ReportWire

Tag: senator

  • Commentary: The U.S. Senate is a mess. He wants to fix it, from the inside

    [ad_1]

    To say the U.S. Senate has grown dysfunctional is like suggesting water is wet or the nighttime sky is dark.

    The institution that fancies itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body” is supposed to serve as a cooling saucer that tempers the more hotheaded House, applying weight and wisdom as it addresses the Great Issues of Our Time. Instead, it’s devolved into an unsightly mess of gridlock and partisan hackery.

    Part of that is owing to the filibuster, one of the Senate’s most distinctive features, which over roughly the last decade has been abused and misused to a point it’s become, in the words of congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein, a singular “weapon of mass obstruction.”

    Democrat Jeff Merkley, the junior U.S. senator from Oregon, has spent years on a mostly one-man crusade aimed at reforming the filibuster and restoring a bit of sunlight and self-discipline to the chamber.

    In 2022, Merkley and his allies came within two votes of modifying the filibuster for voting rights legislation. He continues scouring for support for a broader overhaul.

    “This is essential for people to see what their representatives are debating and then have the opportunity to weigh in,” said Merkley, speaking from the Capitol after a vote on the Senate floor.

    “Without the public being able to see the obstruction,” he said, “they [can’t] really respond to it.”

    What follows is a discussion of congressional process, but before your eyes glaze over, you should understand that process is what determines the way many things are accomplished — or not — in Washington, D.C.

    The filibuster, which has changed over time, involves how long senators are allowed to speak on the Senate floor. Unlike the House, which has rules limiting debate, the Senate has no restrictions, unless a vote is taken to specifically end discussion and bring a matter to resolution. More on that in a moment.

    In the broadest sense, the filibuster is a way to protect the interests of a minority of senators, as well as their constituents, by allowing a small but determined number of lawmakers — or even a lone member — to prevent a vote by commanding the floor and talking nonstop.

    Perhaps the most famous, and certainly the most romanticized, version of a filibuster took place in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The fictitious Sen. Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart, talks to the point of exhausted collapse as a way of garnering national notice and exposing political corruption.

    The filibustering James Stewart received an Oscar nomination for lead actor for his portrayal of Sen. Jefferson Smith in the 1939 classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

    (From the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences)

    In the Frank Capra classic, the good guy wins. (It’s Hollywood, after all.) In real life, the filibuster has often been used for less noble purpose, most notably the decades-long thwarting of civil rights legislation.

    A filibuster used to be a rare thing, its power holstered for all but the most important issues. But in recent years that’s changed, drastically. The filibuster — or, rather, the threat of a filibuster — has become almost routine.

    In part, that’s because of how easy it’s become to gum up the Senate.

    Members no longer need to hold the floor and talk nonstop, testing not just the power of their argument but their physical mettle and bladder control. These days it’s enough for a lawmaker to simply state their intention to filibuster. Typically, legislation is then laid aside as the Senate moves on to other business.

    That pain-free approach has changed the very nature of the filibuster, Ornstein said, and transformed how the Senate operates, much to its detriment.

    The burden is “supposed to be on the minority to really put itself … on the line to generate a larger debate” — a la the fictive Jefferson Smith — “and hope during the course of it that they can turn opinions around,” said Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “What’s happened is the burden has shifted to the majority [to break a filibuster], which is a bastardization of what the filibuster is supposed to be about.”

    It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, by invoking cloture, to use Senate terminology. That means the passage of legislation now effectively requires a supermajority of the 100-member Senate. (There are workarounds, which, for instance, allowed President Trump’s massive tax-and-spending bill to pass on a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaker.)

    The filibuster gives outsized power to the minority.

    To offer but two examples, there is strong public support for universal background checks for gun buyers and greater transparency in campaign finance. Both issues have majority backing in the Senate. No matter. Legislation to achieve each has repeatedly been filibustered to death.

    That’s where Merkley would step in.

    He would not eliminate the filibuster, a prerogative jealously guarded by members of both parties. (In a rare show of independence, Republican senators rejected President Trump’s call to scrap the filibuster to end the recent government shutdown.)

    Rather, Merkley would eliminate what’s come to be called “the silent filibuster” and force lawmakers to actually take the floor and publicly press their case until they prevail, give up or physically give out. “My reform is based on the premise that the minority should have a voice,” he said, “but not a veto.”

    Forcing senators to stand and deliver would make it more difficult to filibuster, ending its promiscuous overuse, Merkley suggested, and — ideally— engaging the public in a way privately messaging fellow senators — I dissent! — does not.

    “Because it’s so visible publicly,” Merkley said, “the American citizens get to weigh in, and there’s consequences. They may frame you as a hero for your obstruction, or a bum, and that has a reflection in the next election.”

    The power to repair itself rests entirely within the Senate, where lawmakers set their own rules and can change them as they see fit. (Nice work, if you can get it.)

    The filibuster has been tweaked before. In 1917, senators adopted the rule allowing cloture if a two-thirds majority voted to end debate. In 1975, the Senate reduced that number to three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members.

    More recently, Democrats changed the rules to prevent filibustering most presidential nominations. Republicans extended that to include Supreme Court nominees.

    Reforming the filibuster is hardly a cure-all. The Senate has debased itself by ceding much of its authority and becoming little more than an arm of the Trump White House. Fixing that requires more than a procedural revamp.

    But forcing lawmakers to stand their ground, argue their case and seek to rally voters instead of lifting a pinkie and grinding the Senate to a halt? That’s something worth talking about.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • President Trump signs government funding bill, ending shutdown after a record 43-day disruption

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump signed a government funding bill Wednesday night, ending a record 43-day shutdown that caused financial stress for federal workers who went without paychecks, stranded scores of travelers at airports and generated long lines at some food banks.The shutdown magnified partisan divisions in Washington as Trump took unprecedented unilateral actions — including canceling projects and trying to fire federal workers — to pressure Democrats into relenting on their demands.The Republican president blamed the situation on Democrats and suggested voters shouldn’t reward the party during next year’s midterm elections.“So I just want to tell the American people, you should not forget this,” Trump said. “When we come up to midterms and other things, don’t forget what they’ve done to our country.”The signing ceremony came just hours after the House passed the measure on a mostly party-line vote of 222-209. The Senate had already passed the measure Monday.Democrats wanted to extend an enhanced tax credit expiring at the end of the year that lowers the cost of health coverage obtained through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They refused to go along with a short-term spending bill that did not include that priority. But Republicans said that was a separate policy fight to be held at another time.“We told you 43 days ago from bitter experience that government shutdowns don’t work,” said Rep. Tom Cole, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “They never achieve the objective that you announce. And guess what? You haven’t achieved that objective yet, and you’re not going to.”The frustration and pressures generated by the shutdown were reflected when lawmakers debated the spending measure on the House floor.Republicans said Democrats sought to use the pain generated by the shutdown to prevail in a policy dispute.”They knew it would cause pain and they did it anyway,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said.Democrats said Republicans raced to pass tax breaks earlier this year that they say mostly will benefit the wealthy. But the bill before the House Wednesday “leaves families twisting in the wind with zero guarantee there will ever, ever be a vote to extend tax credits to help everyday people pay for their health care,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats would not give up on the subsidy extension even if the vote did not go their way.”This fight is not over,” Jeffries said. “We’re just getting started.”The House had not been in legislative session since Sept. 19, when it passed a short-term measure to keep the government open when the new budget year began in October. Johnson sent lawmakers home after that vote and put the onus on the Senate to act, saying House Republicans had done their job.What’s in the bill to end the shutdownThe legislation is the result of a deal reached by eight senators who broke ranks with the Democrats after reaching the conclusion that Republicans would not bend on using a government funding to bill to extend the health care tax credits.The compromise funds three annual spending bills and extends the rest of government funding through Jan. 30. Republicans promised to hold a vote by mid-December to extend the health care subsidies, but there is no guarantee of success.The bill includes a reversal of the firing of federal workers by the Trump administration since the shutdown began. It also protects federal workers against further layoffs through January and guarantees they are paid once the shutdown is over. The bill for the Agriculture Department means people who rely on key food assistance programs will see those benefits funded without threat of interruption through the rest of the budget year.The package includes $203.5 million to boost security for lawmakers and an additional $28 million for the security of Supreme Court justices.Democrats also decried language in the bill that would give senators the opportunity to sue when a federal agency or employee searches their electronic records without notifying them, allowing for up to $500,000 in potential damages for each violation.The language seems aimed at helping Republican senators pursue damages if their phone records were analyzed by the FBI as part of an investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. The provisions drew criticism from Republicans as well. Johnson said he was “very angry about it.””That was dropped in at the last minute, and I did not appreciate that, nor did most of the House members,” Johnson said, promising a vote on the matter as early as next week.The biggest point of contention, though, was the fate of the expiring enhanced tax credit that makes health insurance more affordable through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.”It’s a subsidy on top of a subsidy. Our friends added it during COVID,” Cole said. “COVID is over. They set a date certain that the subsidies would run out. They chose the date.”Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the enhanced tax credit was designed to give more people access to health care and no Republican voted for it.”All they have done is try to eliminate access to health care in our country. The country is catching on to them,” Pelosi said.Without the enhanced tax credit, premiums on average will more than double for millions of Americans. More than 2 million people would lose health insurance coverage altogether next year, the Congressional Budget Office projected.Health care debate aheadIt’s unclear whether the parties will find any common ground on health care before the December vote in the Senate. Johnson has said he will not commit to bringing it up in his chamber.Some Republicans have said they are open to extending the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits as premiums will soar for millions of people, but they also want new limits on who can receive the subsidies. Some argue that the tax dollars for the plans should be routed through individuals rather than go directly to insurance companies.Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Monday that she was supportive of extending the tax credits with changes, such as new income caps. Some Democrats have signaled they could be open to that idea.House Democrats expressed great skepticism that the Senate effort would lead to a breakthrough.Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Republicans have wanted to repeal the health overhaul for the past 15 years. “That’s where they’re trying to go,” she said.When could things return to normal?While the shutdown will end tonight, the return to pre-shutdown status will not be immediate. Air travel is expected to experience lingering impacts, as the transportation secretary noted that the speed of recovery will depend on how quickly air traffic controllers return to work, with many having retired during the shutdown. The FAA administrator stated that air traffic controllers will receive their full back pay within a week, but it remains unclear how quickly other federal workers will be compensated. In previous shutdowns, it took up to eight weeks for some workers to receive back pay.Regarding SNAP benefits, the American Public Human Services Association anticipates that most states will issue full benefits within three days after the shutdown ends, though some states may take about a week due to complications from issuing partial benefits during the shutdown. The Small Business Administration has indicated that once the government reopens, it will immediately begin processing and approving loans for small businesses. ___Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump signed a government funding bill Wednesday night, ending a record 43-day shutdown that caused financial stress for federal workers who went without paychecks, stranded scores of travelers at airports and generated long lines at some food banks.

    The shutdown magnified partisan divisions in Washington as Trump took unprecedented unilateral actions — including canceling projects and trying to fire federal workers — to pressure Democrats into relenting on their demands.

    The Republican president blamed the situation on Democrats and suggested voters shouldn’t reward the party during next year’s midterm elections.

    “So I just want to tell the American people, you should not forget this,” Trump said. “When we come up to midterms and other things, don’t forget what they’ve done to our country.”

    The signing ceremony came just hours after the House passed the measure on a mostly party-line vote of 222-209. The Senate had already passed the measure Monday.

    Democrats wanted to extend an enhanced tax credit expiring at the end of the year that lowers the cost of health coverage obtained through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They refused to go along with a short-term spending bill that did not include that priority. But Republicans said that was a separate policy fight to be held at another time.

    “We told you 43 days ago from bitter experience that government shutdowns don’t work,” said Rep. Tom Cole, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “They never achieve the objective that you announce. And guess what? You haven’t achieved that objective yet, and you’re not going to.”

    The frustration and pressures generated by the shutdown were reflected when lawmakers debated the spending measure on the House floor.

    Republicans said Democrats sought to use the pain generated by the shutdown to prevail in a policy dispute.

    “They knew it would cause pain and they did it anyway,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said.

    Democrats said Republicans raced to pass tax breaks earlier this year that they say mostly will benefit the wealthy. But the bill before the House Wednesday “leaves families twisting in the wind with zero guarantee there will ever, ever be a vote to extend tax credits to help everyday people pay for their health care,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

    Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats would not give up on the subsidy extension even if the vote did not go their way.

    “This fight is not over,” Jeffries said. “We’re just getting started.”

    The House had not been in legislative session since Sept. 19, when it passed a short-term measure to keep the government open when the new budget year began in October. Johnson sent lawmakers home after that vote and put the onus on the Senate to act, saying House Republicans had done their job.

    What’s in the bill to end the shutdown

    The legislation is the result of a deal reached by eight senators who broke ranks with the Democrats after reaching the conclusion that Republicans would not bend on using a government funding to bill to extend the health care tax credits.

    The compromise funds three annual spending bills and extends the rest of government funding through Jan. 30. Republicans promised to hold a vote by mid-December to extend the health care subsidies, but there is no guarantee of success.

    The bill includes a reversal of the firing of federal workers by the Trump administration since the shutdown began. It also protects federal workers against further layoffs through January and guarantees they are paid once the shutdown is over. The bill for the Agriculture Department means people who rely on key food assistance programs will see those benefits funded without threat of interruption through the rest of the budget year.

    The package includes $203.5 million to boost security for lawmakers and an additional $28 million for the security of Supreme Court justices.

    Democrats also decried language in the bill that would give senators the opportunity to sue when a federal agency or employee searches their electronic records without notifying them, allowing for up to $500,000 in potential damages for each violation.

    The language seems aimed at helping Republican senators pursue damages if their phone records were analyzed by the FBI as part of an investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. The provisions drew criticism from Republicans as well. Johnson said he was “very angry about it.”

    “That was dropped in at the last minute, and I did not appreciate that, nor did most of the House members,” Johnson said, promising a vote on the matter as early as next week.

    The biggest point of contention, though, was the fate of the expiring enhanced tax credit that makes health insurance more affordable through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

    “It’s a subsidy on top of a subsidy. Our friends added it during COVID,” Cole said. “COVID is over. They set a date certain that the subsidies would run out. They chose the date.”

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the enhanced tax credit was designed to give more people access to health care and no Republican voted for it.

    “All they have done is try to eliminate access to health care in our country. The country is catching on to them,” Pelosi said.

    Without the enhanced tax credit, premiums on average will more than double for millions of Americans. More than 2 million people would lose health insurance coverage altogether next year, the Congressional Budget Office projected.

    Health care debate ahead

    It’s unclear whether the parties will find any common ground on health care before the December vote in the Senate. Johnson has said he will not commit to bringing it up in his chamber.

    Some Republicans have said they are open to extending the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits as premiums will soar for millions of people, but they also want new limits on who can receive the subsidies. Some argue that the tax dollars for the plans should be routed through individuals rather than go directly to insurance companies.

    Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Monday that she was supportive of extending the tax credits with changes, such as new income caps. Some Democrats have signaled they could be open to that idea.

    House Democrats expressed great skepticism that the Senate effort would lead to a breakthrough.

    Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Republicans have wanted to repeal the health overhaul for the past 15 years. “That’s where they’re trying to go,” she said.

    When could things return to normal?

    While the shutdown will end tonight, the return to pre-shutdown status will not be immediate. Air travel is expected to experience lingering impacts, as the transportation secretary noted that the speed of recovery will depend on how quickly air traffic controllers return to work, with many having retired during the shutdown.

    The FAA administrator stated that air traffic controllers will receive their full back pay within a week, but it remains unclear how quickly other federal workers will be compensated. In previous shutdowns, it took up to eight weeks for some workers to receive back pay.

    Regarding SNAP benefits, the American Public Human Services Association anticipates that most states will issue full benefits within three days after the shutdown ends, though some states may take about a week due to complications from issuing partial benefits during the shutdown.

    The Small Business Administration has indicated that once the government reopens, it will immediately begin processing and approving loans for small businesses.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Commentary: He’s loud. He’s obnoxious. And Kamala Harris can only envy JD Vance

    [ad_1]

    JD Vance, it seems, is everywhere.

    Berating Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. Eulogizing Charlie Kirk. Babysitting the Middle East peace accord. Profanely defending the aquatic obliteration of (possible) drug smugglers.

    He’s loud, he’s obnoxious and, in a very short time, he’s broken unprecedented ground with his smash-face, turn-it-to-11 approach to the vice presidency. Unlike most White House understudies, who effectively disappear like a protected witness, Vance has become the highest-profile, most pugnacious politician in America who is not named Donald J. Trump.

    It’s quite the contrast with his predecessor.

    Kamala Harris made her own kind of history, as the first woman, first Black person and first Asian American to serve as vice president. As such, she entered office bearing great — and vastly unrealistic — expectations about her prominence and the public role she would play in the Biden administration. When Harris acted the way that vice presidents normally do — subservient, self-effacing, careful never to poach the spotlight from the chief executive — it was seen as a failing.

    By the end of her first year in office, “whatever happened to Kamala Harris?” had become a political buzz phrase.

    No one’s asking that about JD Vance.

    Why is that? Because that’s how President Trump wants it.

    “Rule No.1 about the vice presidency is that vice presidents are only as active as their presidents want them to be,” said Jody Baumgartner, an East Carolina University expert on the office. “They themselves are irrelevant.”

    Consider Trump’s first vice president, Mike Pence, who had the presence and pizzazz of day-old mashed potatoes.

    “He was not a very powerful vice president, but that’s because Donald Trump didn’t want him to be,” said Christopher Devine, a University of Dayton professor who’s published four books on the vice presidency. “He wanted him to have very little influence and to be more of a background figure, to kind of reassure quietly the conservatives of the party that Trump was on the right track. With JD Vance, I think he wants him to be a very active, visible figure.”

    In fact, Trump seems to be grooming Vance as a successor in a way that Joe Biden never did with Harris. The 46th president practically had to be bludgeoned into standing aside after the Democratic freakout over his wretched, career-ending debate performance. (Things might be different with Vance if Trump could override the Constitution and fulfill his fantasy of seeking a third term in the White House.)

    There were other circumstances that kept Harris under wraps, particularly in the early part of Biden’s presidency.

    One was the COVID-19 lockdown. “It meant she wasn’t traveling. She wasn’t doing public events,” said Joel K. Goldstein, another author and expert on the vice presidency. “A lot of stuff was being done virtually and so that tended to be constraining.”

    The Democrats’ narrow control of the Senate also required Harris to stick close to Washington so she could cast a number of tie-breaking votes. (Under the Constitution, the vice president provides the deciding vote when the Senate is equally divided. Harris set a record in the third year of her vice presidency for casting the most tie-breakers in history.)

    The personality of their bosses also explains why Harris and Vance approached the vice presidency in different ways.

    Biden had spent nearly half a century in Washington, as a senator and vice president under Barack Obama. He was, foremost, a creature of the legislative process and saw Harris, who’d served nearly two decades in elected office, as a (junior) partner in governing.

    Trump came to politics through celebrity. He is, foremost, a pitchman and promoter. He saw Vance as a way to turn up the volume.

    Ohio’s senator had served barely 18 months in his one and only political position when Trump chose Vance as his running mate. He’d “really made his mark as a media and cultural figure,” Devine noted, with Vance’s memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” regarded as a kind of Rosetta Stone for the anger and resentment that fueled the MAGA movement.

    Trump “wanted someone who was going to be aggressive in advancing the MAGA narrative,” Devine said, “being very present in media, including in some newer media spaces, on podcasts, social media. Vance was someone who could hammer home Trump’s message every day.”

    The contrast continued once Harris and Vance took office.

    Biden handed his vice president a portfolio of tough and weighty issues, among them addressing the root causes of illegal migration from Central America. (They were “impossible, s— jobs,” in the blunt assessment that Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, offered in her recent campaign memoir.)

    Trump has treated Vance as a sort of heat-seeking rhetorical missile, turning him loose against his critics and acting as though the presidential campaign never ended.

    Vance seems gladly submissive. Harris, who was her own boss for nearly two decades, had a hard time adjusting as Biden’s No. 2.

    “Vance is very effective at playing the role of backup singer who gets to have a solo from time to time,” said Jamal Simmons, who spent a year as Harris’ vice presidential communications chief. “I don’t think Kamala Harris was ever as comfortable in the role as Vance has proven himself to be.”

    Will Vance’s pugilistic approach pay off in 2028? It’s way too soon to say. Turning the conventions of the vice presidency to a shambles, the way Trump did with the presidency, has delighted many in the Republican base. But polls show Vance, like Trump, is deeply unpopular with a great number of voters.

    As for Harris, all she can do is look on from her exile in Brentwood, pondering what might have been.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Senate approves shutdown deal as Democrats balk at lack of healthcare relief

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Senate gave final approval Monday night to a deal that could end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, sending it to the House, where Democrats are launching a last-ditch effort to block the measure because it does not address healthcare costs.

    Senators approved the shutdown deal on a 60-40 vote, a day after Senate Republicans reached a deal with eight senators who caucus with Democrats. The movement in the Senate prompted Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) earlier on Monday to urge House members to start making their way back to Washington, anticipating that the chamber will be ready to vote on the bill later in the week.

    The spending plan, which does not include an extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year, has frustrated many Democrats who spent seven weeks pressuring Republicans to extend the tax credits. It would, however, fund the government through January, reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown and ensure that federal employees who were furloughed receive back pay.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) also promised senators a vote in December that would put lawmakers on record on the healthcare subsidies. Thune said in a speech Monday that he was “grateful that the end is in sight” with the compromise.

    “Let’s get it done, get it over to the House so we can get this government open,” he said.

    Senate Democrats who defected have argued that a December vote on subsidies is the best deal they could get as the minority party, and that forcing vulnerable Republicans in the chamber to vote on the issue will help them win ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

    As the Senate prepared to vote on the deal Monday, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader of the chamber, continued to reiterate his opposition to what he called a “Republican bill.” Schumer, who has faced backlash from Democrats for losing members of his caucus, said the bill “fails to do anything of substance to fix America’s healthcare crisis.”

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) speaks to reporters about the government shutdown.

    (Mariam Zuhaib / Associated Press)

    Thune’s promise to allow a vote in the Senate does not guarantee a favorable outcome for Democrats, who would need to secure Republican votes for passage through the chamber. And the chance to address healthcare costs will be made even harder by Johnson, who has not committed to holding a vote on his chamber in the future.

    “I’m not promising anybody anything,” he said. “I’m going to let the process play out.”

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), meanwhile, told reporters that House Democrats will continue to make the case that extending the subsidies is what Americans are demanding from elected officials, and that there is still a fight to be waged in the chamber — even if it is a long shot.

    “What we are going to continue to do as House Democrats is to partner with our allies throughout America is to wage the fight, to stay in the Colosseum,” Jeffries said at a news conference.

    Some Republicans have agreed with Democrats during the shutdown that healthcare costs need to be addressed, but it is unlikely that House Democrats will be able to build enough bipartisan support to block the deal in the chamber.

    Still, Jeffries said the “loudmouths” in the Republican Party who want to do something about healthcare costs have an opportunity to act now that the House is expected to be back in session.

    “They can no longer hide. They can no longer hide,” Jeffries said. “They are not going to be able to hide this week when they return from their vacation.”

    Democrats believed that fighting for an extension of healthcare tax credits, even at the expense of shutting down the government, would highlight their messaging on affordability, a political platform that helped lead their party to victory in elections across the country last week.

    If the tax credits are allowed to lapse at the end of the year, millions of Americans are expected to see their monthly premiums double.

    In California, premiums for federally subsidized plans available through Covered California will soar by 97% on average next year.

    Two men.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune answers questions Monday about a possible end to the government shutdown after eight members of the Democratic caucus broke ranks and voted with Republicans.

    (J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

    California’s U.S. senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, were among the Democrats who voted against the deal to reopen the government because it did not address healthcare costs.

    “We owe our constituents better than this. We owe a resolution that makes it possible for them to afford healthcare,” Schiff said in a video Sunday night.

    Some Republicans too have warned that their party faces backlash in the midterm elections next year if it doesn’t come up with a more comprehensive health plan.

    “We have always been open to finding solutions to reduce the oppressive cost of healthcare under the unaffordable care act,” Johnson said Monday.

    Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, for one, supported an expeditious vote to reopen the government but insisted on a vote to eliminate language from the spending deal he said would “unfairly target Kentucky’s hemp industry.” His amendment did get a vote and was eventually rejected on a 76-24 vote Monday night.

    With the bill headed to the House, Republicans expect to have the votes to pass it, Johnson said.

    Any piece of legislation needs to be approved by both the Senate and House and be signed by the president.

    Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, President Trump said he would support the legislative deal to reopen the government.

    “We’re going to be opening up our country,” Trump said. “Too bad it was closed, but we’ll be opening up our country very quickly.”

    Trump added that he would abide by a provision that would require his administration to reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown.

    “The deal is very good,” he said.

    Johnson said he spoke to the president on Sunday night and described Trump as “very anxious” to reopen the government.

    “It’s after 40 days of wandering in the wilderness, and making the American people suffer needlessly, that some Senate Democrats finally have stepped forward to end the pain,” Johnson said. “Our long national nightmare is finally coming to an end, and we’re grateful for that.”

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos, Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • After Republican election losses, Trump pushes lawmakers to end shutdown, filibuster

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — As the federal shutdown has dragged on to become the longest in American history, President Trump has shown little interest in talks to reopen the government. But Republican losses on election day could change that.

    Trump told Republican senators at the White House on Wednesday that he believed the government shutdown “was a big factor” in the party’s poor showing against the Democrats in key races.

    “We must get the government back open soon, and really immediately,” Trump said, adding that he would speak privately with the senators to discuss what he would like to do next.

    The president’s remarks are a departure from what has largely been an apathetic response from him about reopening the government. With Congress at a stalemate for more than a month, Trump’s attention has mostly been elsewhere.

    He spent most of last week in Asia attempting to broker trade deals. Before that, much of his focus was on reaching a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas and building a $300-million White House ballroom.

    To date, Trump’s main attempt to reopen the federal government has been calling on Republican leaders to terminate the filibuster, a long-running Senate rule that requires 60 votes in the chamber to pass most legislation. Trump wants to scrap the rule — the so-called nuclear option — to allow Republicans in control of the chamber to push through legislation with a simple-majority vote.

    “If you don’t terminate the filibuster, you’ll be in bad shape,” Trump told the GOP senators and warned that with the rule in place, the party would be viewed as “do-nothing Republicans” and get “killed” in next year’s midterm elections.

    Trump’s push to end the shutdown comes as voters are increasingly disapproving of his economic agenda, according to recent polls. The trend was reinforced Tuesday as voters cast ballots with economic concerns as their main motivation, an AP poll showed. Despite those indicators, Trump told a crowd at the American Business Forum in Miami on Wednesday that he thinks “we have the greatest economy right now.”

    While Trump has not acknowledged fault in his economic agenda, he has began to express concern that the ongoing shutdown may be hurting Republicans. Those concerns have led him to push Republicans to eliminate the filibuster, a move that has put members of his party in a tough spot.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has resisted the pressure, calling the filibuster an “important tool” that keeps the party in control of the chamber in check.

    The 60-vote threshold allowed Republicans to block a “whole host of terrible Democrat policies” when they were in the minority last year, Thune said in an interview Monday with Fox News Radio’s “Guy Benson Show.”

    “I shudder to think how much worse it would’ve been without the legislative filibuster,” he said. “The truth is that if we were to do their dirty work for them, and that is essentially what we would be doing, we would own all the crap they are going to do if and when they get the chance to do it.”

    Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said last week he is a “firm no on eliminating it.”

    “The filibuster forces us to find common ground in the Senate. Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t,” Curtis said in a social media post.

    As the government shutdown stretched into its 36th day Wednesday, Trump continued to show no interest in negotiating with Democrats, who are refusing to vote on legislation to reopen the government that does not include a deal on healthcare.

    Budget negotiations deadlocked as Democrats tried to force Republicans to extend federal healthcare tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year. If those credits expire, millions of Americans are expected to see the cost of their premiums spike.

    With negotiations stalled, Trump said in an interview aired Sunday that he “won’t be extorted” by their demands to extend the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.

    On Wednesday, Democratic legislative leaders sent a letter to Trump demanding a bipartisan meeting to “end the GOP shutdown of the federal government and decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis.”

    “Democrats stand ready to meet with you face to face, anytime and anyplace,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both from New York, wrote in a letter to Trump.

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Democrats’ letter.

    “The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” Schumer told the Associated Press.

    Trump’s remarks Wednesday signal that he is more interested in a partisan approach to ending the shutdown.

    “It is time for Republicans to do what they have to do and that is to terminate the filibuster,” Trump told GOP senators. “It’s the only way you can do it.”

    If Republicans don’t do it, Trump argued Senate Democrats will do so the next time they are in a majority.

    Democrats have not signaled any intent to end the filibuster in the future, but Trump has claimed otherwise and argued that it is up to Republicans to “do it first.”

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Moore taps state senator, former sheriff, to lead Maryland State Police – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Sen. Michael Jackson will take over for Col. Roland L. Butler, who is set to retire from superintendent’s job next month.

    This article was republished with permission from WTOP’s news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for Maryland Matters’ free email subscription today.

    Gov. Wes Moore (D) tapped Sen. Michael A. Jackson (D-Calvert, Charles & Prince George’s) as the next superintendent of the Maryland State Police Friday, replacing Col. Roland L. Butler who is set to retire Nov. 1.

    Before he was elected to the legislature, Jackson spent 22 years in the Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Office, the last eight, from 2002-2010, as elected sheriff. He was elected to the House of Delegates in 2014 and appointed to the Senate in 2021, winning reelection to the seat in 2022. He serves on the Budget and Taxation Committee.

    “He’s one of our best members,” Senate Majority Leader Nancy King (D-Montgomery) said of Jackson’s work on the commitee “I’m thrilled for him. It’s a good opportunity for him. That makes me sad because he’s a really good friend and he’s really good on Budget and Tax.”

    Butler took the helm at the State Police in early 2023, shortly after Moore’s inauguration. He became the first Black superintendent of the State Police in the agency’s history.

    In a statement Friday afternoon, Moore applauded Butler for 31 years in law enforcement, calling him a “true public servant.”

    “During Colonel Butler’s tenure at the helm of State Police, Maryland has become a national leader in crime reduction and public safety gains. He leaves behind a profound legacy as he enters retirement,” Moore said. “And I also know Senator Michael A. Jackson—an exceptional public servant in his own right—will build on the foundation Colonel Butler laid.”

    Butler took the job after a lengthy career in the State Police, including time as chief of the Field Operations Bureau. But he faced a difficult confirmation battle, as a group of Black lawmakers argued that Butler had not done enough to promote diversity and address complaints of racism and discriminatory treatment of Black officers.

    At the time, Jackson was one of four senators, all from Prince George’s County, to vote against Butler.

    Last year, the State Police agreed to pay $2.75 million to settle a Justice Department investigation that found written and physical hiring tests used by the department discriminated against Black and female applicants.

    The investigation in that began in 2022, before Butler’s tenure, and the funds were to be divided between 48 failed applicants. President Donald Trump’s (R) administration has since signaled that it intends to walk away from similar suits around the country.

    Butler plans to retire Nov. 1, Moore said, and Jackson will take over Nov. 12. Lt. Col. Daniel C. Pickett will serve as superintendent in the interim.

    — Reporter William J. Ford contributed to this report, which may be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Valerie Bonk

    Source link

  • Ohio Moves to Make Charlie Kirk Memorial Day Official

    [ad_1]

    Source: zrfphoto / Getty

    Ohio lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 271, proposing to designate October 14 as Charlie Kirk Memorial Day in honor of the conservative activist.

    The bill comes from Senator Al Cutrona of Canfield and carries a single line: it would officially recognize Kirk’s birthday as a day of remembrance in the state. The proposal appears less as a holiday with closures and more as an honorary observance.

    Supporters claim the measure would offer a way for Ohioans to reflect on political violence and the life of a nationally known figure. Critics argue Ohio already honors many figures and that the bill elevates a divisive voice at a time of political grief. Some are questioning whether such memorials should proceed before investigations into Kirk’s assassination conclude.

    As the state debates the move, Ohio residents observe memorials and vigils already held across college campuses and religious gatherings. Lawmakers in both parties have publicly condemned political violence and expressed sympathy for the Kirk family.

    While Bill 271 faces committee review, supporters hope it passes before the next session ends. Even if it fails this year, the legislation sets the stage for future attempts to formalize Kirk’s place in Ohio’s commemorative calendar.

    Ohio Dispensaries See Surge in Demand After Pre-Rolls Go Live

    Ohio Makes $700M in First Year of Recreational Marijuana Sales

    25 Most Dangerous Cities In Ohio

    [ad_2]

    Matty Willz

    Source link

  • LIVE: Former CDC chief Susan Monarez testifies RFK Jr. fired her over vaccine science

    [ad_1]

    Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez testified before senators on Wednesday that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired her after she refused to endorse forthcoming vaccine recommendations without reviewing scientific evidence to support the guidance.Watch a livestream of the hearing in the video player above.Monarez was ousted just 29 days into the job, over disagreement with her boss on vaccine policies.Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, who chairs the powerful health committee Monarez is appearing before, expressed skepticism over the explanations Kennedy has given over her firing. He carefully praised President Donald Trump for his commitment to promoting health among Americans but made it clear he was befuddled by Monarez’s removal. He noted that senators had just approved Monarez’s confirmation with Kennedy praising her “unimpeachable scientific credentials.”“Like, what happened?” Cassidy said. “Did we fail? Was there something we should have done differently?”Monarez said in her testimony that Kennedy gave her an ultimatum: “Preapprove” new vaccine recommendations from an advisory CDC panel that Kennedy has stocked with some medical experts who doubt vaccine safety or be fired. That panel is expected to vote on new vaccine recommendations later this week. He also demanded Monarez fire high-ranking, career CDC officials without cause, she said.“He said if I was unwilling to do both, I should resign. I responded that I could not preapprove recommendations without reviewing the evidence, and I had no basis for firing,” Monarez told senators. “He said he had already spoken with the White House several times.”The senate hearing will focus on the impact the turmoil at the nation’s leading public health agency, which is responsible for making vaccine recommendations to the public, will have on children’s health. It will also undoubtedly serve as an opportunity for Monarez and former Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, who was also testifying before the committee, to respond to a number of Kennedy’s contentious claims about their final days at the agency.Kennedy has denied Monarez’s accusations that he ordered “rubber-stamped” vaccine recommendations.He has described Monarez as admitting to him that she is “untrustworthy,” a claim Monarez has denied through her attorney. He did, however, acknowledge during a testy Senate hearing earlier this month that he ordered Monarez to fire several top officials at the CDC.The Senate hearing is taking place just a day before the vaccine panel starts its two-day session in Atlanta to discuss shots against COVID-19, hepatitis B and chickenpox. It’s unclear how the panel might vote on the recommendations, though members have raised doubts about whether hepatitis B shots administered to newborns are necessary and have suggested COVID-19 recommendations should be more restricted.The CDC director must endorse those recommendations before they become official. Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill, now serving as the CDC’s acting director, will be responsible for that.Monarez and Houry are expected to face tense questions from Republicans over the CDC’s vaccine recommendations and COVID-19 policies. Democrats, meanwhile, are likely to seek more information on Kennedy’s approach to vaccines.The health committee’s hearing will be overseen by Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician who cast a key vote for Kennedy’s confirmation. He has expressed concern about “serious allegations” at the CDC and has called for oversight, without blaming Kennedy.

    WASHINGTON —

    Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez testified before senators on Wednesday that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired her after she refused to endorse forthcoming vaccine recommendations without reviewing scientific evidence to support the guidance.

    Watch a livestream of the hearing in the video player above.

    Monarez was ousted just 29 days into the job, over disagreement with her boss on vaccine policies.

    Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, who chairs the powerful health committee Monarez is appearing before, expressed skepticism over the explanations Kennedy has given over her firing. He carefully praised President Donald Trump for his commitment to promoting health among Americans but made it clear he was befuddled by Monarez’s removal. He noted that senators had just approved Monarez’s confirmation with Kennedy praising her “unimpeachable scientific credentials.”

    “Like, what happened?” Cassidy said. “Did we fail? Was there something we should have done differently?”

    Monarez said in her testimony that Kennedy gave her an ultimatum: “Preapprove” new vaccine recommendations from an advisory CDC panel that Kennedy has stocked with some medical experts who doubt vaccine safety or be fired. That panel is expected to vote on new vaccine recommendations later this week. He also demanded Monarez fire high-ranking, career CDC officials without cause, she said.

    “He said if I was unwilling to do both, I should resign. I responded that I could not preapprove recommendations without reviewing the evidence, and I had no basis for firing,” Monarez told senators. “He said he had already spoken with the White House several times.”

    The senate hearing will focus on the impact the turmoil at the nation’s leading public health agency, which is responsible for making vaccine recommendations to the public, will have on children’s health. It will also undoubtedly serve as an opportunity for Monarez and former Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, who was also testifying before the committee, to respond to a number of Kennedy’s contentious claims about their final days at the agency.

    Kennedy has denied Monarez’s accusations that he ordered “rubber-stamped” vaccine recommendations.

    He has described Monarez as admitting to him that she is “untrustworthy,” a claim Monarez has denied through her attorney. He did, however, acknowledge during a testy Senate hearing earlier this month that he ordered Monarez to fire several top officials at the CDC.

    The Senate hearing is taking place just a day before the vaccine panel starts its two-day session in Atlanta to discuss shots against COVID-19, hepatitis B and chickenpox. It’s unclear how the panel might vote on the recommendations, though members have raised doubts about whether hepatitis B shots administered to newborns are necessary and have suggested COVID-19 recommendations should be more restricted.

    The CDC director must endorse those recommendations before they become official. Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill, now serving as the CDC’s acting director, will be responsible for that.

    Monarez and Houry are expected to face tense questions from Republicans over the CDC’s vaccine recommendations and COVID-19 policies. Democrats, meanwhile, are likely to seek more information on Kennedy’s approach to vaccines.

    The health committee’s hearing will be overseen by Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician who cast a key vote for Kennedy’s confirmation. He has expressed concern about “serious allegations” at the CDC and has called for oversight, without blaming Kennedy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Defiant RFK Jr. questions vaccine data, defends record under bipartisan Senate grilling

    [ad_1]

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s Health secretary and a longtime vaccine skeptic, struck a defiant tone Thursday as he faced bipartisan criticism over changes he has made to reorganize federal health agencies and vaccine policies, telling senators that he is determined to “eliminate politics from science.”

    In the testy appearance before the Senate Finance Committee, Kennedy repeatedly defended his record in heated exchanges with senators from both parties and questioned data that show the effectiveness of vaccines. In turn, senators accused him of taking actions that contradict his promise seven months earlier that he would do “nothing that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines.”

    “Secretary Kennedy, in your confirmation hearing you promised to uphold the highest standard for vaccines. Since then, I’ve grown deeply concerned,” Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, a top-ranking Senate Republican and a physician, said during the hearing.

    Kennedy forcefully denied that he has limited access to vaccines and defended his record in restoring trust in federal healthcare agencies under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    “They deserve the truth and that’s what we’re going to give them for the first time in the history of the agency,” Kennedy told senators.

    From the outset, it was expected that Democrats would slam Kennedy’s record. Some of them called on him to resign and accused him of politicizing federal health policy decisions. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said he believed Kennedy’s “primary interest is to take vaccines away from Americans.”

    “During his confirmation process, he claimed to be pro-safety and pro-science, but his actions reveal a steadfast commitment to elevating junk science and fringe conspiracies,” Wyden said.

    Criticism during the three-hour hearing also came from Republicans, in a rare rebuke of a Trump administration official from a Republican-led committee.

    Three Republicans, including Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was key in advancing Kennedy’s nomination, joined Democrats in criticizing Kennedy’s actions. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina at one point told Kennedy that remarks he gave to the panel during the confirmation process “seem to contradict” what he is doing now as Health secretary.

    The decorum usually associated with congressional hearings at times fell by the wayside. Kennedy and senators repeatedly shouted over one another, accused each other of lying and engaged in name-calling. In one instance, Kennedy told Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) that she was engaging in “crazy talk” when asked about vaccine access. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) called Kennedy a “charlatan.”

    Thursday’s session marked a peak of bipartisan frustration over a string of controversial decisions by Kennedy that have thrown his department into disarray. Kennedy dismissed an entire advisory panel responsible for vaccine recommendations and replaced its members with known vaccine skeptics. He withdrew $500 million in funding earmarked for developing vaccines against respiratory viruses. And, just last week, he ousted the newly appointed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention following disagreements over vaccine policy.

    In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Susan Monarez, the former CDC director, wrote that she was forced out after she declined to recommend people “who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric” to an influential vaccine advisory panel.

    At the hearing, Kennedy said Monarez was lying and that the shakeup at the CDC was “absolutely necessary.” He added that he fired her because he asked her if she was trustworthy, and she told him, “no.”

    “We depoliticized it and put great scientists on it from a very diverse group, very, very pro-vaccine,” he said.

    In questioning, however, members of his own party pressed him on his support for vaccines. At one point, Cassidy, a physician, read an email from a physician friend who said patients 65 and older need a prescription to get a COVID-19 shot.

    “I would say effectively we are denying people vaccines,” Cassidy said.

    “You’re wrong,” Kennedy responded.

    Under new federal guidelines approved last week, adults younger than 65 who are otherwise healthy would need to consult with a healthcare provider before getting the shot. The move has made it more difficult for people to access the COVID-19 vaccine.

    During the hearing, Kennedy said he could not say whether the COVID-19 vaccines had prevented any deaths, citing “data chaos” within the federal agency.

    “I have no idea how many lives it saved, but it saved quite a few,” he said.

    Researchers, however, have estimated that nearly 20 million lives were saved by the COVID-19 vaccines in their first year of public availability.

    In that same exchange, Cassidy asked Kennedy if he believed President Trump deserved a Nobel Prize for his administration’s work on Operation Warp Speed, the initiative that sped the development of the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments.

    “Absolutely,” Kennedy said.

    Cassidy said he was surprised at his answer because he believes Kennedy is trying to restrict access to the COVID-19 vaccine. He also expressed dismay at Kennedy’s decision to cancel $500 million in contracts to develop vaccines using mRNA technology, which Cassidy said was key to the operation.

    Kennedy’s position on vaccines has reverberated beyond Capitol Hill.

    Ahead of the hearing, more than 1,000 employees at the health agency and national health organizations called on Kennedy to resign. Seemingly in support of Kennedy’s direction, Florida announced plans to become the first state to end all vaccines mandated, including for schoolchildren. And three Democratic-led states — California, Washington and Oregon — have created an alliance to counter turmoil within the federal public health agency.

    The states said the focus of their health alliance will be on ensuring that the public has access to credible information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

    Almost as if in a parallel universe, Kennedy told senators on Thursday that his goal was to achieve the same thing, after facing hours of criticism on his vaccine policies.

    “I am not going to sign on to something if I can’t make it with scientific certainty,” he said. “It doesn’t mean I am antivax, it just means I am pro-science.”

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to face questions Thursday after recent CDC shakeups

    [ad_1]

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to face questions after recent CDC shakeups

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is set to answer tough questions from Senators following his controversial decisions regarding CDC leadership and vaccine policy changes.

    Updated: 3:35 AM PDT Sep 4, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will face serious concerns from senators on Thursday regarding his handling of public health matters, following his decision to force out the recently sworn-in CDC Director Susan Monarez and replace her with Jim O’Neill, who has a background in business.On Wednesday, more than 1,000 current and former Health and Human Services employees who worked with Kennedy called for his resignation in a letter, accusing him of prioritizing politics over science. Kennedy has been reshaping the nation’s vaccine policies and has voiced skepticism about the safety and effectiveness of long-established shots. He’ll be answering questions on Thursday before the Senate Finance Committee. “The CDC was once the world’s most trusted guardian of public health,” Kennedy said in a video message posted ahead of the hearing. “Its mission was simple and noble, protect Americans from infectious disease, but over the years, the agency drifted. Bureaucracy politicized science and mission creed corroded that mission and squandered the public trust.”Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana expressed his concerns, saying, “What I’m most interested in is restoring the confidence of the American people in public health in America, and so far that hasn’t been done.”Last week, under Kennedy’s leadership, the FDA changed COVID-19 vaccine guidelines, limiting their use for younger adults and children. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will face serious concerns from senators on Thursday regarding his handling of public health matters, following his decision to force out the recently sworn-in CDC Director Susan Monarez and replace her with Jim O’Neill, who has a background in business.

    On Wednesday, more than 1,000 current and former Health and Human Services employees who worked with Kennedy called for his resignation in a letter, accusing him of prioritizing politics over science.

    Kennedy has been reshaping the nation’s vaccine policies and has voiced skepticism about the safety and effectiveness of long-established shots. He’ll be answering questions on Thursday before the Senate Finance Committee.

    “The CDC was once the world’s most trusted guardian of public health,” Kennedy said in a video message posted ahead of the hearing. “Its mission was simple and noble, protect Americans from infectious disease, but over the years, the agency drifted. Bureaucracy politicized science and mission creed corroded that mission and squandered the public trust.”

    Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana expressed his concerns, saying, “What I’m most interested in is restoring the confidence of the American people in public health in America, and so far that hasn’t been done.”

    Last week, under Kennedy’s leadership, the FDA changed COVID-19 vaccine guidelines, limiting their use for younger adults and children.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida Senator Rick Scott Honored with ‘Pioneers for Prosperity’ Award

    Florida Senator Rick Scott Honored with ‘Pioneers for Prosperity’ Award

    [ad_1]

    Florida Senator Rick Scott was honored with the “Pioneers for Prosperity” award.

    According to Americans for Prosperity, the award honors distinguished lawmakers who were policy champions during the 118th Congress. According to AFP, these leaders are on the frontlines in Congress advancing principles and policies that drive the conservative movement, while proactively opposing harmful ideas that grow the size of government and take money out of taxpayers’ paychecks.

    The “Pioneers for Prosperity” stood firm against what they labeled ill-advised legislation that would have deepened the hardships felt by working families and worked closely with AFP in Washington as well as with grassroots communities in their home states.

    “I’m proud to be recognized by Americans for Prosperity, a great organization that advocates for the success of our nation’s families and businesses,” Republican Senator Rick Scott said. “For too long, families have seen their tax dollars wasted as they struggle to make ends meet under the Biden-Harris administration’s big government, big spending and inflation-fueling policies. I’m fighting every day to keep the American dream alive by bringing fiscal sanity and common sense back to Washington so it truly works for the American people.”

    U.S. Representatives Byron Donalds and Laurel Lee were also honored as “Pioneers for Prosperity.”

    Lawmakers earned recognition for supporting bills such as the Employee Rights Act, Strategic Production Response Act, Lower Energy Costs Act, Health Care Fairness for All Act, and other pieces of legislation that the groups said offer common-sense solutions that would improve Americans’ lives – although Democrats would disagree.

    “Florida is fortunate to have leaders in Washington who stand for policies that put hardworking Americans first,” AFP-FL State Legislative Affairs Director Chris Stranburg said. “We are thankful for these individuals who have voted for sensible reforms to keep our economy strong and government limited. Next year, we look forward to overcoming fiscal deadlines with the help of their voices.”

    AFP-FL recently met with congressional members in Washington to discuss major tax policies, including the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that are set to expire at the end of 2025 which are commonly referred to as the “fiscal cliff.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senator Rick Scott: Biden and Harris Driving America’s Economy into Ground

    Senator Rick Scott: Biden and Harris Driving America’s Economy into Ground

    [ad_1]

    Florida Senator Rick Scott slammed President Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, saying the Democrats are driving America’s economy into the ground.

    In a recent video, the Republican Senator called out the Biden-Harris administration’s failed economic policies that he said “are killing American businesses and economy.”

    “It’s no secret that Bidenomics and Harris price hikes are crushing our economy and making the American dream feel out of reach,” Florida Senator Rick Scott said. “We can only fix this problem if Washington politicians face the facts.”

    The Florida Republican incumbent wants to “stop the tax and spending spree” in order to get America’s fiscal house in order.

    Senator Scott also released an update on his actions to address the Biden-Harris administration’s economic crisis and skyrocketing inflation, along with his own quarterly economic snapshot.

    In the video, the Florida Senator points out “the soaring cost of breakfast,” and the national debt problem. He added that “choices made by Washington elites are directly impacting your bottom line.”

    Sen. Rick Scott also channeled Republican President Donald Trump in his political messaging.

    “As Florida’s U.S. Senator, I’m fighting like hell to make our economy great again so that every American can live their American dream,” the Republican concluded in the political video message.

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man Accused Of Lighting Fire Outside Bernie Sanders’ Office Had Past Brushes With The Law – KXL

    Man Accused Of Lighting Fire Outside Bernie Sanders’ Office Had Past Brushes With The Law – KXL

    [ad_1]

    (Associated Press) – The man accused of starting a fire outside U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Vermont office a week ago has had past brushes with the law involving guns and a history of traveling from place to place, prosecutors say in court filings arguing that he should remain detained.

    Security video shows Shant Michael Soghomonian throwing liquid at the bottom of a door opening into Sanders’ third-floor office in Burlington and setting it on fire with a lighter last Friday, according to an affidavit filed by a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    Seven employees working in the office at the time were unharmed and able to evacuate. The building’s interior suffered some damage from the fire and water sprinklers. Sanders, an independent, was not in the office at the time.

    Soghomonian, 35, who was previously from Northridge, California, had been staying at a South Burlington hotel for nearly two months and was spotted outside Sanders’ office the day before and the day of the fire, according to the special agent’s report.

    He is facing a charge of maliciously damaging by means of fire a building used in interstate commerce and as a place of activity affecting interstate commerce. Soghomonian is currently in custody. He was scheduled for a detention hearing on Thursday but it was postponed until next week. The Associated Press left a telephone message seeking comment with his public defender.

    Prosecutors argue that Soghomonian is a danger to the community and a flight risk and should remain detained.

    “The risk to the structure and the lives of the building’s occupants was substantial, showing the defendant’s disregard for the safety of the building’s occupants and the community at large,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Lasher wrote in his court petition. “The defendant then fled the area to avoid detection and apprehension.”

    In August, Illinois State Police who had stopped Soghomonian for a possible traffic violation seized an AK-47 rifle and two magazines from his vehicle, along with 11.5 grams of cannabis and a book titled “How to Blow up a Pipeline,” prosecutors say. The book makes “an impassioned call for the climate movement to escalate its tactics in the face of ecological collapse.”

    During the traffic stop, Soghomonian produced an invalid Oregon driver’s license, prosecutors say. He told police he was traveling to the West Coast. In August alone, his vehicle had been in New York, then Illinois, California and Pennsylvania, Lasher wrote in his petition.

    When Soghomonian was in his mid-teens, he was detained for an assault with a firearm in Glendale, California, in 2005, according to prosecutors, who say the case appears to have been later dismissed.

    “In other words, defendant has a history of itinerancy, firearms possession, and lack of candor with law enforcement, all exacerbating his risk of flight,” Lasher wrote.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Katie Britt calls Biden a ‘diminished leader’ in GOP response to the State of the Union

    Katie Britt calls Biden a ‘diminished leader’ in GOP response to the State of the Union

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Sen. Katie Britt called President Joe Biden a “dithering and diminished leader” in the Republican rebuttal to his State of the Union address Thursday evening.The first-term Alabama Republican, the youngest woman in the Senate, delivered a stinging election-year critique of the president while sitting at her own kitchen table. She argued that “the country we know and love seems to be slipping away.”Britt, a 42-year-old former congressional staffer and mother of two, was elected to the Senate in 2022 with former President Donald Trump’s endorsement. She promised to come to Washington as a “momma on a mission” and has carved out a unique role in the GOP conference as an adviser to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and an experienced former aide on the Senate Appropriations Committee.It’s the third year in a row that Republicans have picked a woman to speak to the nation after Biden leaves the podium — and Britt’s remarks echo the same dark vision for the future under Biden and Democrats laid out by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders in 2023 and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds in 2022.“For years, the left has coddled criminals and defunded the police — all while letting repeat offenders walk free,” Britt said in her response. “The result is tragic but foreseeable — from our small towns to America’s most iconic city streets, life is getting more and more dangerous.”She criticized Biden’s foreign policy, including his chaotic 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan and talk of a renewed nuclear deal with Iran. She did not mention Ukraine’s war with Russia, as Biden has aggressively pushed the Republican-led House to take up a Senate-passed aid package.Britt’s rebuttal came as her state has drawn national attention for a state Supreme Court state Supreme Court ruling in February that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law. That ruling blocked access to in vitro fertilization at clinics across the state, but some said they would resume services after the state legislature passed legislation Wednesday shielding doctors from legal liability.Britt has argued in support of the IVF services, calling Trump after the ruling. Trump, the party’s front-runner for the GOP nomination, issued a statement hours later saying that he backs IVF.In her response, Britt reiterated her support for the practice, saying “we want to help loving moms and dads bring precious life into this world.”Britt, who has made immigration a top issue, also slammed the president on the border, calling his policies a “disgrace” that have led to higher numbers of border crossings during his presidency.She noted that Biden mentioned slain Georgia nursing student Laken Riley during his speech, but said he “refused to take responsibility for his own actions.” Police say Ruket was killed by an immigrant in the country illegally.“Mr. President, enough is enough. Innocent Americans are dying and you only have yourself to blame. Fulfill your oath of office,” Britt said. “Reverse your policies and this crisis and stop the suffering.”Video below: Joe Biden, Marjorie Taylor Greene face off at State of the UnionBritt said “the free world deserves better than a dithering and diminished leader. America deserves leaders who recognize that secure borders, stable prices, safe streets and a strong defense are the cornerstones of a great nation.”She did not mention Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, whom Britt endorsed in December. But she said the country is at a crossroads, and “I know which choice our children deserve – and the choice the Republican Party is fighting for.”

    WASHINGTON —

    U.S. Sen. Katie Britt called President Joe Biden a “dithering and diminished leader” in the Republican rebuttal to his State of the Union address Thursday evening.

    The first-term Alabama Republican, the youngest woman in the Senate, delivered a stinging election-year critique of the president while sitting at her own kitchen table. She argued that “the country we know and love seems to be slipping away.”

    Britt, a 42-year-old former congressional staffer and mother of two, was elected to the Senate in 2022 with former President Donald Trump’s endorsement. She promised to come to Washington as a “momma on a mission” and has carved out a unique role in the GOP conference as an adviser to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and an experienced former aide on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

    It’s the third year in a row that Republicans have picked a woman to speak to the nation after Biden leaves the podium — and Britt’s remarks echo the same dark vision for the future under Biden and Democrats laid out by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders in 2023 and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds in 2022.

    “For years, the left has coddled criminals and defunded the police — all while letting repeat offenders walk free,” Britt said in her response. “The result is tragic but foreseeable — from our small towns to America’s most iconic city streets, life is getting more and more dangerous.”

    She criticized Biden’s foreign policy, including his chaotic 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan and talk of a renewed nuclear deal with Iran. She did not mention Ukraine’s war with Russia, as Biden has aggressively pushed the Republican-led House to take up a Senate-passed aid package.

    Britt’s rebuttal came as her state has drawn national attention for a state Supreme Court state Supreme Court ruling in February that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law. That ruling blocked access to in vitro fertilization at clinics across the state, but some said they would resume services after the state legislature passed legislation Wednesday shielding doctors from legal liability.

    Britt has argued in support of the IVF services, calling Trump after the ruling. Trump, the party’s front-runner for the GOP nomination, issued a statement hours later saying that he backs IVF.

    In her response, Britt reiterated her support for the practice, saying “we want to help loving moms and dads bring precious life into this world.”

    Britt, who has made immigration a top issue, also slammed the president on the border, calling his policies a “disgrace” that have led to higher numbers of border crossings during his presidency.

    She noted that Biden mentioned slain Georgia nursing student Laken Riley during his speech, but said he “refused to take responsibility for his own actions.” Police say Ruket was killed by an immigrant in the country illegally.

    “Mr. President, enough is enough. Innocent Americans are dying and you only have yourself to blame. Fulfill your oath of office,” Britt said. “Reverse your policies and this crisis and stop the suffering.”

    Video below: Joe Biden, Marjorie Taylor Greene face off at State of the Union

    Britt said “the free world deserves better than a dithering and diminished leader. America deserves leaders who recognize that secure borders, stable prices, safe streets and a strong defense are the cornerstones of a great nation.”

    She did not mention Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, whom Britt endorsed in December. But she said the country is at a crossroads, and “I know which choice our children deserve – and the choice the Republican Party is fighting for.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tim Scott Won't Be President, But Will Be a Husband

    Tim Scott Won't Be President, But Will Be a Husband

    [ad_1]

    Culture

    Tim Scott X

    Former presidential candidate and current South Carolina Senator Tim Scott just announced that he is engaged.

    He had mentioned he had a girlfriend in the past, but now it’s official: He’s getting getting hitched.

    Scott shared the news and “the moment” on his X account, thanking now-fiance Mindy for saying yes.

    RELATED: Media Accuses Trump Of Racism For Using Nikki Haley’s Real Name

    ‘She Said YES’

    58-year-old Scott brought his lady friend Mindy Noce on stage on November 8 at the third GOP primary presidential debate.

    The senator announced his engagement on Sunday in a short and loving social media post that showed the moment proposed to her at a Kiawah Island beach in South Carolina.

    Noce, an interior designer, made Scott’s day.

    “She said YES,” Scott tweeted. “Mindy, thank you for making me the luckiest man in the world.”

    Scott also included Proverbs 18:22 from the Bible, “He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord.”

    Meet Mindy Noce

    What do we know about Scott’s fiance?

    Noce, who is 47, is a mother of three who lives in Charleston, South Carolina.

    The New York Post reports, “She works as an interior designer for the Charleston-based Atlantic Properties of Lowcountry real estate firm, according to her online company bio. Noce, who is an avid runner and tennis enthusiast, is a self-described “mover-and-shaker with a creative eye and love for people.”

    The story continued:

    Noce studied at the College of Charleston where she majored in Health Science, her company bio says.

    She has lived in Charleston ever since graduation but was first introduced to the area while watching her three older brothers play football at The Citadel.

    Noce has divided her time between the coastal enclave of Isle of Palms and Charleston’s Daniel Island for almost 20 years.

    The Post added, “She has previously been described by Scott as ‘a lovely Christian girl.’”

    RELATED: Megyn Kelly Torches Nikki Haley For Refusing To Say If Men Can Become Women – ‘Wangs And Caucuses’

    Congrats!

    Scott’s personal romantic life became a subject of discussion during his 2024 Republican primary bid, in which he insisted he had been seeing a woman for some time.

    Now it’s all out in the open and Tim Scott seems to be happier than ever about what the future might bring.

    Congratulations to the newly engaged couple!

    Trump Slams ‘Scam’ January 6th Committee Following Reports That They Deleted Over 100 Encrypted Files

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    is a professional writer and editor with over 15 years of experience in conservative media and Republican politics. He… More about John Hanson

    FREE NEWS ALERTS

    Subscribe to receive the most important stories delivered straight to your inbox. Your subscription helps protect independent media.



    By subscribing, you agree to receive emails from ThePoliticalInsider.com and that you’ve read and agree to our Privacy policy and to our terms and conditions.

    FREE NEWS ALERTS

    [ad_2]

    John Hanson

    Source link

  • California's Padilla personally warned Biden not to fold to GOP on immigration to aid Ukraine

    California's Padilla personally warned Biden not to fold to GOP on immigration to aid Ukraine

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — 

    Sen. Alex Padilla approached President Biden at a campaign fundraiser at a sprawling, multilevel mansion in the Pacific Palisades last weekend to offer a warning.

    Biden was at the palatial home of investors José Feliciano and Kwanza Jones to court donors and talk about his administration’s record, but Padilla pulled the president aside to discuss negotiations playing out behind the scenes in the Senate.

    Padilla was worried that Biden was about to set a harmful precedent. The White House, he knew, was considering agreeing to permanent immigration policy changes to win Senate Republicans’ support for roughly $110 billion in one-time aid to Ukraine, Israel and other U.S. allies.

    Oct. 2022 photo of President Biden greeting, from front right, Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and his wife Angela Padilla, after arriving on Air Force One at LAX.

    (Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press)

    “The primary message I was seeking to convey is warning [Biden] that Republican senators were dragging him into territory that was harmful policy,” Padilla told The Times in a Thursday interview. Biden “was listening intently” and asked when Padilla was last in contact with staffers in the West Wing, the senator said.

    Padilla would not comment further on Biden’s response but said that since Thanksgiving, he has on “at least a daily basis” been in contact with the aides in the West Wing, including White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients and Steve Ricchetti, counselor to the president.

    “I wish we were having a conversation and making sure we get [the change] right,” Padilla said. “I think right now we’re in the conversation of making sure we don’t get it wrong.”

    Padilla’s concerns — and his fierce lobbying of the White House — signal that the Ukraine, Israel and border policy deal Biden and Senate leaders are hoping to strike may have trouble winning widespread Democratic support.

    Congress must pass a supplemental funding bill soon in order to get Ukraine the help it needs to fend off Russia’s invasion, argue Biden, Senate leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who visited Washington this week.

    White House officials and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas intervened this week after it became clear that a bipartisan group of senators had failed to reach a deal. Zients, White House chief of staff, met with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and dropped by negotiations on Capitol Hill on Thursday to emphasize that Biden supports more funding for border security and is open to immigration policy changes, according to a White House official.

    “The president actually does really think we need to do something on the border,” said the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks.

    Republicans have pushed for provisions that would allow border officials to expel migrants without screening them for asylum; expand the detention of immigrants, including families; expand the use of fast-tracked deportations from the border to the interior of the U.S.; and limit who can seek asylum. Republicans also sought to end the president’s authority to fast-track humanitarian entry to the U.S., which Biden has turned to repeatedly to welcome tens of thousands of migrants from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Venezuela and Cuba.

    The White House is seriously considering two of the GOP’s proposals: Allowing border officials to swiftly expel migrants if the number of arrivals at the border exceeds a certain level and raising the standard used to initially determine whether a migrant might qualify for asylum.

    “There is not yet an agreement on principles,” a congressional staffer familiar with negotiations told The Times. “Legislative text is a long way off. Negotiators are continuing to make progress towards a deal.”

    Though Republicans insist a deal is out of reach, Democratic negotiators and White House officials have signaled they were open to moving closer to GOP demands on border policy in order to reach a deal before the year’s end. “We’re making progress,” a White House aide said Thursday. “We’re not there yet. But the conversation is going in the right direction.”

    Late Thursday, Schumer cut senators’ holiday short, requiring them to stay in Washington next week for votes. It is unclear when or whether legislative text will emerge or a floor vote be scheduled. And even if the White House and Senate come through with a Christmas miracle, they would still need support from Democrats, who like Padilla have expressed deep concern, and the Republican-controlled House, which is in recess until January.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) signaled Thursday he would not recall his chamber back to Washington.

    “For some reason, the Biden Administration waited until this week to even begin negotiations with Congress on the border issue,” he wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “While that work should continue, the House will not wait around to receive and debate a rushed product.”

    House Republicans earlier this month approved a $14-billion package to bolster Israel’s efforts in the Gaza Strip. The bill, though, slashed funding approved by Biden’s signature Inflation Reduction Act, making it dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

    Under Johnson, the House has not approved additional funding for Ukraine or American allies in the Pacific. House Republicans, though, are pushing the Senate negotiators to include their May immigration bill in any deal with the White House.

    That legislation, which amounts to a wish list of GOP immigration priorities, would crack down on unlawful immigration by limiting asylum, codifying former President Trump-championed border policies, extending the border wall, criminalizing visa overstays and mandating that companies verify employees’ legal eligibility to work.

    Much of what is being considered in negotiations would hamstring U.S. Customs and Border Protection while failing to deal with the root cause of migration, said Jason Houser, who was chief of staff at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement until March.

    Houser also worried that negotiations could revive a version of the pandemic-era Title 42 policy, which allowed border officials to quickly expel migrants without considering their requests for asylum. Under the Trump-era policy, arrivals of migrants at the border actually increased, in part because many migrants re-crossed the border immediately after being expelled. Expulsion is not the same as formal deportation, a process that can come with consequences such as criminal prosecution and a five-year ban from the U.S.

    Making it easier for border officials to expel migrants won’t lower the number of people trying to cross the border because some countries will not readmit citizens that the U.S. turns away, Houser said. Expelled migrants — and the human traffickers who move them across borders — would simply try again.

    Kerri Talbot, executive director of the advocacy group Immigration Hub, hopes the negotiations will ultimately fail. Resurrecting an expulsion authority not linked to national public health would be a “blunt tool” that would fail to consider the circumstances of each case, she said.

    Talbot also worries that the White House is weighing raising the legal bar migrants have to clear in their first interview with a border agent to avoid being fast-tracked for deportation.

    “Almost no one has an attorney at that stage,” said Talbot, a veteran immigrant advocate who helped write the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate. “So some people with valid cases will get blocked.”

    The White House would be making a political mistake by conceding to Republicans’ demands, Talbot and Beatriz Lopez, also of Immigration Hub, wrote in a Tuesday letter to White House staff.

    “The majority of voters in America are pro-immigrant and pro-orderliness — not for separating families, deporting long-settled immigrants or ending our asylum system,” they wrote. “Accepting GOP demands is accepting a deficit in support for President Biden in 2024.”

    Other experts, though, say that come next November, a border policy deal might not harm Biden’s reelection chances.

    Much of the reported White House concessions “is a signal that the Biden administration is trying to court the middle if not the right wing on immigration,” said Tom Wong, a political science professor and the founding director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at UC San Diego. Although the move could alienate people on the left, voters in the middle “are most consequential” in presidential elections, Wong said.

    “The Biden administration is taking a political risk by moving to the right on immigration,” Wong said. But for people on the left, a second Trump term “would be far more dangerous to our immigration system than a second Biden administration giving in on some Republican policy proposals,” he added.

    Padilla would not say how he would vote on any bill. He, like other senators, is still waiting to see what negotiators produce. But he said he would be hard-pressed “to concede bad policy to Republicans and have nothing to show for helping Dreamers, agriculture workers, essential workers and other long term residents of the United States working, paying taxes, contributing to the strength of our economy.”

    “That would be a horrible place to be in going into [the next election],” Padilla said. “When [Biden] ran for president, he talked about restoring the soul of the nation, staying true to our democratic values and speaking on behalf of asylum seekers and refugees.”

    “When you hear of a lot of ideas that are being entertained, it is absolutely concerning,” Padilla said.

    [ad_2]

    Erin B. Logan, Courtney Subramanian, Andrea Castillo

    Source link

  • Sen. Sherrod Brown: American consumers losing power over their savings and paychecks is an emergency, too.

    Sen. Sherrod Brown: American consumers losing power over their savings and paychecks is an emergency, too.

    [ad_1]

    The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank sent shockwaves through the global economy and had the makings of another crisis. Depositors raced to withdraw money. Banks worried about the risk of contagion. I spent that weekend on the phone with small business owners in Ohio who didn’t know whether they’d be able to make payroll the next week. One woman was in tears, worried about whether she’d be able to pay her workers. 

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve responded quickly, took control of the bank, and contained the fallout. Consumers’ and small businesses’ money was safe. That Ohio small business was able to get paychecks out.

    The regulators were able to protect Americans’ money from incompetent bank executives because when Congress created the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the FDIC in 1933, it ensured that their funding structures would remain independent from politicians in Congress and free from political whims. 

    But now, as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the case of Community Financial Services Association v. CFPB, these independent watchdogs’ ability to keep our financial system stable faces an existential threat.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the only agency solely dedicated to protecting the paychecks and savings of ordinary Americans, not Wall Street executives or venture capitalists. Corporate interests have armies of lobbyists fighting for every tax break, every exemption, every opportunity to be let off the hook for scamming customers and preying on families.

    “ The CFPB’s funding structure is designed to be independent, just like the Fed and the FDIC. ”

    Ordinary Americans don’t have those lobbyists. They don’t have that kind of power. The CFPB is supposed to be their voice — to fight for them. The CFPB’s funding structure is designed to be independent, just like the Fed and the FDIC. Otherwise, its ability to do the job would be subject to political whims and special interests — interests that we know are far too often at odds with what’s best for consumers.

    Since its creation, the CFPB has returned $16 billion to more than 192 million consumers. It’s held Wall Street and big banks accountable for breaking the law and wronging their customers. It’s given working families more power to fight back when banks and shady lenders scam them out of their hard-earned money. 

    The CFPB can do this good work because it’s funded independently and protected from partisan attacks, just as the Fed and the FDIC are. So why, then, does Wall Street claim that only the CFPB’s funding structure is unconstitutional?

    Make no mistake — the only reason that Wall Street, its Republican allies in Congress, and overreaching courts have singled out the CFPB is because the agency doesn’t do their bidding. The CFPB doesn’t help Wall Street executives when they fail. It doesn’t extend them credit in favorable terms or offer them deposit insurance like the other regulators do. The CFPB’s funding structure isn’t unconstitutional — it just doesn’t work in Wall Street’s favor.

    If the Supreme Court rules against the CFPB, the $16 billion returned to consumers could be clawed back. What would happen then — will America’s banks really go back to the customers they’ve wronged with a collection tin?

    “ Invalidating the CFPB and its work would also put the U.S. economy — and especially the housing market — at risk. ”

    Invalidating the CFPB and its work would also put the U.S. economy — and especially the housing market — at risk. For more than a decade, the CFPB has set rules of the road for mortgages and credit cards and so much else, and given tools to help industry follow them. If these rules and the regulator that interprets them disappear, markets will come to a standstill. 

    By attacking the CFPB’s funding structure and putting consumers’ money at risk, Wall Street is putting the other financial regulators in danger, too. 

    The Fifth Circuit’s faulty ruling against the CFPB is astounding in its absurdity — the court ruled that the authorities that other financial agencies, like the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, have over the economy do not compare to the CFPB’s authorities. In other words, the court is claiming that the CFPB supposedly has more power in the economy than the Fed.

    That’s ridiculous. Look at the extraordinary steps taken to contain the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — the idea that the CFPB could take action even close to as sweeping is laughable.

    But we know why the Fifth Circuit put that absurd assertion in there — they recognize the damage this case could do to these other vital agencies, and to our whole economy.

    “ Imagine what might happen if another series of banks failed and the FDIC did not have the funds to stop the crisis from spreading.”

    The FDIC’s own Inspector General has stated that the Fifth Circuit ruling could be applied to their agency. If that happens, the FDIC and other regulators could be subject to congressional budget deliberations, which we all know are far too partisan and have resulted in shutdowns. Imagine what might happen if another series of banks failed and the FDIC did not have the funds to stop the crisis from spreading, or the Deposit Insurance Fund to protect depositors’ money. Imagine if politicians caused a shutdown, and we were without a Federal Reserve. 

    U.S. financial regulators are independently funded so that they can respond quickly when crises happen. It’s telling, though, that plenty of people in Washington don’t seem to consider the CFPB’s issues in the same category. Washington and Wall Street expect the government to spring into action when businesses’ money is put at risk. But when workers are scammed out of their paychecks, that’s not an emergency — it’s business as usual. 

    When Wall Street’s abusive practices put consumers in crisis, the CFPB must have the funding and strength it needs to carry out its mission — to protect consumers’ hard-earned money. 

    U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

    More: Supreme Court to hear case that will decide the future of consumer financial protection

    Also read: Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown sees bipartisan support for changes to deposit insurance

    [ad_2]

    Source link