Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Trump Calls Democrats ‘Obstructionists,’ But He’s Only Nominated 11 Ambassadors – NPR

President Trump speaks during a meeting with business leaders in the State Department Library on the White House complex on April 11. Evan Vucci/AP hide caption

President Trump speaks during a meeting with business leaders in the State Department Library on the White House complex on April 11.

President Trump took to Twitter on Monday to complain about Democratic "OBSTRUCTIONISTS," blaming the Senate for being slow to approve his nominees, including his ambassadors.

A spokesman for the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee threw it right back, saying Trump should be spending less time on Twitter and more time actually filling those positions.

So far, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his deputy John Sullivan are the only Senate-approved top officials in Trump's State Department. The White House hasn't nominated any undersecretaries or assistant secretaries those jobs are being filled on an acting basis by career foreign service officers.

Overseas, the picture is similar. Trump has nominated only 11 ambassadors, including Nikki Haley to the United Nations, Terry Branstad for China and David Friedman for Israel. Those three have been confirmed, as have two career Foreign Service officers for postings in Africa. There are nearly 190 ambassadorships.

It's that lack of nominations that's the real issue, tweeted Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the committee's top Democrat.

The remaining six nominations are pending in the Republican-controlled Senate, though some are recent nominations and some haven't turned in the necessary paperwork. Callista Gingrich, the Trump administration's choice for U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, is in the latter camp. Trump's pick to serve in Japan, Bill Hagerty, is awaiting a Foreign Relations Committee vote, while Scott Brown is awaiting a full Senate vote to become ambassador to New Zealand.

A Republican staffer says the committee "continues to review and process all nominations in a rigorous and timely manner."

About two hours after Trump's tweet, Cardin's spokesman, Sean Bartlett, responded:

"The President should get off Twitter and lead his team in sending more ambassadors and other crucial nominees to the Senate. We're ready to do our job, but he needs to do his first. That's how the process works."

The spat over nominations seems to have become an issue after the acting U.S. ambassador to the U.K. praised London's mayor for his leadership in the wake of this weekend's terrorist attack.

Trump blasted Mayor Sadiq Khan for telling residents they have "no reason to be alarmed." Khan was trying to reassure Londoners that they should not be alarmed by the increase police presence in the city. Trump took those words out of context and doubled-down in follow-up tweets Monday.

Back in January, Trump said he would name New York Jets owner and GOP donor Robert "Woody" Johnson to be the next U.S. ambassador to the U.K. However, the White House has yet to actually nominate him.

Read the original here:
Trump Calls Democrats 'Obstructionists,' But He's Only Nominated 11 Ambassadors - NPR

Amid Trump’s unpopularity, Democrats face criticism for not investing more in special elections – Washington Post

Democrat Jon Ossoff, whose $8.3million war chest has made him a contender for Georgias 6th Congressional District, is under siege. The National Republican Congressional Committee is up with ads claiming Ossoff lied about his national security clearance. The pro-President Trump group America First Policies is priming $1.6million of ads about Ossoffs national security clearance. The Congressional Leadership Fund has spots linking Ossoff to comedian Kathy Griffin and about his national security clearance.

Republican-aligned outside groups funded mainly by large donors have swamped their Democratic counterparts, led by the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) that has announced plans to pump $7million into the Georgia race. The main Democratic super PAC aimed at House races, in comparison, has announced only $700,000 in spending ahead of the June 20 runoff.

The disparity in outside funding has raised alarms among Democrats who fear that the party is squandering clear opportunities in its quest to win the House majority in 2018. A surge in grass-roots enthusiasm has swollen the coffers of candidates such as Ossoff, but with the CLF alone pledging to raise $100 million to support House Republicans, key players say outside Democratic groups must do more now to support the partys candidates and seize on the unpopularity of Trump and his congressional agenda, to undermine GOP incumbents.

In recent special elections in Montana and Kansas, Democrats failed to counter an onslaught of funding against their House candidates, who ended up losing deep-red districts by single digits. Up next is the 6th District in Georgia, as well as another special election in South Carolina.

The organs of the Democratic Party need to step up and backstop these candidates, said Jeff Weaver, who managed the 2016 presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and now runs his group Our Revolution. The Koch bothers are playing for keeps, and the powers that be dont want to jump in. We can win if were outspent, but you cant fight nuclear weapons with pitchforks.

Some put the blame on large donors, who have not previously been asked to give so early in the off year of a congressional cycle. By contrast, the CLFs latest report revealed that it had raised $7.5million from Jan.1 through May 5. Seventy percent of that $5.3million came as a transfer from the American Action Network, an affiliated nonprofit group that does not routinely disclose its donors.

New causes, such as an anti-gerrymandering campaign led by former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr., who now chairs the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, have diverted the money and attention of big donors. Before Trumps ascent, Democratic leaders had suggested for years that the redistricting that will follow the 2020 Census offered the only path to flipping control of the House. And some in the partys base, echoing Sanders, decry corporate influence and the very existence of dark money, complicating any effort to match the Republicans.

Democrats make it as hard as possible to be successful in the outside money game, said Bill Burton, who co-founded the first major Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA. The roadblocks preventing donors from wanting to engage are far more abundant. Our activists want our values to be reflected in everything we do, and thats great but on the GOP side, theyre not as adherent to principles.

Many intraparty critics have focused their attention on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has been unapologetic about expending relatively little on special elections in Kansas and Montana that it viewed as unwinnable.

In Montana, the group spent $340,000 to attack Republican Greg Gianforte; its GOP counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee, spent $1.8million against Democrat Rob Quist.

A memo the DCCC issued the day after Quists six-point loss mocked Republican groups for spending a combined $6million to triumph in a traditional GOP stronghold but also said it Refused to Waste Money on Hype, claiming that polling did not justify more of its own investment.

The NRCC has also outspent the DCCC in Georgia, according to federal reports $6.3million vs. roughly $5million. But the more significant disparity has been outside the party committees.

The House Majority PAC, the leading Democratic super PAC, has announced $700,000 in spending, recently launching an ad targeting GOP candidate Karen Handel in Georgia, and other Democratic groups have reported $655,000 in spending. But the CLF has already reported spending $3million on the race, and other GOP groups have reported an additional half-million in expenditures.

Republicans familiar with the partys outside spending say that they have been forced to invest heavily in the special elections to prop up candidates such as Gianforte and Handel and counter the intense national interest among anti-Trump Democrats. Nearly 200,000 individuals have donated to Ossoff's campaign, according to his most recent federal filing, helping to set a fundraising record for a House race.

We exist to attack Democrats and to protect and strengthen the House Republican majority, said Corry Bliss, CLFs executive director. This cycle, CLF is prepared to raise and spend $100million to do just that.

For some on the left, the gulf between Democratic investment in Georgia and in the Kansas and Montana races has fueled a theory that the party is sabotaging its liberal wing. Our Revolution endorsed Montanas Quist and Kansass James Thompson, and Sanders stumped for each of them.

Sanders did not stump for Ossoff, who has often eschewed progressive politics to campaign on fiscal responsibility and sense over nonsense. The investments in Georgia, compared with the dance around the previous races, inspired angry commentary and columns in liberal outlets, asking whether there is a quiet effort underway to undermine progressives.

I dont know if its malice, but its a fundamental misunderstanding of politics in modern America, Weaver said. This is why they lose. In Montana and in Kansas, you had Democrats who ran way ahead of the 2016 ticket, and they had to beg for support.

Democrats have made moves to cut off that line of criticism. This weekend, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez campaigned in South Carolina to boost the partys candidate in a lower-profile special election taking place the same day as Ossoffs race. On Monday, House Majority PAC, Priorities USA and American Bridge, another Democratic super PAC, announced a congressional accountability campaign aimed at 12 GOP-held House district, including Ryans. But a common defense, that getting involved would nationalize the races, lands with a thud among activists.

These races become nationalized whether the party wants it or not, said Thompson, the Democratic candidate in the Kansas election. I didnt necessarily want national involvement until the national GOP got involved. From the moment I was nominated they said I was Pelosis hand-picked candidate. Ive never met the woman. But they automatically try to make you this ultra-liberal person you really arent.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who plays a supreme role in House Democrats fundraising efforts, has replaced Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the central villain in Republican ads. Yet she has not endorsed in special elections and has shied away from openly prodding large donors to give to outside groups.

In keeping with her past practice for non-election years, she has done labor-focused events for the House Majority PAC but not other events for the group aimed at her deep-pocketed donor base.

At a news conference Friday, Pelosi lamented Republicans endless, special-interest, secret, dark money flowing like black substance into the campaign, suffocating the airwaves with their misrepresentations.

But in a brief interview afterward, she said she was not concerned by the lagging performance of the outside Democratic groups that thrive on large donations, explaining that she would rather just grow our grass-roots support.

I think we have to have an accelerated pace in everything that we do, but these campaigns have had the benefit of grass-roots fundraising that is remarkable, unprecedented, and I dont know that any outside groups spending would have changed the outcome of these elections, Pelosi said.

Greg Speed, a former DCCC staffer who now leads America Votes, a group that helps coordinate progressive donors and groups, said that after 2016s losses the few major donors willing to make immediate investments focused on resistance efforts and on long-term, state-based redistricting campaigns.

Only recently, he said thanks to the GOP health-care push and the special-election campaigns are they awakening to the notion that the House might truly be in play for Democrats.

Many donors have been conditioned to believe that the House majority was out of reach until the next decade, Speed said. That is no longer operational. Donors will now have to walk and chew gum. Theres a real opportunity to win the House; our ability to hold it is contingent on a successful strategy at the state level through the next redistricting process.

Charlie Kelly, the executive director of the House Majority PAC, said that the heavy spending by Republican rivals revealed their defensive posture in an environment where Trump is toxic.

It concerns me if we havent made our case and made a good attempt to help explain things to folks, he said. I think its important for folks to realize, though, these are extraordinarily difficult special elections. Weve shown real momentum in GA-6; hopefully it continues. But theres clearly something happening, because none of these would have been competitive in previous cycles, and we have to feel good about that.

More than a dozen top Democratic donors who have previously given heavily to the House Majority PAC declined or did not return requests for comment. A Democratic fundraiser who spoke on the condition of anonymity to frankly describe conversations with major donors said they are not accustomed to investing heavily in House races this early in the election cycle if they invest at all.

There is a mentality that the bigger checks make more sense when youre talking about Senate, president or governor, the fundraiser said. That is a challenge that we face all the time. I think for a lot of the Democratic big donors that we have, its hard to get them to write a $250,000 or a $500,000 check for one House seat in the off year in a district that is very uphill.

The key, said the fundraiser, is patience. If you were a super-wealthy person, do you want to give House Majority PAC a million-dollar check a year and a half before an election or do you want to wait and see what it looks like and let your million dollars sit in your bank account for longer?

Read more at PowerPost

View original post here:
Amid Trump's unpopularity, Democrats face criticism for not investing more in special elections - Washington Post

Democrats Are Overperforming In Special Elections Almost Everywhere – FiveThirtyEight


FiveThirtyEight
Democrats Are Overperforming In Special Elections Almost Everywhere
FiveThirtyEight
Republican Greg Gianforte's 6 percentage point win in last month's Montana special election was just ambiguous enough that both sides could find something to like. Democrats pointed to the narrowness of Gianforte's win in a state that President Trump ...
The Democrats Need to Do More Than Oppose TrumpNew Republic

all 22 news articles »

See the original post:
Democrats Are Overperforming In Special Elections Almost Everywhere - FiveThirtyEight

Trump will never get help from Democrats in passing his infrastructure plan. Here’s why. – Washington Post (blog)

President Trump wants less federal spending and more private investment to fix American infrastructure. This is what he's asking for in his transportation budget. (Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

The Trump administrationis hoping to use this week to roll out its infrastructure plan, which at the moment is a plan in the same sense that the White House has a health-care plan and a tax plan. That is to say, officials have produced a vague outlinethat wont take up more than a few pages of bullet points.

But whats there is more than disturbing enough.

When President Trump was running for the White House last year, his advocacy of a large investment in infrastructure was often cited as evidence that he wasnt a traditional Republican. After all, would some doctrinaire conservative propose spending a trillion dollars of taxpayer money on government projects to shore up our roads, bridges and water systems?

But there was a bait-and-switch going on, one that becomes more evident as we get closer to seeing the details.

Trump has said many times that he should be able to get Democrats to join with him to pass infrastructure spending, becauseits something they support. And the problem is enormous and getting worse: The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that we need to invest an additional $2 trillion over the next 10 years in order to get our infrastructure to a reasonable level. Leaving these needs unmet imposes a constant stream of costs on businesses, governments and individuals. When roads are in disrepair, cars and trucks wear out more quickly and require more repairs, deliveries are slower, more gas is used, and goods and services cost consumers more. The ASCE says that failing to make the required investments would mean $3.9 trillion in lowered GDP over that decade and 2.5 million fewer jobs. The longer we wait, the worse the problems get and the more it costs to fix them.

The problem with what the Trump administration proposes is that while the number $1 trillion gets mentioned a lot, thats not actually what it wantsto spend. The budget proposal the White House released called for $200 billion in new infrastructure spending, but Democrats noticed that it simultaneously made over $200 billion in cuts to existing spending. For the most part, the administration wants to pass costs on to state and local governments and hope that private investors come up with the rest of the money. As the Associated Pressdescribes it, According to Trumps budget proposal, the funding would come from $200 billion in tax breaks over nine years that would then in theory leverage $1 trillion worth of construction.

Thats the biggest problem of all. Not long ago the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities succinctly described the approach Trump wants to take:

Rather than public investment with the government allocating the money and directing it to where its most needed the Trump plan relies entirely on private projects through which investors (e.g., private contractors) would own the projects, get huge federal tax credits equal to a stunning 82 percent of their equity investment, and make profits from the tolls or fees they would charge to consumers.

That might save some money in the very short run, but it means that consumers keep paying, basically forever. In the traditional approach, government spends the money to build, say, a bridge, and then its built and it belongs to the taxpayers. There are maintenance costs, but thats it. In the Trump approach, the government gives almost as much money in tax breaks as it would have spent building the bridge, but it belongs to the developer, who charges tolls that everyone who uses the bridge has to keep paying.

The other big problem with this method is that which projects get built is determined by where private developers think they can continue to make profits, not where the need is greatest. But there are lots of necessary infrastructure projects that might not be profit centers. (If you want to see how liberal Democrats would handle the infrastructure challenge, the Progressive Caucus has a plan to devote $2 trillion in public spending to it.)

Thats not the only problem with the administrations proposal. Officials havent said how they plan to pay for it by offsetting the tax breaks, which could be a serious bone of contention. And theyre also pushing for broad changes to the air traffic control system, which is an issue that doesnt fall as neatly on partisan lines and so might be able to get some Democratic support.

But the broader infrastructure plan faces the same basic problem in passing Congress that the administration faces when it comes to taxes and health care. There are some Republicans who are uneasy about some parts of it, but anything the administration does to satisfy them makes the prospect of getting any Democratic votes highly unlikely. And if no Democrats join in the effort, it cant overcome a filibuster in the Senate, even if Republicans can hold all their members and pass it through the House.

Democrats dont like the idea of trying to fund infrastructure only through tax breaks, but thats not their only objection. Will there be prevailing wage guarantees that ensure that the people working on these projects are paid adequately? What about environmental protections? Is an infrastructure plan going to be a Trojan horse to attack those protections? It would be more appealing to many Republicans if it were, but it would harden Democrats resolve against it.

But the biggest hurdle is the basic structure of the plan: having taxpayers give a huge amount of money to private developers, so that those developers can then turn around and charge people even more to use the systems that get built. If Trump thinks Democrats are going to go for that, hes fooling himself.

Here is the original post:
Trump will never get help from Democrats in passing his infrastructure plan. Here's why. - Washington Post (blog)

Walters: Democrats explore themes to shape governor’s race – Janesville Gazette

Steven Walters

Monday, June 5, 2017

With their party adrift at both the state and national levels, the four Democrats on the Legislature's budget-writing Joint Finance Committee are trying to tease out issues that mayor may notwork against Republican Gov. Scott Walker in next year's election.

Because Republicans handily control both houses of the Legislature, there are 12 of them and four Democrats on the committee. Within weeks, the committee will forward a proposed 2017-19 budget to the full Legislature. If it's not amended, separate Assembly and Senate votes could put that budget could be on Walker's desk.

The committee's four Democrats come from different regions of Wisconsin: Sen. Lena Taylor, of Milwaukee; Sen. Jon Erpenbach, of the Madison suburb of Middleton; Rep. Gordon Hintz, of Oshkosh, and Rep. Katrina Shankland, of Stevens Point.

Oshkosh, part of the Fox Valley, and Stevens Point are make-or-break areas for Democrats. Four years ago, three Democrats and one Republican represented the Stevens Point area; Shankland is now the only Democrat.

With the Capitol focused on Joint Finance Committee, its Democrats have a chance to offer proposals they know won't pass but still lay down political markers for whoever will be the party's nominee against Walker of what willand won'twork as campaign themes.

More than 10 Democrats have said they won't run against Walker; five or six others are considering running. Whoever the candidate is, he or she has the luxury of embracing or abandoning the changes being floated by the committee's Democrats.

The committee has not yet acted on several budget issuesK-12 and transportation funding, and tax reformbut its Democrats have already showed what they support, and what the 12 Republicans oppose, on some major issues.

Free technical college tuition: Democrats said the state's 16 technical colleges, more than ever, offer a chance to train workers for future jobs. And, Democrats add, technical colleges are more nimble and affordable than the UW System's four-year campuses.

But, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the non-partisan budget office, making all technical colleges tuition-free would cost about $555 million over the next two years. That's cash state government does not have, Republicans say.

Free tuition at two-year UW colleges: Democrats said the two-year campuses offer students a chance to learn whether they like and can succeed in college, while commuting from home and families. Because students at two-year colleges come from middle-class families, they deserve financial breaks, Democrats added.

But, according to the fiscal bureau, making the two-year colleges tuition free would cost about $80 million over the next two years.

Republican Rep. John Nygren, a committee co-chair, dismissed the Democrats' proposals: Free college? News flash for you: Bernie Sanders lost. We don't just get things for free in this country. We work for them.

Student debt: Democrats tried to attach to the budget creation of a state agency to help students refinance their loans, saying Wisconsin residents are deeper in debt than most others nationally. Loan payments keep Wisconsin residents from buying cars and homes, Democrats added.

Republican Rep. Mary Felzkowski rejected that request, suggesting that students and their parents make better financial decisions to avoid going that deep in debt.

High-capacity wells: Led by Shankland, Democrats fought the bill Walker signed into law last week that will allow 13,178 high-capacity wellsmost of which are in the Central Sands region in and around Stevens Pointto be sold, replaced and repaired without a new permit from the Department of Natural Resources. Vegetable and potato growers pushed for that new law.

A former Joint Finance Committee co-chair, Democratic Sen. Mark Miller, offered his party's next candidate for governor a reason to use that against Walker.

Gov. Walker finishes what legislative Republican started, Miller said. He privatized the waters of Wisconsin. Senate Bill 76 gives high capacity well owners a permit forever.

There is one issuetransportation fundingwhere Democrats have been so far silent. The state transportation fund is hundreds of millions of dollars short of being able to keep current projects on schedule, but Walker has vowed to veto any tax or fee increase and wants to borrow $500 million to keep some major projects on track.

When the committee takes up transportation funding, the four Democrats will have to lead, follow or get out of Republicans' way.

Steven Walters is a senior producer for the nonprofit public affairs channel WisconsinEye. Contact him at stevenscwalters@gmail.com.

This column has been corrected to show making the two-year colleges tuition free would cost about $80 million over the next two years.

2017 GazetteXtra, a division of Bliss Communications, Inc.

View original post here:
Walters: Democrats explore themes to shape governor's race - Janesville Gazette