Mediaboss Marketing

Senators are bracing for their debate over President BidenJoe BidenBiden restates commitment to 'one China' policy on Taiwan in call with Xi Biden raises human rights with China's Xi during four hour meeting Biden, Xi hold 'candid' discussion amid high tensions MOREs climate and social spending bill to keep them in Washington until, and potentially into, the holidays.

The timeline for the legislation has repeatedly slipped, but Democrats say they want to get it done this year even if that means working into Christmas or beyond, when Congress typically tries to take a weeks-long break.

House Democrats are hoping to pass the bill this week, with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) planning to release an analysis by the end of the day Friday. But even if the House sends the bill across the Capitol, it could still be weeks before it comes up in the Senate.

Its going to be intense, said Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineCongress barrels toward end-of-year pileup Senators urging federal investigation into Liberty University's handling of sexual assault claims Biden faces high stakes with progressives on Fed pick MORE (D-Va.). Im hoping we have off between Christmas and New Years, but Im expecting we will run it up until pretty close to Christmas.

Sen. Jon TesterJonathan (Jon) TesterManchin says he has 'no idea' if he'll run for reelection in 2024 Spending bill faces Senate scramble The good, bad, and uglyof Tester'sBlackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Act MORE (D-Mont.), asked when he thought Congress would be wrapped for the year, guessed: New Years Eve.

Do you have plans for Christmas? You can spend it at my house because my plans are screwed up too, Tester said, adding that he envisioned Congress finishing its work very late in December.

The threat of a Christmas pileup is a step back from Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerChristie: Trump rhetoric about stolen election led to Jan. 6 attack Senate Republicans call on colleagues to reject government spending bills without border wall funding Schumer presses Biden to tap oil reserves to lower gas prices MOREs (D-N.Y.) initial hope that the Senate could bring the measure up this week and pass it before leaving for a weeks-long Thanksgiving recess. If the Senate makes changes, which appears likely, the House will have to pass the bill a second time before it goes to Bidens desk.

But now the bill is not expected to come to the Senate floor until at least after Thanksgiving, where it faces competition on a crowded schedule.

The Senate will start debate on a sweeping defense policy bill this week, but senators dont expect to finish it before the recess. Though the National Defense Authorization Act is largely bipartisan, it eats up roughly two weeks of Senate floor time.

Instead, senators could return on Monday, Nov. 29, needing to finish the defense bill and move quickly to avert a government shutdown with funding running out starting Saturday, Dec. 4, two deadlines that would only further delay Bidens spending package.

Lawmakers havent said how long of a stopgap funding bill, known as a continuing resolution (CR), they will try to pass by early next month. But they are looking at the option of a weeks-long CR to try to buy more time for a year-end government funding deal.

What I understand is were going to be operating on a continuing resolution until maybe the week before Christmas, said Sen. John CornynJohn CornynDemocrats face steep climb in Texas as O'Rourke mounts governor bid Senate GOP worries Trump could derail bid for majority Republican Senators request military aid for Taiwan amid pressure from China MORE (R-Texas), an adviser to Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellLeahy retirement shakes up Vermont politics Trump dismisses report McConnell tried to disinvite him from Biden inauguration McConnell tried to disinvite Trump from Biden inaugural, book claims MORE (Ky.), adding that one option was a CR through Dec. 17.

That would set up another funding deadline closer to Christmas.

This is creating quite a traffic jam, Cornyn added.

Schumer, in a letter to his caucus sent Sunday, didnt put a hard timeline on when the Senate will take up the Build Back Better Act (BBBA), though he said at the White House on Monday that they would try to pass the rest of Bidens spending plan in a few weeks.

Timing of consideration of the BBBA in the Senate will largely depend on when the House sends us the bill and when CBO finalizes their scores for all of the committees, which are needed to complete the Byrd Bath process, Schumer wrote in the Sunday letter, referring to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The Senate could need roughly a week to get the bill ready for the floor, based on estimates from Democrats.

Democratic senators are hoping to finish conversations with the parliamentarian this week on if the spending bill complies with a budget resolution that they approved earlier this year, which laid the way for it and included general top-lines. Theyre also expected to start conversations with the parliamentarian this week about if it complies with the Byrd rule, which lays out the budget process they are using on the social spending bill.

And to get the spending bill through the Senate given unified GOP opposition, theyll need total unity from all 50 Democrats, something they dont have yet.

Senate Democrats are still negotiating on a myriad of provisions including climate change measures, paid leave and tax reform. And Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinBiden signs trillion infrastructure bill into law The Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by Facebook - Trump officials face legal consequences over defying subpoenas The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by ExxonMobil - Will Biden's big bill pass the House this week? MORE (D-W.Va.), a key swing vote, raised new concerns about inflation after data last week showed that it hit a 30-year high.

Manchin, who has previously called for a strategic pause, didnt rule out, or in, that the spending bill could be ready to pass this month.

Im not in charge of the calendar, he said.

Manchin added to another gaggle of reporters, Lets wait and see what inflation does.

Schumer warned his caucus of the impending end-of-year pileup, telling senators to please keep your schedule flexible for the remainder of the calendar year.

I am confident we can get each of these important items done this year, but it will likely take some long nights and weekends, he said.

Schumers warning appeared to be sinking in with senators.

Sen. Jerry MoranGerald (Jerry) MoranSenators seek to permanently expand telehealth eligibility Senate GOP signals they'll help bail out Biden's Fed chair Star gymnasts call on Congress to dissolve US Olympics board MORE (R-Kan.) was overheard whistling as he left the Capitol after a vote on Monday night. Asked by The Hill if he was whistling a Christmas carol, Moran confirmed that it was Ill Be Home for Christmas but warned that the next line in the song is if only in my dreams.

See the original post:
Democrats face squeeze on Biden's spending bill | TheHill - The Hill

Jason Furman, who served as former President Barack Obamas top economic adviser, tweeted Thursday that the distributional effect of the Houses $80,000 SALT cap is even worse than I had feared," citing a Tax Policy Center analysis released earlier in the day.

This could be greatly ameliorated by adding an income limit for the expansion of the cap so that no one making over a middle-class income, broadly defined, gets it, Furman said. Some Senators have been talking about this, I hope they do it.

The TPC analysis shows the benefit of the $80,000 cap for those cut off from relief under the Sanders-Menendez proposal: Households earning between $500,000 and $1 million next year would receive an average tax cut of $6,100 under the House bill.

And while overall households earning over $1 million next year would see tax increases totaling about $68,000 on average, within that group nearly two-thirds of millionaires would still see tax cuts worth nearly $16,800.

Tax cuts for higher earners wouldnt span the full decade under the House plan because it extends the cap past its current 2025 expiration. That means later in the decade, the $80,000 cap would be a burden, rather than relief.

More:
Democrats' 'SALT' headache hangs over budget reconciliation bill - Roll Call

The Democratic members of the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections said on Monday that they would be refusing to meet privately with former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who is conducting a widely criticized review of the 2020 election.

Gableman, after a heated appearance before the committee last week, attempted to meet privately with the Democratic members, which they said they refused because they believe his work should be done in public.

After refusing to answer questions or provide information in public, Mike Gableman is seeking private meetings with Democratic members of the Committee on Campaigns and Elections, a joint statement from Reps. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit), Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) and Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) declared. We will not be a part of Mike Gablemans attempts to hide from public scrutiny. Mike Gableman had a chance to answer questions in public, but he chose not to. We see no reason to meet with him in private.

Gablemans review was originally supposed to be wrapped up by the end of October but Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said last month it could go into next year. Members of Gablemans staff have also been kept secret, with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporting last month that a lawyer working for Gableman could only be identified as Carol. When he began his review, Gableman sent requests for documents to elections clerks across the state from an anonymous Gmail account with the name John Delta.

The Democrats on the committee said Vos should end Gablemans sham review and criticized the conclusions Gableman has already made.

Last week, Mike Gableman appeared before the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections and attempted to bluster and grandstand through an entire public meeting about his investigation rather than give Committee members and the public the information they deserve, the Democrats said. His office is funded with public tax dollars, but he has routinely refused to be up front and honest with the public about how he is spending those taxpayer funds.

During his hour and a half with the Committee, Gableman repeatedly rejected the idea of providing basic information like the names of the people who work for him and what their credentials are, they continued. Gableman flatly refused to commit to conducting his investigation in public hearings in front of the Committee on Campaigns and Elections. Gablemans interim report provided no new information, instead simply rehashing cherry-picked information from other entities and providing Gablemans own biased commentary.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

Originally posted here:
Democrats on Assembly elections committee refuse to meet with Gableman - Wisconsin Examiner

The Democrats have a 2024 conundrum, with heir apparent Vice President Harris presenting a maze of questions and complications. Lets start with the foundational problem: her boss, President BidenJoe BidenBiden restates commitment to 'one China' policy on Taiwan in call with Xi Biden raises human rights with China's Xi during four hour meeting Biden, Xi hold 'candid' discussion amid high tensions MORE.

A USA Today-Suffolk University poll conducted last week had Bidens job approval rating dipping to 38 percent, with 59 percent disapproving. Also, 64 percent of the registered voters surveyed opposed Biden running for reelection, including 28 percent of Democrats.

Furthermore, a mid-October NPR-Marist poll revealed that 44 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents thought someone else besides Biden would have the best chance of winning the presidency.

Maybe now Biden is rethinking his March 25 statement: My plan is to run for reelection, thats my expectation. After all, Bidens expectation might be thwarted by the growing perception that he is a weak leader not up to the task of governing and shaken by the shellacking Democrats received in last weeks elections.

Democratic strategists dream of a turnaround after a potential string of legislative victories. But with inflation soaring, their nightmare is the 2022 midterm elections warning of a red tidal wave, with Republicans likely to win control of the House and perhaps the Senate.

And the wave could crush Harris if she stars in a potential Republican attack ad. In the final days of the tight Virginia gubernatorial race, while campaigning with Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffeTerry McAuliffeInfrastructure updates only get us halfway we need Build Back Better bill, too Kemp makes pitch to conservatives, independents in new campaign ad Democrats expect to pass .75T Biden package this week MORE, Harris displayed a stunning lack of political savvy when she said, What happens in Virginia will, in large part, determine what happens in 2022, 2024 and on."

Harris violated a cardinal political rule never publicly state the future meaning of a race that your candidate could lose and her candidate was walloped.

If the midterms turn out to be a Democratic repudiation, stick a fork in Joe Bidens presidency and expect the following questions to occupy copious amounts of cable bandwidth.

1) When will Biden announce that he is not running for reelection?

Certainly earlier than President Lyndon Baines Johnson when he announced his decision not to seek a second term on March 31, 1968 only eight months from Election Day.

Herein lies the dilemma: The earlier Biden announces his lame-duck status, the more his power decreases, reflecting the aura of a failed presidency. So, naturally, attention then shifts to the Democrats presidential horse race. But more consequential is the national security perspective if enemies think a defeated Biden signals an opportune time for aggression.

Conversely, the longer Biden delays his announcement, the more those seeking the nomination will be handicapped. Nearly two years are needed for an organizational build-up to raise the megamillions of dollars required to wage a successful presidential primary campaign.

For example, then-Sen. Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaEquilibrium/Sustainability Presented by Southern Company COVID-19 kills snow leopards at US zoo David Axelrod calls Rittenhouse judge 'defense attorney on the bench' Manchin set to make or break Biden's climate pledge MORE (D-Ill.)announced his 2008 presidential campaign on Feb. 10, 2007, early in the election cycle.

Then-Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala HarrisWhite House dismisses talk of Harris-Biden rift Christie: Trump rhetoric about stolen election led to Jan. 6 attack Biden aides offer praise for Harris after critical CNN report MORE (D-Calif.)announced her 2020 presidential aspirations on Jan. 21, 2019. But she quickly flamed out and withdrewon Dec. 3, 2019.

2) Will Harris pressure Biden to announce his 2024 plans early? Then she could begin acting like a president-in-waiting while potentially keeping her primary opponents at bay.

3) If Biden announces that he will be a one-term president, when will he endorse Harris as his successor? Or will Biden choose to mimicObamain 2020? Remember, Obama held off endorsing his former vice president until April 14, after Biden had clinched the nomination most likely to avoid embarrassment.

But will Harris even want Bidens endorsement if his job approval rating is below 40 percent? In that case, will she seek to separate herself from him? Any of these scenarios will be an awkward, clumsy dance between Joe and Kamala.

4) At the heart of the Harris 2024 conundrum are her consistently dismal job approval ratings the latest at 28 percent with 51 percent disapproving. And Harriss RealClearPolitics average favorable rating is 40 percent with 51 percent unfavorable.

So what if in early 2023 her ratings are still low, and general election match-up polls show her losing to most or all potential GOP opponents? How then do Democratic presidential candidates wage a primary campaign to defeat the incumbent vice president who is the first minority woman to hold that office?

5) Will Democrats elect Harris as their nominee because its her turn? Historically, the its their turn strategy does not end well for either party. (See Clinton, Hillary 2016.) White House winners are usually charismatic leaders with their fingers on the nation's pulse, and Harris falls short on both. President Biden was a notable exception. He was hardly charismatic but fit the bill when Americans sought a no drama return to normalcy after four years of President TrumpDonald TrumpHouse Freedom Caucus elects Rep. Scott Perry as new chairman Meadows 'between a rock and a hard space' with Trump, Jan. 6 panel On The Money Biden caps off infrastructure week MORE.

6) What if in 2024 Harris is the incumbent president either through an unspeakable event or because Biden resigns for health reasons to give Harris an electoral advantage? Anything can happen between now and 2024.

7) Will Republicans support Harriss candidacy by sending her money and forming pro-Harris groups as a ruse to help her win the 2024 nomination? Yes is my guess.

Finally, it appears the American people are just not that into Harris. She rubs many voters the wrong way branded as an uninspiring leftist and weak leader although shes credited with a historical gender and race breakthrough.

Now, imagine a 2024 election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. It would be MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) with an unpopular sharp-tongued incumbent female vice president taking on a twice-impeached former president with authoritarian tendencies avenging his 2020 defeat. Our nation deserves better.

Myra Adams writes about politics and religion for numerous publications. She is a RealClearPolitics contributor and served on the creative team of two GOP presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Follow her on Twitter @MyraKAdams.

The rest is here:
Kamala Harris a 2024 problem for Biden and the Democrats | TheHill - The Hill

As a moderate Democrat for more than five decades, I have seen politicians in both parties act remarkably blind and deaf to the true causes of their defeats when they really dont want to hear the truth.

Most recently, the Democrats had a major defeat at the polls, and they have tried to blame it on their failure to pass infrastructure legislation prior to the election. Although this was possibly a small factor, the major unspoken reason was their imposition of excessive closures and mandates related to the COVID-19 pandemic. I am a retired physician, and yes, COVID-19 is a true pandemic that has killed 750,000 Americans in the last two years. However, for healthy younger people, a COVID-19 infection presents minimal health risks.

To better put the deaths in perspective, 200,000 of them occurred in people aged 85 and older. Another 195,000 deaths occurred in people aged 75 and older. Taken together, more than 50% of all COVID-19 deaths occurred in elderly people at high risk for death due to other causes. Only 18,000 deaths have occurred among the 150 million people in the United States aged 40 or younger. The death rate in this age group is about 1 in 10,000.

Among school-age children, there have been fewer than 600 total deaths among the 80 million children younger than 18 years old, for a death rate of less than 1 out of every 100,000 children. Of the deaths in people who were younger than 40 years old, the vast majority of them occurred in people with impaired immune systems due to chronic disease, cancer, severe obesity, or other high-risk conditions.

Fortunately, vaccination usually reduces the severity of the disease and the risk of death. The elderly and those with risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection should choose to be vaccinated, but no one should be forced to be vaccinated. Even after vaccination, some people with weakened immune systems, either from advanced age or other risk factors, will continue to die from COVID-19. No amount of immunization or miracle drugs can prevent this from happening.

Most importantly, if you follow the science, the numbers above cannot possibly justify the imposition of vaccine mandates in schools or in most businesses. People do not want their healthcare decisions to be made for them by the government.

This has been clearly shown with regard to the issue of cigarette smoking. Everyone knows that smoking is harmful and that long-term smoking significantly reduces life expectancy, yet large numbers of people continue to smoke. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States. Although I would never advocate it, we would save far more lives by making smoking illegal than will ever be saved with vaccine mandates.

Democratic officials have alienated large numbers of moderate Democratic voters, and especially independent voters, by imposing excessive closures, mask requirements, and vaccine mandates. Next November, this will become obvious. By then, both infrastructure bills will have passed, and the Democrats will suffer very large losses at the polls because of their continued overreactions to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mark Donnell is a retired medical doctor in New Mexico.

See original here:
Democrats' overreaction to the pandemic is alienating voters - Washington Examiner