he said. “But they simply won’t fucking say a word.”

    Here’s the deal, as Biden would say. No one wants to be accused of messing around with established practices when the alternative—very possibly Donald Trump—is so terrifying. But just as Trump has intimidated so many Republicans into submission, he also has paralyzed Democrats into extreme risk aversion. This has fostered an unhealthy capitulation to musty assumptions. And if you believe groupthink can’t be horribly wrong, I’ve got some weapons of mass destruction to show you in Iraq, not to mention a Black man who will never be elected president and, for that matter, a reality-TV star who won’t either.

    The big riddle is: Who? Let’s assess an (extremely) hypothetical primary field. First, eliminate Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, and any other member of Biden’s administration from consideration. Such an uprising against the boss would represent an irreparably disloyal and unseemly act and simply would not happen. Let’s also eliminate Senator Bernie Sanders from consideration, because been there, done that (twice), and he’s actually Biden’s senior by a year.

    Otherwise, indulge me in a bit of mentioning. Here is a hodgepodge of possible primary nuisances: Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer; Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey; Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut; Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; former Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio; Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York; California Governor Gavin Newsom; Maryland Governor Wes Moore. This is a noncomprehensive list.

    Let’s take the first Challenger X on the list, the newly reelected Whitmer, who, for the record, says she will not be running in 2024, regardless of what Biden does. She declared as much after her double-digit crushing of Republican Tudor Dixon in November. “Gov. Gretchen Whitmer says she is committed to a full second term,” reads the report in Bridge Michigan, the local publication to which she revealed her plans. The article refers to the 46th president as “aging Democratic incumbent Joe Biden.”

    What might it look like if Whitmer did make a run at said “aging Democratic incumbent”? The how dare you types would be unpleasantly aroused. Words like ingrate, disloyal, and opportunist would be hurled in her face. She would be blamed for creating a turbulent situation for the self-styled “party of grown-ups,” and at a time when they can credibly portray Republicans as an irresponsible brigade of nutbags, cranks, and chaos agents. Whitmer would also, implicitly, be accused of not “waiting her turn.” Just as Obama was in 2008, when he opted to skip the line and sought the Democratic nomination, even though the groupthink memo at the time stipulated that it was Hillary Clinton’s turn.

    But perhaps the pushback would not be as rough as Challenger X expected. In all likelihood, it would occur mostly in private or anonymously. Biden would be somewhat obliged to project calm and indifference in public. “The more the merrier,” the president and his surrogates would say through tight smiles. Nobody would benefit from any appearance of resentment.

    Challenger X could earn goodwill by campaigning with class and expressing unrelenting gratitude to Biden. She could simply nod and shrug in response to the various admonitions. Emphasize her own credentials and the grave threat posed by Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, or any other Republican. Say repeatedly that she would do whatever was necessary to help and support the president if primary voters nominated him again.

    For any Challenger X, the main selling point would fall into the general classification of representing “new blood,” a “fresh start,” or some such. These terms would serve as polite stand-ins for the age issue rather than smears about Biden’s mental capacity. Another thematic argument would involve popular American ideals such as “choice” and “freedom.” As in: Democrats deserve a “choice” and should enjoy the “freedom” to vote for someone other than the oldest president in history—the guy well over half of you don’t want to run.

    Challenger X would almost certainly receive tons of press coverage—probably good coverage, too, given that the media are predisposed to favor maverick-y candidates who inject unforeseen conflict into the process. When the voting starts, maybe this upstart would overperform—grabbing 35 percent or so in the early states, say. Maybe they wouldn’t surpass Biden, but could still reap the good coverage, gracefully drop out, and gain an immediate advantage for 2028. Or maybe Biden would take the hint, step away on his own, and let Democrats get on with picking their next class of national leaders. To some degree, the party has been putting this off since Obama was elected.

    Quite obviously, Democrats today have a strong craving for someone other than the sitting president. (Also obvious: That someone is not the current vice president.) Many voters viewed Biden’s candidacy in 2020 as a one-term proposition. He suggested as much. “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” Biden said nearly three years ago at a campaign event in Michigan, where he appeared with Harris, Booker, and Whitmer. “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.”

    Some mischief-maker should give Democrats a path to that future starting now. Voters bought the bridge in 2020. But when does it become a bridge too far?

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link

  • House GOP committees plot investigations into East Palestine derailment | CNN Politics

    House GOP committees plot investigations into East Palestine derailment | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    A series of House Republican committees are plotting to launch investigations into the toxic train disaster in East Palestine, Ohio, multiple committee aides told CNN.

    GOP lawmakers are vowing to use their oversight power to dig into what they describe as the Biden administration’s flawed response to the train wreck, which has left East Palestine’s residents afraid to use the city’s air and municipal water after a train carrying toxic chemicals derailed on February 3.

    They have also left the door open to holding hearings on the subject, including potentially bringing in Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to testify publicly, the aides said, though such decisions have not yet been made.

    The GOP’s increased urgency for oversight comes as several lawmakers have criticized President Joe Biden for not visiting East Palestine. Biden told reporters on Friday he has no plans to travel to the site of the derailment and defended his administration’s response to the wreck.

    The House committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce and Oversight are among the panels vowing to find answers to what happened, as well as hold the Biden administration and rail industry accountable for the fallout.

    Some GOP members of the committees are also discussing a potential field hearing in East Palestine, though no official plans have been made yet, sources familiar with the talks tell CNN.

    Axios first reported on the committees’ plans.

    The Energy and Commerce Committee has asked the EPA to appear before the panel’s Environment, Manufacturing & Critical Materials subcommittee chaired by GOP Rep. Bill Johnson, who represents East Palestine, a committee aide told CNN.

    Johnson and Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Washington state Republican, formally kicked off their probe on February 17, when they sent a letter to Regan demanding answers on a timeline of events relating to the train wreck, a list of the chemicals on board, materials relating to the EPA’s and local agencies’ response, as well as other information regarding the derailment.

    Johnson and McMorris Rodgers gave the EPA until March 3 to respond to their request.

    The Energy and Commerce Committee has asked for an all-members briefing, a committee briefing, as well as a hearing date from EPA officials. A source familiar told CNN they are still awaiting a response.

    The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee plans to “keep Members informed as facts come out,” committee spokesman Justin Harclerode told CNN. The committee is also closely watching the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation into the incident.

    “The important thing is to learn exactly what happened, what factors played a role in the accident, and what factors did not. The Committee is staying engaged on this issue, but no one should jump to any conclusions or act without all the facts. Which is exactly what the NTSB is working to provide through their investigation,” Harclerode said.

    House Oversight Chairman James Comer, meanwhile, sent a letter to Buttigieg on Friday, in which he called the incident “an environmental and public health emergency that now threatens Americans across state lines.” The Kentucky Republican requested that Buttigieg turn over a series of documents relating to the derailment, including when the administration first learned of the incident and communications regarding the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s handling of materials in the derailment.

    “At this time, Chairman Comer is focused on acquiring the documents and information requested in his February 24 letter to Secretary Buttigieg,” Comer spokesman Austin Hacker told CNN.

    Source link

  • Democrats have been doing well in special elections in 2023 | CNN Politics

    Democrats have been doing well in special elections in 2023 | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Democrat Jennifer McClellan easily won the special election for Virginia’s 4th Congressional District last week. The fact that a Democrat comfortably retained a Democratic seat in a district President Joe Biden would have won under its new lines by 36 points in 2020 is not surprising.

    What is notable is that McClellan didn’t just win, she outperformed Biden’s 2020 margin by 13 points. It’s part of a pattern in special elections this year that suggests that the national environment may be friendlier to Democrats than Biden’s sub-50% job approval rating would indicate.

    So far in 2023, besides McClellan’s race, there have been 12 special elections for state legislative seats in which at least one Democrat ran against at least one Republican. And in those 12 races, Democrats have been outperforming Biden’s 2020 margins by an average of 4 points.

    Now, 12 isn’t a particularly large sample size when examining special state legislative elections, so that 4-point average swing could shift somewhat as more special elections are held.

    Still, a sample size of 12 isn’t nothing, especially considering these elections have taken place in areas ranging from red to blue and across six states, from New Hampshire all the way down to Louisiana.

    And this 4-point swing to the Democrats is very much unlike what we saw in the state legislative special elections during the 2022 cycle before Roe v. Wade was overturned. In those elections, Democrats were underperforming Biden’s margin by an average of 4 points.

    The change in special elections reminds me of what happened in early 2019. Democrats were coming off a big 2018 midterm campaign in which the special elections leading up to it were the first indication that the party was in for a big night.

    In state special elections in the first half of 2019, Democrats continued to outperform the party baseline from the previous presidential election, but not by anywhere close to how well they had done in specials before the 2018 midterms. Sure enough, Biden would go on in 2020 to do better than Democrats had done in 2016, though not as well as Democratic House candidates had done in 2018.

    Also in the first half of 2019, House Republicans easily retained control of a very red district in Pennsylvania in the first special federal election of that cycle. The result was similar to how House Democrats did in Virginia last week – easily winning a very Democratic seat in the first congressional special election of 2023.

    That big Republican win in Pennsylvania in 2019 wasn’t surprising, but what was so out of character was how the result nearly matched the GOP baseline set in the previous presidential election. This was very unlike the vast majority of special federal elections in the 2018 cycle and presaged a tight 2020 presidential election.

    Let’s not forget, too, that Democrats did do better than the 2020 baseline in the special elections last year following the overturning of Roe v. Wade (though generally not by the same degree as the result in Virginia last week). This foreshadowed a stronger-than-expected midterm election for the party in control of the White House.

    Of course, it’s still very early in the current election cycle. There’s a lot of time for things to shift between now and the 2024 general election.

    But, for the moment at least, congressional and state legislative elections aren’t the only ones in which Democrats have been doing well.

    Indeed, if you want an idea of how the current political environment could make a difference in a swing state, look no further than one of the most important swing states: Wisconsin.

    The Badger State held a nonpartisan primary last week for a critical state Supreme Court seat. This race – to succeed a retiring conservative – will determine whether liberals or conservatives hold the majority on the bench and could affect rulings on abortion and gerrymandering, among other issues.

    Two liberals and two conservatives ran in the primary, which had an unusually high turnout. A liberal and a conservative have advanced to the April general election, but the two liberals combined beat the two conservatives combined by 8 points – in a state Biden won by less than a percentage point in 2020.

    Were that result to hold in April, it would mark one of the most important judicial election wins for liberals in the country this century.

    We’ll just have to wait to see if this blue tint we’re witnessing in a small cross-section of elections across the country continues to hold true as the year goes on.

    Source link

  • Author Chris Whipple discusses the fight of Biden’s life on “The Takeout” – 2/26/2023

    Author Chris Whipple discusses the fight of Biden’s life on “The Takeout” – 2/26/2023

    Author Chris Whipple discusses the fight of Biden’s life on “The Takeout” – 2/26/2023 – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Author Chris Whipple joins Major Garrett for this week’s episode of “The Takeout” to discuss his new book, “The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden’s White House,” and to explore the successes and failures of the Biden administration’s first two years.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • US says China will face ‘real costs’ if it provides lethal aid to Russia for war in Ukraine | CNN Politics

    US says China will face ‘real costs’ if it provides lethal aid to Russia for war in Ukraine | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    US national security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday vowed there would be “real costs” for China if the country went forward with providing lethal aid to Russia in its war on Ukraine.

    “From our perspective, actually, this war presents real complications for Beijing. And Beijing will have to make its own decisions about how it proceeds, whether it provides military assistance. But, if it goes down that road, it will come at real costs to China. And I think China’s leaders are weighing that as they make their decisions,” Sullivan told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

    In diplomatic conversations with China, he added, the US is “not just making direct threats. We’re just laying out both the stakes and the consequences, how things would unfold. And we are doing that clearly and specifically behind closed doors.”

    Sullivan’s comments come at a critical juncture in the war in Ukraine. The US has intelligence that the Chinese government is considering providing Russia with drones and ammunition for use in the war, three sources familiar with the intelligence told CNN.

    It does not appear that Beijing has made a final decision yet, the sources said, as negotiations between Russia and China about the price and scope of the equipment are ongoing.

    Since invading Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly requested drones and ammunition from China, the sources familiar with the intelligence said, and Chinese leadership has been actively debating over the last several months whether or not to send the lethal aid, the sources added.

    “I can level with the American people in saying that war is unpredictable,” Sullivan said Sunday when asked if the US could continue supporting Ukraine at current levels a year from now. “One year ago, we were all bracing for the fall of Kyiv in a matter – in a matter of days. One year later, Joe Biden was standing with President Zelensky in Kyiv declaring that Kyiv stands.”

    “So, I cannot predict the future, and nor can anyone else. And anyone who is suggesting they can define for you how and when this war will end is not leveling with the American people or anyone else,” he said.

    Sullivan also reiterated Biden’s Friday remarks that the administration was ruling out providing F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine “for now.”

    “This phase of the war requires tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, artillery, tactical air defense systems, so that Ukrainian fighters can retake territory that Russia currently occupies,” Sullivan said. “F-16s are a question for a later time.”

    House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul said Sunday that Congress “can certainly write into our appropriations bills, prioritizing weapons systems” for Ukraine.

    “We intend to do that,” the Texas Republican said on ABC when asked what Congress could do to push the Biden administration to provide longer-range missile systems, such as ATACMS, or F-16s to Ukraine.

    “I know the administration says, ‘As long as it takes.’ I think with the right weapons, it shouldn’t take so long,” McCaul said. “This whole thing is taking too long. And it really didn’t have to happen this way.”

    Sunday also marked the nine-year anniversary of Russia’s occupation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. The US State Department on Sunday reasserted that “Crimea is Ukraine.”

    “The United States does not and never will recognize Russia’s purported annexation of the peninsula,” department spokesperson Ned Price said in a statement, calling Russia’s 2014 seizure of Crimea “a clear violation of international law and of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

    Sullivan, however, would not say whether the Biden administration would support Ukraine deciding that victory would mean retaking Crimea.

    “What ultimately happens with Crimea, in the context of this war and a settlement of this war, is something for the Ukrainians to determine with the support of the United States,” he said to Bash.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    Source link

  • First on CNN: Federal teams providing flyers to East Palestine families and conducting health surveys following toxic train wreck | CNN Politics

    First on CNN: Federal teams providing flyers to East Palestine families and conducting health surveys following toxic train wreck | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Federal teams are going door-to-door to check in with residents of East Palestine, Ohio, and conducting health surveys as part of the federal government’s response to the toxic train derailment that has fueled anxiety about the safety of the air and water in the town, according to a White House official.

    The teams are providing informational flyers with federal and local resources and completing the surveys after President Joe Biden directed the move, according to the official.

    This latest step comes as frustrated locals in East Palestine complain about feeling sick and raise long-term health concerns after the Norfolk Southern train wreck earlier this month caused toxic chemicals to seep into the water, air and soil.

    The two-page flyer, obtained first by CNN, includes emergency resources for residents as well as details on how to schedule a free health assessment or arrange testing for a private well or drinking water. It also includes the number of a dedicated poison control hotline for questions related to the train derailment, and details on the next federal US Environmental Protection Agency-led public meeting at 6 p.m. March 2 in the Palestine High School Auditorium.

    The flyers are being handed out by members of the EPA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with the goal of reaching 400 homes by Monday, according to the White House official. The health surveys are being conducted by the CDC.

    Biden on Friday directed agencies to go door-to-door to check in with residents after he received an update on the federal government’s response to the derailment from senior officials, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and the heads of the EPA and FEMA, according to the official.

    The President currently has no plans to visit Ohio and on Friday defended his administration’s response to the crisis, which has drawn criticism from Republicans, including East Palestine Mayor Trent Conaway, who told Fox News earlier this week that Biden’s decision to visit Ukraine while the situation was unfolding in Ohio was “the biggest slap in the face, that tells you right now he doesn’t care about us.”

    “You know, we were there two hours after the train went down – two hours,” Biden told reporters on Friday. “I’ve spoken with every single major figure in both Pennsylvania and in Ohio, and so the idea that we’re not engaged is just simply not there. And initially, there was not a request for me to go out even before I was heading over to Kyiv, so I’m keeping very close tabs on it. We’re doing all we can.”

    The National Transportation Safety Board on Thursday released its preliminary report on the investigation into the February 3rd train derailment, which concluded that the wreck in Ohio was completely preventable, and investigators now will begin examining the procedures and practices prior to the derailment.

    Source link

  • The Fate Of Biden’s Student-Loan Relief Plan Rests With The Supreme Court

    The Fate Of Biden’s Student-Loan Relief Plan Rests With The Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court is slated to soon decide the financial fortunes of over 40 million Americans who are in line for significant student loan relief, when it hears arguments on the legality of President Joe Biden’s plan to provide targeted relief to student loan borrowers.

    On Feb. 28, the court is expected to hear arguments about whether the millions of Americans eligible for up to $20,000 in student-loan debt forgiveness should get that relief, or whether they should be forced to continue to pay their loans.

    With a six-vote conservative supermajority, it seems unlikely that the court would rule to uphold a sweeping executive-branch action by a Democratic administration that involves the redistribution of money from lenders to debtors. But there may be a way for at least some of the court’s conservatives to preserve the debt relief program while achieving a conservative goal.

    The most likely way the program would survive the challenges presented in two cases — Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown — is if the outcome turns on the question of standing; that is, whether the parties suing to challenge the program can prove it harms them, and that they are the relevant party being harmed. If the court decides that the six states and two individuals suing the administration lack standing, the justices will not need to actually decide whether the program is legal.

    “The standing theories that have been thrown at the wall in these cases are wrong, and many of them would have dangerous implications,” conservative law professors Samuel Bray and William Baude argued in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case.

    Despite their own belief that the administration’s debt relief plan is “unlawful,” Bray and Baude argue that none of the states or people filing suit can properly prove they would be harmed by the program. And if the court were to grant standing, it would further expand the ability of states to bring lawsuits to force or block executive actions ― something three of the conservative justices opposed in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, where the court gave the state “special solicitude” to sue to require the government to regulate carbon emissions.

    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissent from that decision that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and then-Justice Antonin Scalia. In the dissent, Roberts argued that the “special solicitude” granted to states turned standing into “a lawyer’s game, rather than a fundamental limitation ensuring that courts function as courts and not intrude on the politically accountable branches.”

    Student loan borrowers are seen gathered at the Supreme Court to tell the court that student loan relief is legal.

    Larry French via Getty Images

    The courts are meant “to decide concrete cases ― not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates,” Roberts added.

    These concerns “proved prophetic,” Bray and Baude write. Since then, there has been a dramatic increase in lawsuits filed by state attorneys general challenging federal actions while the opposing party occupies the White House. Under former President Barack Obama, GOP attorneys general led the way in filing more than 50 suits. Democratic attorneys general filed more than 130 suits when Donald Trump was president. And now Republicans have filed more than 50 such suits against Biden.

    “The states’ more extravagant theories are emblematic of the broader trend where states are taking advantage of vague language in Massachusetts v. EPA, to challenge any federal action with which they disagree,” Bray and Baude write. “Unless this Court wishes to sit in constant judgment of every major executive action ― which is not its constitutional role ― it is time to say ‘stop.’”

    By rejecting the standing theories offered in the student loan debt cases, Roberts and other conservatives could set forth new limits on states’ “special solicitude” for standing, or reject it entirely. This could help keep the court out of some thorny political questions while making it more difficult for liberal attorneys general to sue to enforce environmental or civil rights law. That’s something that Fordham Law School Professor Jed Shugerman, who supports student debt relief, warned about in a brief to the court in support of the state arguments for standing.

    Such a move would allow Roberts to do what he has done in the past: uphold a Democratic president’s policy priority while advancing his own agenda at the same time.

    The case against standing for the eight plaintiffs is fairly straightforward, according to Baude, Bray and a brief submitted by the Biden administration, among others.

    Biden announced his plan to provide student-loan debt relief for some borrowers on Aug. 24, 2022. The plan provided $20,000 in relief to Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 in relief to other borrowers who made less than $125,000 a year in 2020 or 2021. Biden claimed authority under the HEROES Act of 2003 to provide debt relief during the COVID-19 national emergency.

    The debt-forgiveness plan drew swift legal challenges backed by conservatives. The states of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina sued in the 8th Circuit, while Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, two student borrowers, brought suit in the 5th Circuit.

    Among Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals only gave standing to Missouri. The claims of harm from the other five states were all too weak, as they were found to be either self-inflicted or nonexistent.

    Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and South Carolina claimed that they would lose tax revenue due to a 2021 law that exempts student-loan debt discharges from being calculated as “gross income.” These states allege they would lose tax revenue because they tie their own state tax definitions of “gross income” to the IRS’s definition.

    However, court precedent says that a state cannot allege a harm from an act that is self-inflicted. It was the individual choice of Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and South Carolina to tie their state tax codes to the federal tax code.

    In the 1976 case of Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, the court ruled that Pennsylvania could not claim it was harmed when New Jersey enacted a new tax, despite Pennsylvania’s argument that it incurred harm because it allowed residents to claim a tax credit for taxes paid to other states. The court found that Pennsylvania did not need to provide such tax credits, and it ruled that no state “can be heard to complain about damage inflicted by its own hand.”

    The claim for standing is also suspect because the alleged harm isn’t direct. In a 1927 case, after Florida challenged a federal inheritance tax on the grounds that it would cost the state tax revenue, the court rejected Florida’s argument, finding that the harm was “at most, only remote and indirect.”

    President Joe Biden announces his student-loan debt forgiveness plan in the Roosevelt Room of the White House with Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.
    President Joe Biden announces his student-loan debt forgiveness plan in the Roosevelt Room of the White House with Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.

    Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    The states of Arkansas, Missouri and Nebraska claim that they would lose revenue because the White House’s program only benefits direct loans over family loans, and would encourage borrowers to consolidate any family loans into direct loans. Since some state entities hold investments in family loans, these states claim they would be harmed. But the administration changed its policy to forbid debt holders from consolidating in this manner in order to receive the proposed relief.

    “Borrowers with federal student loans not held by [the Department] cannot obtain one-time debt relief by consolidating those loans into Direct Loans,” the brief submitted to the court by the Biden administration notes.

    As for Brown and Taylor, they both sued to challenge the plan by claiming they would not receive the promised relief in whole, for holding a private loan, or in part, for not receiving the maximum $20,000 offered to Pell Grant recipients. They argued that their ability to register their complaints was short-circuited when the administration did not post the policy through the normal notice-and-comment process.

    Here, the remedy sought by Brown and Taylor, of eliminating the program entirely, does not match the harm they allege ― their exclusion from all or some of the relief. The briefs from Baude and Bray, and from the Biden administration, argue that they lack standing since eliminating the program would not resolve their alleged harms.

    As for the administrative complaint, the HEROES Act exempts changes in debt payments during a declared national emergency from the normal notice-and-comment period, so the Biden administration’s brief contends that this harm does not actually exist.

    That leaves Missouri ― which claims it would lose money that the state-created student loan servicer MOHELA is obligated to donate to a state capital improvements fund, because MOHELA could lose income from any loans it holds that are forgiven.

    While this is the “strongest argument for standing made by any of the plaintiffs,” Bray and Baude argue, it is nevertheless problematic because “the state of Missouri is not the ‘proper party’ to bring this lawsuit.”

    Despite being created by the state, MOHELA is an independent entity that has the power to sue and be sued. MOHELA, not Missouri, is the party that should be suing here, the briefs from Bray and Baude and from the Biden administration argue ― something it is conspicuously not doing.

    The claim of standing because MOHELA may not be able to pay its state obligations has its own problems. Aside from the argument being speculative, the state already provides MOHELA extensions and delays in paying what it owes. It could also set a new standard for standing that would create a host of perverse consequences.

    If the court were to accept such a theory, it would give “any lender” the standing to sue to block “any regulation that reduced the income of any of its borrowers,” Bray and Baude argue ― adding that “such a theory should not be taken more seriously here.”

    The conservative justices may ultimately rule in favor of standing, as they have in a number of post-Massachusetts v. EPA cases where states made similar arguments. If they do, then the case would come down to whether the relief program is legal, or if it is not allowed under the court’s “major questions doctrine” that limits expansive regulatory actions that affect the economy. But standing is the best bet the Biden administration has to keep its plan intact, even if it comes with collateral damage.

    Source link

  • Biden: ‘At this point I’m not’ planning to visit East Palestine, Ohio, after toxic train derailment | CNN Politics

    Biden: ‘At this point I’m not’ planning to visit East Palestine, Ohio, after toxic train derailment | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden told reporters at the White House Friday he has no plans travel to East Palestine, Ohio, and defended his administration’s response to the train derailment there that caused a toxic chemical spill.

    “At this point, I’m not,” Biden said, when asked if he has any plans to visit the community, pointing instead to his and his administration’s early and consistent response to the disaster.

    “You know, we were there two hours after the train went down – two hours,” Biden said. “I’ve spoken with every single major figure in both Pennsylvania and in Ohio, and so the idea that we’re not engaged is just simply not there. And initially, there was not a request for me to go out even before I was heading over to Kyiv, so I’m keeping very close tabs on it. We’re doing all we can.”

    Biden, who was briefed Friday on the latest developments, noted that he had held a “long meeting with my team” on Zoom.

    Following Biden’s comments, a White House official shared a detailed timeline outlining the federal government’s response in the wake of the derailment, including the arrival of federal teams from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration just two hours after Norfolk Southern reported the derailment to the National Response Center at 10:53 p.m. ET on February 3.

    According to the timeline, the White House contacted Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine to offer additional federal assistance on February 5, with Biden calling DeWine and Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro on February 6.

    “Federal teams have continued to arrive in East Palestine – investigating the cause of the derailment, making Norfolk Southern clean up its mess and reimburse families, conducting public health screenings, monitoring the air and water, and screening over 550 homes,” the official told CNN.

    But the Biden administration’s response has drawn criticism from Republicans, including East Palestine Mayor Trent Conaway, who told Fox News earlier this week that Biden’s decision to visit Ukraine while the situation was unfolding in Ohio was “the biggest slap in the face, that tells you right now he doesn’t care about us.” In remarks from East Palestine Wednesday, former President Donald Trump slammed the Biden administration’s handling of the situation, telling supporters in Ohio, “You are not forgotten.”

    Per the White House, Biden made calls Tuesday from Warsaw, Poland, to receive updates on the EPA’s response, including with PA Administrator Michael Regan, Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Republican Rep. Bill Johnson, DeWine and Shapiro.

    Pressed on the administration’s response, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Thursday, “Yes, he [Biden] is satisfied” at his administration’s response, while touting agency work throughout the crisis.

    “Showing up is having the Environmental Protection administrator on the ground, showing up is having the DOT secretary on the ground to talk about what is the next process, holding to account the account the company that caused the spill,” she said, while criticizing “bad faith attacks” against members of Biden’s administration, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

    Source link

  • Biden Administration Moves To Limit Telehealth Prescriptions For Some Drugs

    Biden Administration Moves To Limit Telehealth Prescriptions For Some Drugs

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration moved Friday to require patients see a doctor in person before getting attention deficit disorder medication or addictive painkillers, toughening access to the drugs against the backdrop of a deepening opioid crisis.

    The proposal could overhaul the way millions of Americans get some prescriptions after three years of relying on telehealth for doctor’s appointments by computer or phone during the pandemic.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration said late Friday it plans to reinstate once longstanding federal requirements for powerful drugs that were waived once COVID-19 hit, enabling doctors to write millions of prescriptions for drugs such as OxyContin or Adderall without ever meeting patients in person.

    Patients will need to see a doctor in person at least once to get an initial prescription for drugs that the federal government says have the the most potential to be abused — Vicodin, OxyContin, Adderall and Ritalin, for example. Refills could be prescribed over telehealth appointments.

    The agency will also clamp down on how doctors can prescribe other, less addictive drugs to patients they’ve never physically met. Substances like codeine, taken to alleviate pain or coughing, Xanax, used to treat anxiety, Ambien, a sleep aid, and buprenorphine, a narcotic used to treat opioid addiction, can be prescribed over telehealth for an initial 30-day dose. Patients would need to see a doctor at least once in person to get a refill.

    Patients will still be able to get common prescriptions like antibiotics, skin creams, birth control and insulin prescribed through telehealth visits.

    The new rule seeks to keep expanded access to telehealth that’s important for patients like those in rural areas while also balancing safety, an approach DEA Administrator Anne Milgram referred to as “expansion of telemedicine with guardrails.”

    The ease with each Americans have accessed certain medications during the pandemic has helped many get needed treatment, but concerns have also mounted that some companies may take advantage of the lax rules and be overprescribing medications to people who don’t need them, said David Herzberg, a historian of drugs at the University of Buffalo.

    “Both sides of this tension have really good points,” said Herzberg. “You don’t want barriers in the way of getting people prescriptions they need. But anytime you remove those barriers it’s also an opportunity for profit seekers to exploit the lax rules and sell the medicines to people who may not need them.”

    U.S. overdose deaths hit a record in 2021, about three-quarters of those from opioids during a crisis that was first spun into the making by drug makers, pharmacies and doctors that pushed the drugs to patients decades ago. But the grim toll from synthetic opioids like fentanyl far outstripped deaths related to prescription drugs that year, according to Centers for Disease Control Data. Fentanyl is increasingly appearing on the illicit market, pressed into fake prescription pills or mixed into other drugs.

    The proposed rules deliver a major blow to a booming telehealth industry, with tech startups launching in recent years to treat and prescribe medications for mental health or attention deficit disorders. The industry has largely benefitted from the reprieve on in-person visits for drugs brought on by the pandemic, although some national retailers stopped filling drug orders generated by some telehealth apps over the last year.

    The DEA has grown increasingly concerned over the last two years that some of those startup telehealth companies are improperly prescribing addictive substances like opioids or attention deficit disorder medication, putting patients in danger, a DEA official told The Associated Press on Friday.

    The official said the agency plans to have the new rule in place before the COVID-19 public health emergency expires on May 11, which will effectively end the loosened rules. That could mean people who may seeking treatment from a doctor who is hundreds of miles away need to start developing plans for in-person visits with their doctors now, pointed out Boston-based attorney Jeremy Sherer, who represents telehealth companies. Patients will have six months to visit their doctor in person when the regulation is enacted.

    “Providers and their patients need to know what that treatment is going to look like moving forward and whether, once the public health emergency ends in May, if they’re going to need to figure out a way to have a visit in person before continuing treatment, and that can be a real challenge,” he said.

    Many states have already moved to restore limitations for telehealth care across state lines. By October, nearly 40 states and Washington, D.C., had ended emergency declarations that made it easier for doctors to see patients in other states.

    Source link

  • Justice Thomas wrote of ‘crushing weight’ of student loans

    Justice Thomas wrote of ‘crushing weight’ of student loans

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won’t have far to look if it wants a personal take on the “crushing weight” of student debt that underlies the Biden administration’s college loan forgiveness plan.

    Justice Clarence Thomas was in his mid-40s and in his third year on the nation’s highest court when he paid off the last of his debt from his time at Yale Law School.

    Thomas, the court’s longest-serving justice and staunchest conservative, has been skeptical of other Biden administration initiatives. And when the Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday involving President Joe Biden’s debt relief plan that would wipe away up to $20,000 in outstanding student loans, Thomas is not likely to be a vote in the administration’s favor.

    But the justices’ own experiences can be relevant in how they approach a case, and alone among them, Thomas has written about the role student loans played in his financial struggles.

    A fellow law school student even suggested Thomas declare bankruptcy after graduating “to get out from under the crushing weight of all my student loans,” the justice wrote in his best-selling 2007 memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He rejected the idea.

    It’s not clear that any of the other justices borrowed money to attend college or law school or have done so for their children’s educations. Some justices grew up in relative wealth. Others reported they had scholarships to pay their way to some of the country’s most expensive private institutions.

    Of the seven justices on the court who are parents, four have signaled through their investments that they don’t want their own children to be saddled with onerous college debt, and have piled money into tax-free college savings accounts that might limit any need for loans.

    Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch have the most on hand, at least $600,000 and at least $300,000, respectively, according to annual disclosure reports the justices filed in 2022. Each has two children.

    Justices Amy Coney Barrett, who has seven children, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has two, also have invested money in college-savings accounts, in which any earnings or growth is tax free if spent on education.

    None of the justices would comment for this story, a court spokeswoman said.

    Thomas wrote vividly about his past money woes in his up-from-poverty story, recounting how a bank once foreclosed on one of his loans because repayment and delinquency notices were sent to his grandparents’ house in Savannah, Georgia, instead of Thomas’ home at the time in Jefferson City, Missouri.

    Thomas was able to take out another loan to repay the bank only because his mentor, John Danforth, then-Missouri attorney general and later a U.S. senator, vouched for him.

    Thomas noted that he signed up for a tuition postponement program at Yale in which a group of students jointly paid for their outstanding loans according to their financial ability, with those earning the most paying the most.

    At the time, Thomas’ first wife, Kathy, was pregnant. “I didn’t know what else to do, so I signed on the dotted line, and spent the next two decades paying off the money I borrowed during my last two years at Yale,” Thomas wrote.

    When he was first nominated to be a federal judge in 1989, Thomas reported $10,000 in outstanding student loans, according to a news report at the time. The Biden administration has picked the same number as the amount of debt relief most borrowers would get under its plan.

    Personal experience can shape the justices’ questions in the courtroom and affect their private conversations about a case, even if it doesn’t figure in the outcome.

    “It is helpful to have people with life experiences that are varied just because it enriches the conversation,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor has said. Sotomayor, like Thomas, also grew up poor. She got a full scholarship to Princeton as an undergraduate, she has said, and went on to Yale for law school, as Thomas did.

    Keeping people from avoiding the kinds of difficult choices Thomas faced is a key part of the administration’s argument for loan forgiveness. The administration says that without additional help, many borrowers will fall behind on their payments once a hold in place since the start of the coronavirus pandemic three years ago is lifted, no later than this summer.

    Under a plan announced in August but so far blocked by federal courts, $10,000 in federal loans would be canceled for people making less than $125,000 or for households with less than $250,000 in income. Recipients of Pell Grants, who tend to have fewer financial resources, would get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

    The White House says 26 million people already have applied and 16 million have been approved for relief. The program is estimated to cost $400 billion over the next three decades.

    The legal fight could turn on any of several elements, including whether the Republican-led states and individuals suing over the plan have legal standing to go to court and whether Biden has the authority under federal law for so extensive a loan forgiveness program.

    Nebraska and other states challenging the program argue that far from falling behind, 20 million borrowers would get a “windfall” because their entire student debt would be erased, Nebraska Attorney General Michael Hilgers wrote in the states’ main Supreme Court brief.

    Which of those arguments resonate with the court may become clear on Tuesday.

    When she was dean of Harvard Law School, Justice Elena Kagan showed her own concern about the high cost of law school, especially for students who were considering lower-paying jobs.

    Kagan established a program that would allow students to attend their final year tuition-free if they agreed to a five-year commitment to work in the public sector. While that program no longer exists, Harvard offers grants to students for public service work.

    At the time the program was created, Kagan said she wanted students to be able to go to work where they “can make the biggest difference, but that isn’t the case now.” Instead, she said: “They often go to work where they don’t want to work because of the debt burden.”

    ___

    Follow AP’s coverage of the Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court

    Source link

  • Jill Biden gives the clearest indication yet that her husband will likely run again

    Jill Biden gives the clearest indication yet that her husband will likely run again

    Biden not yet announcing reelection bid


    Looking ahead to the 2024 elections as Biden waits to announce plans

    04:35

    First lady Jill Biden gave one of the clearest indications yet that President Joe Biden will run for a second term, telling The Associated Press in an exclusive interview on Friday that there’s “pretty much” nothing left to do but figure out the time and place for the announcement. 

    Although Mr. Biden has long said that it’s his intention to seek reelection, he has yet to make it official, and he’s struggled to dispel questions about whether he’s too old to continue serving as president. Mr. Biden, now 80, would be 86 at the end of a second term.

    “He says he’s not done,” the first lady said in Nairobi, the second and final stop of her five-day trip to Africa. “He’s not finished what he’s started. And that’s what’s important.”

    She added: “How many times does he have to say it for you to believe it?”

    The AP asked: “So all that’s left at this point is to figure out a time and place for the announcement?” 

    “Pretty much,” the first lady responded. 

    Biden aides have said an announcement is likely to come in April, after the first fundraising quarter ends, which is around the time that President Barack Obama officially launched his reelection campaign.

    The first lady has long been described as a key figure in Mr. Biden’s orbit as he plans his future.

    “Because I’m his wife,” she laughed.

    But she brushed off the question about whether she has the deciding vote on whether the president runs for reelection.

    “Of course he’ll listen to me, because we’re a married couple,” she said. But, she added later, “he makes up his own mind, believe me.”


    Source link

  • Putin and now-deposed Afghan president among top gift givers to Bidens in 2021

    Putin and now-deposed Afghan president among top gift givers to Bidens in 2021

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and the deposed leader of Afghanistan were among the top gift givers to President Joe Biden and his family in 2021, according to federal documents published on Thursday.

    In happier diplomatic times between all three countries, Putin gave Mr. Biden a $12,000 lacquer writing box and pen when they met at a highly anticipated summit in Geneva, Switzerland in June 2021.

    That month, then-Afghan President Mohammed Ashraf Ghani and his wife gave Mr. Biden and first lady Jill Biden silk rugs worth an estimated $28,800.

    Relations between the U.S. and Russia soured soon after the Geneva meeting and have plummeted since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last February. Ghani, meanwhile, fled Afghanistan shortly after the U.S. withdrew from the country on Biden’s orders in August, 2021.

    Biden also in June received a brass and lapis lazuli jewelry box, worth an estimated $1,150 from Abdullah Abdullah, who was then considered to be the No. 2 in the Afghan government. And Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was given a carpet valued at $2,650 in March by Ghani.

    The details appear in the State Department’s annual accounting of gifts to U.S. officials from world leaders posted on the website of the Federal Register on Thursday. The list, covering 2021, will formally be published on Friday.

    All of the Putin and Ghani gifts were transferred to the National Archives, a requirement for any gift to a U.S. official valued at more than $415. The recipient has the option of paying the estimated value and keeping the gift.

    However, Mr. Biden decided to retain, at least for official display, a photograph of the late British monarch Queen Elizabeth II. The photo, in a silver frame was presented to the president on the occasion of a Group of Seven summit in southeast England and is estimated to be worth $2,200.

    According to the records, Putin gave Mr. Biden a “Kholuy Lacquer Miniature Workshop Desk Writing Set and Pen” on the occasion of their meeting in Geneva on June 16, 2021.

    There are no other gifts from Putin or other Russian officials to Mr. Biden or U.S. officials documented in the filing.

    Later that month, well after the president had given the order for American forces to withdraw from Afghanistan in April, Ghani and his wife, Rula, gave Joe and Jill Biden two silk carpets: one valued $9,600 and the other $19,200, according to the list.

    At the time, U.S. officials believed that Ghani’s government and security forces could survive the withdrawal of American troops. A White House statement from Biden’s meeting with Ghani on June 25 said that “the U.S. and Afghan leaders firmly agreed that although U.S. troops are leaving Afghanistan, the strong bilateral partnership will continue.”

    In another relationship that has grown more rocky, Secretary of State Antony Blinken reported receiving a porcelain vase worth $2,000 from the former foreign policy chief of the Chinese Communist Party, Yang Jiechi. The exchange took place in March, 2021, just two months after the Biden administration took office, and the vase is now with the General Services Administration.

    Two years later, the U.S. and China are now at odds on numerous issues ranging from Russia’s war in Ukraine to Chinese policies regarding Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea, Hong Hong and human rights.

    Source link

  • Biden nominates former MasterCard exec Ajay Banga to lead World Bank | CNN Business

    Biden nominates former MasterCard exec Ajay Banga to lead World Bank | CNN Business


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden has announced that he’s nominating Ajay Banga, a former MasterCard executive, to serve as president of the World Bank.

    In a statement, Biden said that Banga is “uniquely equipped to lead the World Bank at this critical moment in history” and that he has a “proven track record managing people and systems, and partnering with global leaders around the world to deliver results.”

    Banga has been the vice chairman at General Atlantic, a New York-based investment firm, since 2022. Prior to that, the 63-year-old was the CEO of MasterCard from 2010 to 2021.

    “Raised in India, Ajay has a unique perspective on the opportunities and challenges facing developing countries and how the World Bank can deliver on its ambitious agenda to reduce poverty and expand prosperity,’ Biden said in the statement. Notably, the White House highlighted Banga’s “extensive experience” in creating partnerships to address climate change and financial inclusion,” something Biden pledged would be an important qualification for the next World Bank President.

    Banga would replace previous president David Malpass, who announced last week that he’s stepping down a year early — serving four years of a five-year term.

    Although Malpass had been praised by the World Bank and administration officials for his handling of the global challenges posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic, his tenure faced controversy following comments he made last September about climate change. During a panel, herefused to confirm during a climate panel whether he accepted the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels were dangerously warming the planet.

    After an outpouring of criticism, many opponents called for his resignation. However, he recently told CNN’s Julia Chatterley that he has “no regrets” over his four-year tenure.

    “We’ve achieved many of the things I wanted to…I think it’s really important that institutions have energy, new energy, and this is a good time for the World Bank to do that,” he said.

    US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen praised the decision to name Banga in a statement.

    “He has the right leadership and management skills, experience living and working in emerging markets, and financial expertise to lead the World Bank at a critical moment in its history, deliver on its core development goals, and evolve the Bank to meet global challenges like climate change,” she said.

    US climate envoy John Kerry said Banga is the “right choice” because of his climate change credentials.

    Banga “has proven his ability as a manager of large institutions and understands investment and the mobilization of capital to power the green transition,” Kerry said in a statement.

    The World Bank, a group of 187 nations, lends money to developing countries to help reduce poverty. Former US President Donald Trump appointed Malpass as World Bank chief in 2019 for a five-year period. As the largest shareholder, the United States traditionally appoints its president.

    — CNN’s Sam Fossum contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • East Palestine derailment spurs rare signs of bipartisan agreement on rail safety. Will Washington act? | CNN Politics

    East Palestine derailment spurs rare signs of bipartisan agreement on rail safety. Will Washington act? | CNN Politics

    Editor’s Note: Watch East Palestine, Ohio, residents pose questions to Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and EPA Administrator Michael Regan. “A CNN Town Hall: Toxic Train Disaster, Ohio Residents Speak Out” airs tonight at 9 p.m. ET on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    A fiery train wreck that released toxic materials in an Ohio town is raising new questions in the halls of the nation’s capital over the regulation of the rail industry and if stricter measures could have prevented the disaster.

    News of the East Palestine, Ohio, derailment – and its potential harmful effects on the environment and health of local residents – has propelled both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to press the Biden administration on whether there’s enough oversight to keep rail workers and communities near railroads safe. And the supervising agency broadly responsible for regulating rail safety, the Department of Transportation, is calling on Congress to make it easier to institute safety reforms.

    This rare, general bipartisan agreement about taking action in the wake of the derailment follows years of Republicans generally supporting deregulation of the rail industry, including with the broad rollback of transportation rules during the Trump administration.

    Unions, current and former regulatory officials, and members of Congress from both parties have signaled some optimism about the possibility that the Ohio disaster may mark a rare opportunity for Washington to get something done to enhance the rail industry’s safety standards. But what’s unclear is whether there’s enough momentum for both parties in Congress to propel the issue forward into tangible actions. Nor is it clear whether the rail industry’s strong lobbying efforts will pare down any proposed measures or play a hand in eliminating them altogether.

    Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday that that he’s fed up with the rail industry’s pressure campaigns to diminish regulatory reforms.

    “I’ve had it,” he said. “We have had situation after situation where even modest, reasonable reform gets just a full court press.”

    “I do think if the railroads, like Norfolk Southern, are in a mode right now where they’re saying, ‘We’re going to do everything it takes and everything we can.’ Let’s give them a chance to show it,” Buttigieg later added. “But let’s be very clear, I’m not waiting for them to do this work. I’m just saying they have a chance to put their money where their mouth is.”

    Experts point out several areas of opportunity to enhance rail safety and hold rail companies further accountable: updating trains’ braking system, shortening the lengths of freight trains, further separating cars with hazardous material, requiring more crew member be on board, and increasing penalties.

    Many of these proposals, experts say, have been around for decades, and have oftentimes been diminished or entirely eliminated after rail lobbying efforts. Data compiled by the nonprofit OpenSecrets show that Norfolk Southern spent $1.8 million on federal lobbying last year.

    Norfolk Southern posted record profits from railway operations of $4.8 billion in 2022, up from its previous record of $4.45 billion in 2021. The company did not respond to questions Wednesday on whether it expects to change its share repurchase plans in the wake of the derailment.

    “Unfortunately, derailments like this are preventable and they become inevitable when there’s more risk in the system,” Sarah Feinberg, a former administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration during the Obama administration, told CNN. “The industry has fought tooth and nail against safety regulations, but I also think that’s typical of any industry.”

    Lobbying influence from the rail industry is “a big problem and they have a stranglehold on Congress, especially in the Senate,” Greg Hynes, national legislative director for the SMART Transportation Division union, told CNN.

    “It’s all about the bottom line and they adhere to the operating ratios that Wall Street is so hungry for, which includes lowering head counts – which includes fewer safety inspections, fewer brake tests, fewer people doing the job that they need to do,” he added.

    Buttigieg recently sent a letter Sunday to Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw demanding accountability and calling for greater safety regulations. And DOT subsequently announced on Tuesday that it would take a three-pronged approach to enhance rail safety – push companies to voluntarily adopt additional safety measures, call on Congress to do more and bolster administration efforts to regulate the industry.

    Among other plans to advance existing efforts or deploy existing funding, DOT says it’s initiating focused safety inspections as well as pursuing additional federal rulemaking on high-hazard flammable trains and electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.

    DOT also says it’s working to advance a proposed rule that would require a minimum of two crew members for most railroad operations. Leadership for Norfolk Southern met with Buttigieg and other DOT officials and expressed concerns about the proposed rule. Among other issues, Norfolk Southern argues it will lead to significant labor costs

    Crucial to efforts to enhance rail safety, administration officials and rail experts say, is Congress’ ability to untie the executive branch’s hands.

    DOT is asking Congress to increase the maximum fines that can be issued to rail companies for violating safety regulations. And similar to its regulatory efforts announced Tuesday, DOT is calling on Congress to expand the rules “governing high-hazardous shipments, including high-hazard flammable trains, pushing past industry opposition” and follow through “on new bipartisan support to modernize braking regulations and increase the use of electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.”

    “The apparatus that exists was to allow safety regulators to write and finalize common sense safety regulations that will protect people – protect their homes, protect their water, protect their children, protect their health – it’s totally broken,” Feinberg said. “And the reason it’s totally broken is because the Congress and others – other administrations – will insert themselves into the process and take it over … from safety regulators and say, ‘I know better and I’m going to protect the industry from whatever you’re trying to force its hand on.’”

    The American Association of Railroads, an industry group, has said that “until NTSB has completed their investigation, AAR will not comment on potential policy changes in relation to this event as the cause and any underlying factors have not yet been fully determined.” The NTSB is set to release a preliminary report on the derailment investigation Thursday morning.

    Congressional committees are set to review the environmental and safety impacts of the East Palestine derailment. Although efforts to enhance regulatory oversight of the rail industry have generally broken along party lines, some Republicans and Democrats appear to be moving in the same direction.

    Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, a Washington state Democrat, sent a letter last week to seven of the largest railroad company CEOs, inquiring about safety practices involved in rail transportation of hazardous materials. She’s also requested a joint staff-level briefing with the Environment and Public Works Committee, asking federal transportation and environmental agencies to appear, according to Politico.

    House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, scheduled a bipartisan briefing for members of the committee last week, and there may be further briefings for committee and all House members to help keep them informed of the status and relevant issues, Graves’ office told CNN.

    Republican Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio and Marco Rubio of Florida sent a letter to DOT requesting information about the administration’s regulatory oversight, questioning whether the three crew members on board the Norfolk Southern train that derailed were enough to staff the 149-car locomotive.

    Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, the leading Republican on the Senate Commerce committee, last week tweeted that he fully agreed with Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, who wrote, in part, “We need Congressional inquiry and direct action from [Buttigieg] to address this tragedy.”

    Republican candidates for president Nikki Haley and former President Donald Trump have criticized President Joe Biden for not visiting the site of the derailment, arguing that his trip to Ukraine and Poland this week shows he’s more focused on a foreign crisis than what’s happening at home – an increasingly frequent critique of the president and his administration.

    Trump – whose administration sidelined the pending rule to require freight trains to have at least two crew members – appeared in East Palestine on Wednesday alongside Vance.

    Rubio and Buttigieg, meanwhile, are in a spat – with the secretary suggesting the senator was previously parroting lines from the rail industry and Rubio calling for Buttigieg’s resignation.

    “Anybody who has seen fit to get on television and talk about this incident, talk about this issue, can do right by the people of East Palestine and everybody else who lives near a railroad,” Buttigieg told CNN. “Not just when it comes to this case, but when it comes to the future, by getting on the right side of this issue, and helping to raise – not lower – the bar of accountability for the railroad industry.”

    Biden on Wednesday posted on Instagram about his phone call with his EPA Administrator Michael Regan and officials from Ohio and Pennsylvania to discuss the East Palestine situation. He also accused the Trump administration of limiting the ability to strengthen rail safety measures and said some of his current Republican critics were trying to dismantle the EPA.

    “The Department of Transportation has made clear to rail companies that their pattern of resisting safety regulations has got to change,” the caption stated. “Congress should join us in implementing rail safety measures. But the Department of Transportation is limited in the rail safety measures they can implement. Why? For years, elected officials – including the last (administration) – have limited our ability to implement and strengthen rail safety measures.”

    Following repeated calls for Buttigieg to visit the Ohio site, the secretary said earlier this week that he intended to visit East Palestine when the time was right. And then on Wednesday, DOT announced that he would visit on Thursday.

    A DOT spokesperson said Buttigieg had planned to go when it was “appropriate and wouldn’t detract from the emergency response efforts. The Secretary is going now that the EPA has said it is moving out of the emergency response phase and transitioning to the long-term remediation phase.”

    Source link

  • CBS Evening News, February 21, 2023

    CBS Evening News, February 21, 2023

    CBS Evening News, February 21, 2023 – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Biden slams Russian brutality in Ukraine; Jimmy Carter celebrated at trading post in Plains, Georgia.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • Biden slams Russian brutality in Ukraine

    Biden slams Russian brutality in Ukraine

    Biden slams Russian brutality in Ukraine – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    On the eve of the one-year mark of the war in Ukraine, President Biden in Warsaw and President Vladimir Putin in Moscow had dueling messages. Mr. Biden vowed that Russia will never win in Ukraine and accused Putin and the Russian military of committing atrocities. Ed O’Keefe has the details.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • How an old debate previews Biden’s new strategy for winning senior voters | CNN Politics

    How an old debate previews Biden’s new strategy for winning senior voters | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    In pressing Republicans on Social Security and Medicare, President Joe Biden is reprising one of the most dramatic moments of his long career.

    During the 2012 vice-presidential debate, Biden engaged in a nearly 11-minute exchange with GOP nominee Paul Ryan over Republican plans to reconfigure the two massive programs for the elderly, several of which Ryan had authored himself.

    Biden and many Democrats felt he had won the argument on stage. Yet on Election Day, Ryan and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney routed Biden and President Barack Obama among White seniors, and beat them soundly among seniors overall, exit polls found.

    That outcome underscores the obstacles facing Biden now as he tries to recapture older voters by portraying Republicans as threats to the two towers of America’s safety net for the elderly. While polls consistently show that voters trust Democrats more than Republicans to safeguard the programs, GOP presidential nominees have carried all seniors in every presidential election back to 2004 and have reached at least 58% support among White seniors in each of the past four contests, exit polls have found. Democrats have likewise consistently struggled among those nearing retirement, older working adults aged 45-64.

    Those results suggest that for most older voters, affinity for the GOP messages on other issues – particularly its resistance, in the Donald Trump era, to cultural and racial change – has outweighed their views about Social Security and Medicare. Those grooves are now cut so deeply, over so many elections, that Biden may struggle to change them much no matter how hard he rails against a range of GOP proposals that could retrench or restructure the programs.

    Biden’s charge that Republicans are threatening the two giant entitlement programs for the elderly – which triggered his striking back and forth exchanges with GOP legislators during the State of the Union – fits squarely in his broader political positioning as he turns toward his expected reelection campaign.

    As I’ve written, the 80-year-old Biden, at his core, “remains something like a pre-1970s Democrat, who is most comfortable with a party focused less on cultural crusades than on delivering kitchen-table benefits to people who work with their hands.” As president he’s expressed that inclination primarily through what he calls his “blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America” – the planks in his economic plans, such as generous incentives to revive domestic manufacturing, aimed at creating more opportunity for workers without a college degree. Politically, Biden’s staunch defense of Social Security and Medicare, programs critical to the economic security of financially vulnerable retirees, represents a logical bookend to that emphasis.

    “We all know that whose side you are on is a critical debate point for every election and this debate over Social Security and Medicare really helps crystallize whose side Biden is on versus whose side Republicans are on in a very effective way for him,” said Democratic pollster Matt Hogan, who helped conduct an extensive series of bipartisan polls during the 2022 campaign measuring attitudes among seniors for the AARP, the giant lobby for the elderly.

    From Franklin Roosevelt through Hubert Humphrey and Tip O’Neill, generations of Democrats have framed themselves as the defenders of the social safety net for seniors against Republicans who they say would unravel it. Biden showed how comfortable he was stepping into those shoes during his 2012 vice-presidential debate with Ryan, then a young representative from Wisconsin who Romney had selected as his running mate.

    Nearly 30 years Biden’s junior, Ryan was an unflinching advocate of restructuring Social Security and Medicare to reduce costs over time. In particular, Ryan was the principal supporter of a conservative plan to convert Medicare, the giant federal health insurance program for the elderly, into a system called “premium support.” Under that proposal, Medicare would be transformed from its current structure, in which the government directly pays doctors and hospitals who provide care for beneficiaries, into a voucher (or “premium support”) system, in which the government would provide recipients a fixed sum to purchase private insurance. Ryan had also drafted proposals to partially privatize Social Security by allowing workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts, a change that would have reduced the tax dollars flowing into the system and eventually required substantial cuts in guaranteed benefits.

    For nearly 11 minutes during the debate in October 2012, moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC skillfully guided Biden and Ryan through a heated, but civil and substantive, discussion of Social Security and Medicare’s future. Ryan insisted that changes were needed to preserve the programs’ long-term viability and that current seniors and those near retirement would not see their benefits reduced.

    Biden appealed openly to the Democrats’ historic image as the programs’ protectors and condemned Ryan and the GOP for wanting to partially privatize them. At one point in the debate, Biden declared: “we will be no part of a [Medicare] voucher program or the privatization of Social Security.” A few moments later, he insisted: “These guys haven’t been big on Medicare from the beginning. And they’ve always been about Social Security as little as you can do. Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this?”

    At the time, Democrats felt Biden had at least held his own, restoring the party’s momentum after Obama’s surprisingly listless performance eight days earlier in his first debate against Romney. And Democrats through the rest of the campaign railed against the Republican ticket as a threat to Social Security and Medicare.

    But on election day, those arguments did not translate into gains for Obama and Biden among seniors or the older working adults (aged 45-64) nearing retirement. As Hogan noted, the newly passed Affordable Care Act, which generated some of its funding through savings in Medicare, was extremely unpopular at the time among older voters. Obama and Biden not only lost seniors and the older working age adults, but actually ran slightly more poorly among both groups in 2012 than they did in 2008.

    In fact, no Democratic presidential nominee since Al Gore in 2000 has carried most seniors in a presidential campaign; Obama in 2008 was the only one since Gore to carry most of the older working age adults. Among older Whites, the Democratic deficit is even more pronounced: the Republican presidential nominee has carried around three-fifths of both White seniors and those nearing retirement in each of the past four elections. Biden in 2020 slightly improved on Hillary Clinton’s anemic 2016 performance with both groups, but still lost to Trump by 15 percentage points among White seniors and by 23 points among the Whites nearing retirement, according to the exit polls conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of media organizations including CNN. Biden performed especially poorly among older Whites without a college degree – an economically stressed group heavily reliant on the federal retirement programs.

    Estimates by Catalist, a Democratic targeting firm, and the Pew Research Center likewise found that Trump in both 2016 and 2020 beat his Democratic opponents among both seniors and the older working adults. Like the exit polls, the Catalist data show the Republican nominees carrying about three-fifths of White seniors and older working adults in each of the past three presidential elections.

    The story is similar in congressional contests. In House elections, the exit polls found Republicans winning all seniors and older working adults comfortably in the 2014 and 2022 midterm campaigns and narrowly carrying them even in 2018 when Democrats romped overall. In all three of those midterm congressional elections, Republicans carried about three-fifths of the near retirement White adults, while they also reached that elevated threshold among White seniors in both the 2014 and 2022 campaigns.

    Republicans have maintained these advantages with older voters despite polls showing that most Americans trust Democrats more than the GOP to protect Social Security and Medicare, and that most Americans, especially seniors, oppose the intermittently surfacing GOP proposals to partially privatize both programs.

    Politically, “Democrats have used Social Security and Medicare really a lot over the past two or three decades, maybe four decades,” said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. “The payoff has been a lot less than Democrats have generally thought it would be.”

    Could this time be different for Biden and the Democrats? Congressional Republicans have certainly provided plenty of evidence for his claim that they still hope to restructure the programs. The proposed 2023 budget by the Republican Study Committee, the members of which include about three-fourths of House Republicans, reprises the ideas of converting Medicare into a premium support system and establishing private investment accounts under Social Security, while also raising the retirement age for both programs and reducing Social Security benefits over time. And although Florida Sen. Rick Scott renounced the idea late last week, his “Rescue America” agenda did include a proposal to require Congress to reauthorize all federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare, every five years.

    These ideas have precipitated an unusual degree of open Republican dissension. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell repeatedly, and unreservedly, denounced the Scott plan until the Florida senator backed off. Trump recently released a video in which he declared the GOP should not cut “a single penny” of Social Security or Medicare benefits – which put him directly at odds with the three-fourths of House Republicans in the Republican Study Committee. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, bending more toward Trump’s position, seems unlikely to incorporate into the GOP budget plans the RSC’s most sweeping changes in Social Security and Medicare.

    Kessler believes Biden may succeed where other Democrats have failed at hurting the GOP with the issue, and he argued that the conspicuous Republican infighting demonstrates they share that concern. “We are watching a high-profile battle that I’ve never really seen before on these issues in the Republican Party,” Kessler said. “And part of it is clearly they think it’s a problem when they didn’t years ago. If they think it’s a problem, maybe it’s a problem.”

    Stuart Stevens, who served as Romney’s chief strategist in the 2012 campaign but has since become a fierce critic of the Trump-era GOP, also believes the party could face more risk over its entitlement agenda than it did back then. The reason is that he thinks the idea of sunsetting Social Security and Medicare every five years, even if Scott is trying to jettison it, may prove more immediately tangible and understandable to voters than Ryan’s complex ideas of partially privatizing both programs.

    “The question I always ask myself in campaigns is ‘are you talking about something the other side doesn’t want to talk about?’” Stevens said. “That’s probably a good sign that they are losing on the issue.”

    Whether Biden proves more effective than other recent Democrats at attracting older voters around Social Security and Medicare will likely pivot on whether seniors believe the GOP genuinely would cut the programs if given the power to do so, argued Robert Blendon, a professor emeritus at the Harvard School of Public Health, who specializes in public attitudes about the social safety net. “If the senior community actually believes that it’s being threatened it really would affect their votes,” he predicted. But, he added, “as long as they are not threatened, the other values of seniors on top issues more and more correspond with Republicans.”

    There’s no doubt about the second half of that equation. Polling has consistently found that older Whites, in particular, are more receptive than their younger counterparts to hardline Trump-era GOP messages around crime, immigration and the broader currents of racial and cultural change: for instance, about half of Whites older than 50 agree that discrimination against Whites is now as big a problem as bias against minorities, a far higher percentage than among younger Whites, according to a new national survey by the Public Religion Research Institute. Older Whites are also more likely than younger generations to lack a college degree or to identify as Christians, attributes that generally predict sympathy for GOP cultural and racial arguments.

    Through the 21st century, those cultural and racial attitudes among older White voters have consistently trumped any concerns they may hold about the Republican commitment to Social Security and Medicare. Despite Biden’s impassioned articulation of the case against the GOP, that didn’t change even in 2012 when Republicans placed on their national ticket a vice presidential nominee who directly embodied the GOP aspirations to reconfigure and retrench those programs.

    Even small changes in seniors’ preferences could have a big impact in closely balanced states with a large retiree population like Arizona and Pennsylvania. But the entrenched GOP advantage among older voters over the past two decades suggests Biden’s hopes in 2024 may pivot less on improving with the “gray” than maximizing his vote among the “brown”: the diverse, younger generations that recoil from the same Republican messages on culture and race that electrify so many older Whites.

    Source link