Mediaboss Marketing

If you buy a car, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, explained the other day, you are expected to pay the monthly payment. Its that simple.

Is it? Now, obviously, those who argue that the president can cancel millions of student loans by decree arent in a position to offer lessons on personal responsibility.

The deeper problem with Ms. Jean-Pierres analogy, though, is that there isnt a bank on Earth thats going to keep lines of credit open when a person is compounding unsustainable debt year after year.

Speaking of which, the federal government has already hit the debt limit. The Treasury Department is now relying on extraordinary measures that will sputter out by June, at which time we will all be forced to forage for food and barter for medicine.

The only thing that can save us from this dystopian hellscape, Ms. Jean-Pierre explains, is for Congress to do its job and return to regular order.

The White House press secretary is apparently unaware that regular order would entail Senate Democrats passing a bill and then negotiating with House Republicans, who have already passed a bill raising the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion into 2024.

Until this week, Democrats wouldnt even talk to Republicans on the matter. In the old days, this kind of absolutist position would have every newspaper wringing its hands about GOP obstructionism and the dysfunction of the political system.

Today, outlets like the New York Times simply pretend Republican bills are apparitions. Are Republicans Willing to Raise the Debt Ceiling? asks the editorial board this week.

Does the Times not know that the GOP has already agreed to lift the ceiling? They do. They pretend it isnt real because it includes deep cuts in federal spending (by which they mean a return to last years discretionary spending levels, with no cuts moving forward), the reversal of investments in tax enforcement (some 80,000 new IRS cops monitoring, among other things, Venmo accounts with more than $600), a rollback of some green energy boondoggles, and so on.

And anyway, the Times notes, President Biden has offered Republicans a reasonable path to resolve the standoff in which the GOP raises the ceiling without any conditions as Democrats demand, and then Biden will separately negotiate measures to slow the growth of the federal debt.

Dear Lord, can you imagine the Times editorial board urging Democrats to table their policy concerns and simply trust that a Republican president will negotiate in good faith at some undetermined, future time? And not any president, but one who claims a $3.5 trillion inflation-inducing bill costs zero dollars. So, not exactly a whiz with numbers.

Yet thats not even the most ridiculous sentence in the editorial. The Times also contends that the debt ceiling is not a useful mechanism for preventing the federal government from living beyond its means, when thats exactly why the law exists in the first place.

If the debt ceiling is mechanically lifted without any debate over spending, then it doesnt really exist. If you want to spend without any limit, just say so. But even the Times concedes that Washington is living beyond its means.

So, then, why is it more reasonable to negotiate the slowing of spending now, when the ceiling is in view, than a month from now or a year from now when there is no incentive to do anything?

Senator Schumer, who for weeks was sending out snarky tweets demanding Speaker McCarthy show the country his plan on the debt ceiling, wont negotiate.

And its clear that Mr. Biden is now pondering invoking the 14th Amendment and simply ignoring the debt ceiling much in the way he ignores the law on a slew of other issues. Such a move would almost surely be overturned by the Supreme Court because, as Ilya Shapiro succinctly put it, a constitutional provision that prevents repudiation of debt doesnt also somehow authorize limitless new debt.

Democrats spend their time blaming the GOP administration for the preponderance of our debt most of which Mr. Biden has voted for as a senator or helped shepherd through in the executive branch.

No one is innocent on that front, of course, but most of our debt is propelled by constantly expanding entitlement programs, which are treated with a reverence by the left that the Constitution can never attain.

Even if the GOP were culpable for every single dollar of debt and were engaged in blatant hypocrisy, it wouldnt change the fact that they are objectively correct today in arguing that we need to slow spending and mitigate debt.

The arguments used to oppose even a modicum of responsible budgeting do not make any sense.

Creators.com

The rest is here:
Democrats Loath To Accept Reality on the Debt Ceiling - The New York Sun

Dive Brief:

Student success advocates have long bemoaned SNAPs rules as counterproductive for college students. They argue that working 20 hours a week hurts students ability to focus on their studies, and research has backed up concerns that it could impede their ability to stay enrolled.

Food insecurity is also prevalent on college campuses.

In fall 2020, 38% of college students attending two-year institutions and 29% of those enrolled in four-year institutions reported experiencing food insecurity in the past month, according to a 2021 report from The Hope Center for College, Community and Justice. That includes worrying they would run out of food before they next got paid and skipping meals because they couldnt afford them.

Lawmakers approved the temporary expansion of the program in 2020 in response to the pandemic. It allowed college students to access SNAP benefits if they either qualified for the Federal Work-Study program or came from families who werent expected to be able to contribute to their college costs. Student advocates have lauded the changes and pushed to make them permanent.

However, the temporary measure is slated to expire June 11, a month after President Joe Biden officially lifted the public health emergency tied to COVID-19.

With emergency COVID-19 SNAP benefits for college students set to expire next month, we need to simplify eligibility for critical SNAP benefits to combat food insecurity plaguing low-income college students across New York State and the country, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who introduced the bill in the Senate, said in a statement.

The bill has also been introduced in the House, where it has more than 120 cosponsors. No Republicans have signed onto the proposal.

If passed, the bill could greatly expand how many college students are eligible for SNAP. In New York alone, 290,000 additional college students would qualify, according to a recent announcement.

Democratic lawmakers have continually tried to expand SNAP to more college students.

Rep. Jimmy Gomez, from California, has introduced a version of the proposal each year since 2019, though it has failed to gain traction. The bill may face an uphill battle in a divided Congress, where Republicans control the House and Democrats have a razor-thin majority in the Senate.

Read the original:
Democrats again aim to expand SNAP for college students as end of ... - Higher Ed Dive

Photo: John Paraskevas/Newsday RM via Getty Images

Just last month, George Santos surprised the political world by announcing his plans to run for reelection. Then, on Wednesday, came a potential complication: He was hit with multiple criminal charges ranging from wire fraud to money laundering.

This is just the latest dizzying development in the saga of the notorious Long Island fabulist who last year narrowly flipped a Democratic-held seat in Congress before it was revealed that he had made up practically everything in his bio, from where he went to college to his mothers supposed death in the 9/11 attacks.

Its unclear what will happen to Santos now, but no matter what, Democrats will have to reclaim his district and three others in New York if they want to stand a chance to take the House from Republicans, who hold a five-seat majority. Despite a seat that looks ripe for the taking, some of the biggest names floated to run against Santos are still weighing their options. That doesnt worry Jay Jacobs, the chairman of the New York Democratic Party.

Anything we can do to help him get the nomination, I would be happy to assist because we would relish the opportunity to have a candidate run against him, Jacobs said in a recent interview. Even before Santos was charged, Jacobs, who also leads the Nassau County Democratic Party, believed Santos was not likely to get far.

He wont make it to the general because I dont think the Republicans are going to cede that seat to him. Theyre going to put up a candidate and, frankly, I think even a cartoon figure could probably beat him in a Republican primary, Jacobs said.

Given his lack of support from his own constituents, why would Santos announce a reelection bid in the first place? One theory is that it allows him to continue to raise money as a candidate, funds he could put toward paying his legal fees. Daniel Weiner, a former senior counsel at the Federal Election Commission and the current director of the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, says the primary requirement for this usage is that the legal expenses have to have arisen out of his candidacy.

So it needs to be something more than just your broad reputational interest. But in this case, a lot of what he is accused of is illegally raising campaign money and then potentially misappropriating it, and that probably does arise out of his candidacy, he said.

One potential problem with this idea, Weiner said, is finding donors who actually want to support Santos. After all, federal prosecutors alleged in their indictment that Santos had defrauded at least two donors by telling them to donate to his campaign when, in fact, the money went into a shell company and then lined Santoss own pockets for personal expenses like expensive clothes. This isnt exactly a foolproof strategy, but if youre facing major legal bills, it is certainly one thing that could be an incentive to run again for office, Weiner said.

Unless Santos somehow makes it to November 2024, the race for his seat is bound to be competitive last years was decided by a little over 20,000 votes. Spanning purplish parts of Long Island and Queens, the area was represented for six years by Tom Suozzi, a moderate Democrat who ran for governor last year. Over the past few months, he has reportedly fielded interest from senior Democrats to run again. I dont think hes made a decision yet one way or the other, Jacobs said of Suozzi.

Then theres Robert Zimmerman, the Democratic Long Island businessman who lost to Santos last year. In an interview prior to Santoss arrest, he did not rule out another run. The people that were with me in 2022 are certainly encouraging me to run again, he said, adding that his only focus was pushing for Santos to be forced out of office. I will evaluate the politics of the congressional district at a later date. But I think we have to keep our focus on expelling George Santos from Congress and holding the Republicans accountable for defending him and being accomplices to his crimes.

Without Suozzi or Zimmerman, Democrats current hopes rest on three candidates with less experience in running for Congress. Josh Lafazan, a Nassau County lawmaker who came in third in the Democratic primary for the congressional race last year, was the first to declare his candidacy.Were supposed to have a member of Congress who delivers results and fights for Long Island and Queens. We have a member of Congress whos fighting to keep themselves out of prison, Lafazan said. Anna Kaplan, a former state senator from Long Island, recently filed paperwork to run after losing the 2016 primary to Suozzi. And Will Murphy, a professor at St. Johns University, has filed for his candidacy, according to the New York Post. All would face off in a primary election expected to be held in June 2024.

Though the Santos seat may seem like easy pickings for Democrats, Jacobs said he wants to avoid a fractious primary that would divide the party ahead of the general election against whoever the Republican is. I think having primaries in each of our competitive congressional seats last time particularly when those primaries came late in August,only 11 weeks before the general election was a contributing factor to our not succeeding. So Im not a big fan of primaries, he said. Right now, Id like to see us coalesce behind the best candidate, so well see what we can do to encourage that.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

Here is the original post:
How Democrats Are Thinking About the Santos Seat - New York Magazine

Boulder has a far-left reputation, reflected in one of its nicknames, the Peoples Republic of Boulder.

Its true that Democrats dominate the city, and its liberal tendencies are pronounced in certain matters of the environment and culture, but longtime residents know the truth. Theyve seen officials embrace racist zoning policies, resist law enforcement reform and mistreat people experiencing homelessness, and they understand that the place is superficially progressive but essentially conservative.

Same goes for the Colorado Capitol.

Democrats commanded historically large majorities in the state House and Senate during this years legislative session. Democrat Jared Polis sits in the governors office. The November elections, in a further sign the Colorado electorate is shifting left, brought several new progressive lawmakers to the Legislature.

Yet, when the session came to a close Monday, it was clear that the Capitol was like Boulder progressive on the outside, conservative in the middle and most of the progressive agenda was left in ruins.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

Democrats did record several notable achievements. They passed a package of gun violence prevention bills and a package of reproductive health care bills. They established a national precedent with a right to repair law for farm equipment. They adopted a prohibition against arbitrary local growth caps. And they expanded state income tax relief for low-earning workers and families with children.

Despite these and other Democratic triumphs, the main story of the 2023 legislative session involves failure.

Like the failure of a land-use reform bill. Housing needs were the centerpiece of Polis State of the State address in January, and in March he and Democratic allies with much fanfare unveiled a legislative plan to spur residential development and increase the states housing stock. The plan utterly flopped, the victim of fierce resistance from municipal leaders throughout the state and moderate Democrats in the statehouse, especially in the Senate.

The land-use bills fate was only the most dramatic and embarrassing episode in a pattern of disappointments. The Democratic-led Legislature withheld permission for cities to allow overdose prevention centers, denied local governments the ability to enact rent control, gutted proposed air pollution reduction measures, failed to get protections for tenants facing eviction over the finish line, sided with law enforcement in keeping the criminal prosecution age at just 10, quashed proposed fair workweek guarantees, off-ramped legislation that would have provided protections for gig drivers and their customers, and diluted what would have been groundbreaking reforms for eating disorder treatment facilities.

The most critical Democratic misfire involved a proposed assault weapons ban. Though lawmakers did pass important gun violence prevention measures, the assault weapons ban was the true test of their commitment to halting the slaughter that has become routine in public places throughout the country. In the words of Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Denver Democrat who is vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, the issue is the conversation of our generation.

Democrats not only silenced the conversation, but they did it as quickly as possible, right in the first committee that heard the bill.

A majority of voters in Colorado and the country favor an assault weapons ban. President Joe Biden has called for a national assault weapons ban. Several of the most infamous mass shootings in American history have occurred in Colorado. Gun violence was top of mind at the Legislature since two shootings occurred at East High School within walking distance of the Capitol during this years session. Yet Democrats balked.

It would be hard to assign blame to particular officials for the sessions fecklessness. But Speaker Julie McCluskie, based both on her general responsibility as caucus leader and her specific approach to particular bills, is vulnerable to the sharpest criticism. Polis exhibited rare incompetence in failing to marshal land-use reform through the Legislature, and his opposition to the assault weapons ban may have doomed that proposal. Moderate Democrats like Sen. Dylan Roberts of Avon were a formidable roadblock to progressive proposals.

Following their dominant performance in the November elections, statehouse Democrats had a mandate to advance progressive policies, and their failure to do so could haunt them when they next face voters in 2024.

Colorado keeps trending blue. Last year, Polis beat his Republican challenger in the previously reliable GOP stronghold of Colorado Springs, and a Democrat came within 546 votes of beating Republican U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert in a congressional district thats supposed to favor Republicans by 9 points. At the start of the legislative session, there was a risk that an unchallenged Democratic majority would overreach and spur a backlash on the right. Instead Democrats underreached, which has already spurred a backlash on the left.

Housing advocates in Boulder have long tried to undo the citys restriction on the number of unrelated adults who can live together, a policy that exacerbates the citys already severe unaffordability. Advocates unsuccessfully tried to ease the the restriction with a local ballot measure, so they watched the state land-use reform bill with hope this year, because it would have stamped out local occupancy restrictions.

After all we have been through, I thought this would be the year. I was wrong, one of the Boulder housing advocates, Eric Budd, tweeted after the Legislature killed the land-use bill. The Legislature, like Boulder, proved to have progressive trappings and conservative instincts.

Still, Budd expressed an optimism that was also seen among many progressive lawmakers in recent days: Were not stopping.

Go here to see the original:
The enemies of progressive policy turned out to be Colorado ... - Colorado Newsline

With just hours to go before adjournment, long simmering tensions in the House Democratic caucus burst into the open Monday night.

An emotional caucus meeting intended to update members on the fate of the final bills of the session changed course to reveal deeper divides over how the chamber has been managed. Several members criticized Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie directly, saying she failed to take action against racist and inappropriate comments on the chamber floor and didnt do enough to support brown and Black lawmakers, especially the Black women in the caucus.

The rhetoric that has happened in this chamber is toxic, said Democratic Rep. Leslie Herod of Denver. And Black women and those who stand with us thank you have been put in the line of fire, put in jeopardy. Our lives have been put in jeopardy and we have been asking for help and support. When we don't stand up for people, they keep coming for the next person.

It was a dramatic moment of reckoning for the majority party that holds an historic supermajority in the House. Usually when these types of fractures happen, its behind closed doors, and certainly not in an open meeting attended by the Capitol press corps.

And it raises questions about how McCluskie and other caucus members will approach their work together when the legislature reconvenes next year.

The roughly hour-long impromptu meeting occurred soon after House Republicans walked off the chamber floor in protest over a proposal to reduce property taxes and TABOR refunds. They said the policy was too rushed and not well thought out and refused to return for the final votes of the session.

Democrats quickly gathered in a large committee room nearby. While the conversation started with updates on the tax proposal about the fate of another bill the governors land use plan the discussion quickly turned to deeper issues dividing some members and their top leaders.

First year Rep. Elisabeth Epps of Denver said there need to be intense changes to how the caucus is run between now and the start of the next session in January. She noted that she hadnt talked to the Speaker in three months and she doesnt think McCluskie calls out the nonsense from the other side of the aisle.

It is predictable at this point. And it's not just what happens on the floor, (its) what's happening off, to the extent that we have this moment she said of Mondays meeting.

Several members have complained leadership did not do enough to address Republican comments that have crossed the line, including efforts to add anti-trans amendments to a resolution about the Equal Rights Amendment and verbal attacks after Democrats limited debate on a set of gun bills.

Epps and other Black women in the caucus, including Herod and Assistant Majority Leader Jennifer Bacon, said the vitriol recently increased after the House passed a bipartisan resolution declaring May 12th Police Week.

Six House Democrats, including Epps, Herod and Bacon, were away from the chamber and excused from voting on the resolution. They said false rumors quickly circulated that their absence was a coordinated protest against the police.

We're fighting for Black lives when we're accused of walking out when we never did. And no one stands up for us to say that it didn't happen, said Herod.

In an editorial on the site ColoradoPolitics, former Republican attorney general candidate George Brauchler called out the three Black lawmakers by name, but not the other Democrats who missed the vote who are not Black. Its not uncommon for some lawmakers to be off the floor for resolutions, which can be passed on a voice vote.

McCluskie did make a public statement defending those members in recent days, but some colleagues said they felt it was forced.

As she stood before the caucus Monday night, McCluskie said she was a bit overwhelmed by their concerns and unable to respond immediately with concrete next steps. But she said shes ready, willing and eager to sit down and talk with Epps and others.

I've said it to all of you before: We have not had opportunities to communicate. We are not communicating well. There has been too much. We have been working hard around the clock. I will lean in, I will do more, she said.

McCluskie was elected to the statehouse in 2018 and previously served on the legislatures powerful Joint Budget Committee. She helms a leadership team that is more racially diverse than ever before and mostly women. She was chosen by her colleagues to be Speaker after last years election.

This past session was a grueling one, with overnight debates, filibusters, and many weekends of work as Democrats advanced an agenda that included stricter gun laws and protections for abortion access and transgender care.

With adjournment approaching, some lawmakers did rise at the meeting to praise McCluskie for how she organized and led the caucus and managed the chambers calendar.

I have deep gratitude for the work you've done and the way this has been handled and I want everybody to acknowledge that, said Democratic Rep. Judy Amabile.

McCluskie said she wants all of her colleagues to succeed.

This place, this institution means everything to me, McCluskie said. And when I fail, I fail. I am as human as everyone else here. My list of lessons learned is long, but I'm not giving up. I'm not quitting.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to clarify that the caucus meeting began as a chance to update members on the final actions of the session.

Read more:
Tensions between House Democrats flare in final hours of session - Colorado Public Radio