Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump has promised that a $1 trillion infrastructure plan will be put in front of lawmakers before the end of the year, but a group of liberal lawmakers want to see twice that investment during the next 10 years.

That kind of political one-upsmanship could hurt lawmakers' ability to actually pass an infrastructure proposal when a legislative package is introduced, an analyst argued.

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus signed on to a plan to spend $2 trillion on infrastructure, a proposal they're calling the 21st Century New Deal for Jobs. The goal is to adapt President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal from the Great Depression for modern times through direct government investment.

The plan would invest $200 billion per year over 10 years in a variety of areas roads, bridges, drinking water and waste water systems, transit, airports, public schools, affordable housing and high-speed broadband, to name a few.

While Trump's plan is rumored to be more reliant on freeing up private investment in infrastructure to make up the $1 trillion total, the group of liberal lawmakers wants direct investment from the federal government. The plan calls the Republican agenda "a sham" because it doesn't put any new resources into infrastructure.

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., promised the plan would be far more expansive than Trump's plan.

"The American people deserve to have a serious conversation about how to address these needs," he said in a statement. "To fund infrastructure projects, President Trump's relatively small and incoherent plan would use irresponsible tax gimmicks that benefit Wall Street at the expense of taxpayers. My colleagues and I know that Americans cannot afford to settle for this scam."

Infrastructure is widely seen as one of the few areas in which Republicans and Democrats will be willing to work together during Trump's administration. Spending on public projects is generally viewed favorably by the public, and lawmakers are eager to bring back federal funding to projects in their districts.

However, Trump's promised $1 trillion infrastructure package has yet to materialize as Congress continues to fight over healthcare reform. Infrastructure is said to be the third-highest priority for the administration, behind repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act and passing a tax reform package. Trump has proposed rolling tax reform and infrastructure into a single bill.

Trump proposed $200 billion in infrastructure spending as a part of his fiscal 2018 budget released late last month, with little fanfare.

The one-upmanship on display from the progressive lawmakers might actually do some legitimate harm to Congress' ability to get an infrastructure package passed and signed by Trump, said Michael Sargent, an infrastructure analyst at The Heritage Foundation.

The entire discussion around infrastructure spending since the 2016 campaign has gotten out of control, he said. First, Hillary Clinton proposed spending $500 billion. Then Trump doubled it in his campaign promises. And now liberal lawmakers are trying to double Trump's proposal.

It's leading to a downward spiral in real policy ideas that instead leads to political grandstanding that harms negotiations, he said.

"It does do a disservice to actually looking at our infrastructure needs because everyone just thinks this money is free and because the American public likes the idea of spending on infrastructure," he said.

"This money has to come from somewhere. Either they're borrowing for it, or they're going to pay for it with $2 trillion of tax increases on businesses that will actually stymie the economy. This could inflict some serious damage on the economy."

The progressive plan might serve as a marker as to where liberal lawmakers are when legislative negotiations start, but it doesn't have a chance of becoming a reality, Sargent said.

"It's a real grab bag of nonsense, essentially," he said.

Sargent said the goal of the progressives appears to be spending money to create jobs, which isn't necessary during the current time of low unemployment. Even liberal economists don't think direct government spending is necessary to create jobs at the moment, he said.

There are ways to improve the country's infrastructure, such as cutting regulations that slow projects or unleashing more private financing through public-private partnerships, but the progressive package appears to just be an attempt to put people into ineffective jobs, Sargent said.

"You could just pay people to go out and dig holes, or do a man-bun census in Brooklyn, but the point is to actually improve infrastructure," Sargent said.

"This doesn't appear to be that. It just seems to be a big jobs program," he added.

One aspect of the plan would appeal to Trump: an additional emphasis on employing local workers and buying American-made products.

The liberal lawmakers would require projects to hire local workers and would require an increased prevailing wage requirement. Prevailing wage is the average pay and benefits for workers in similar fields in a local area, and some states require projects funded with government money to pay the prevailing wage.

The plan also prioritizes the hiring of military veterans and demands "robust Buy America provisions in every federal procurement decision for labor and materials."

Edward Wytkind, president of the Transportation Trades Department at the AFL-CIO, represents 32 affiliated unions a group of traditionally Democratic voters that leaned toward Trump during the 2016 election. He said the emphasis on local workers and American products won his support.

"We applaud the Congressional Progressive Caucus' commitment to our nation's transportation manufacturing sector by calling for strengthened and more defined Buy America rules," Wytkind said in a statement. "Expanding American job creation by maximizing public purchasing power must be included in any infrastructure plan."

Read more from the original source:
Liberals try to one-up Trump with $2 trillion infrastructure proposal - Washington Examiner

|

Posted: Jun 05, 2017 12:01 AM

It was an undeniably awesome week when measured by the only metric that truly matters, the amount of pain inflicted upon liberals. Now, we are not sadists; we dont delight in watching liberals suffer because their suffering itself makes us happy (Okay, it makes us a little happy). Rather, liberals misery is an important teaching aid that might succeed in instructing them in the folly of their poisonous, ridiculous ideology, since reason doesnt work. And they had better learn and change their dangerous course before we all end up here.

Also, some sanctimonious jerks who pretend to be conservative humiliated themselves again, and thats always fun.

The big event was when President Trump did something that has caused the liberal elite and the conservative Wormtongue contingent to wet their collective Underoos. He chose democracy, science, and normal Americans over the elitist twits of the pagan climate cult.

Horrors! An American president choosing Pittsburgh over Paris Oh, well, I never!

The Paris Accords were apparently such a big deal and so mightily important that there was no need to submit this proposed radical restructuring of our economy and the crippling costs it would impose upon us to the representatives of the people. Consent of the governed? No time for such technicalities! In a hundred years it might might be slightly warmer!

To argue for the Paris Accords is to argue against democracy incredibly, they wanted to deny us any say in our electric bills tripling and in hundreds of thousands of our citizens being tossed out of work to please the Chardonnay-swilling swells of San Francisco and Manhattan. They all know this treaty would never pass so they decided to make a treaty without having it ratified senators have to answer to actual voters, and when you vote to give Third World dictators billions of bucks from your constituents pockets, they resent it. Plus, its super hard to explain why were meeting one standard and China gets to meet a different (and much lower) one. And all to attain maybe a fractional decrease in the temperature a century from now. Maybe. Unless a volcano erupts or something else happens that changes things, in the way temperatures changed long before Exxon came along.

Basically, it was a bogus goal based on a fake crisis designed to justify a massive transfer of wealth and power away from us and to the liberal elite. They call that #science.

And Trump nuked it. Killed it dead. Their screams of pain and wailing about earth crimes and eco treason are a beautiful symphony, and their response to it all was illustrative:

Why shouldnt our representatives get to vote on this treaty in the Senate like the Constitution says?

Were all going to die!

Why should China and India get to pollute more than us?

Were all going to die!

How is writing checks to Third World countries going to help the climate?

Dont you see? Were all going to die!

Well, Im convinced, but not how they intended. And not by them either, but by the shrieks of terror from the crony capitalist contingent and its zillionaire members like Elon Musk and the GE chairman who fear their government subsidy gravy train may be derailing. Any time the corporate rent-seekers have the sadz, I have the happyz.

Of course, we also have the pseudo-con contingent coming along trying to step on the GOPs Schumer. Mitt Romney piped up that leaving the Paris Accords is terrible essentially because his rich buddies and the Euros think so. Great, he and Hillary agree. You can be sure Jeb! will be weighing in soon about how putting our people out of work to cater to the delusions of Angela Merkel is an act of love.

The other big deal came on the cultural front when Kathy Griffin forgot that normal people have an aversion to beheading political opponents though how long that will last if liberals keep changing the rules is unknown. She then apologized and then unapologized at a press conference with Gloria Allreds lawyer daughter. Im not sure why Griffin needed a lawyer, unless she feels compelled to file a class action suit against normal people for malicious decency.

What was truly great was how this Hollywood fringe mediocritys idiocy brought the current manifestation of liberalism into such focus not just for us news junkies but for normal people. She gave us a great opportunity to say, Hey, this is what #TheResistance is all about. These are the people who want to turn your culture into a cesspool and then drown you in it.

And it worked that hackneyed crone has caused liberalism more damage than a thousand unread scold-tomes by Ben Sasse, who is always willing to instruct fellow conservatives on our moral inadequacy but who cant even man-up enough to tell that witless creep Bill Maher that the N-word is un-Judeo/Christian and unAmerican.

But then arose the usual nasal whines of the usual wusscons about how responding to Griffins head games was beneath us and how we conservatives shouldnt stoop to their level by actually talking about what every single person in America is talking about.

Baloney. These wimps whimper and wail about our cultural decline and then, when presented with a golden opportunity to make our conservative case and run up the score, they go AWOL because they dont want to get their soft, girlish paws dirty by actually fighting for what they say they believe in. They are frauds and scammers. They were happy to sit in their donor-funded sinecures waving their fingers at liberalisms relentless march through our culture, but all of a sudden it turned out that we normals expected them to actually fight. And when that ginger geriatric cryptkeeper of a comic gave us a blood-soaked opportunity on a platter, they turned tail and ran rather than jam it down our enemies collective throat. Losers.

And as for not wanting someone persecuted for speaking her mind, or her mindless as the case may be, that is absolutely right as a principle and absolutely wrong as a tactic. We tried reason. We tried principle. And, as the enigmatic Ace of Spades observes, those tactics failed. So now, lets try pain.

Lets let them see and, more importantly, feel the consequences of the very rules they want to impose on us. Ill gladly sacrifice Kathy Griffins ability to be a talentless hack to save free speech by using the corpse of her already comatose career to teach liberals what the end game of their new rules looks like.

Hell, we better stop these liberal morons now, because things can get a lot worse if you want to see what a lot worse looks like, check out my new novel Indian Country. Heres a spoiler: its really violent and people get hurt right here in America. So if ceremonially disemboweling the careers of some Kathy Griffins or some Bill Mahers is what it takes to start getting liberal heads right and get us back to something like normal, count me in.

Excerpt from:
A Week Of Surfing On A Sea Of Liberal Tears - Townhall

A lot has changed in Alberta over the past century.

Half-tons have replaced horses on our streets; the oil and gas industry has supplantedfarming as the province's economic engine;and Calgary, the province'sCowtown,has grown from a small city of 35,000 to a bustling metropolis of more than a million.

Provincial politics, too, isbarely recognizable.

In June 1917, the Liberal Party of Alberta was celebrating an election victory that would turn out to be its last.

Today, itholds just one seat in the legislature. A hundredyears removed from electoral success, andmore than a decade from any real political relevance, Alberta's Liberals sit idling at a dustyprairie crossroads.

On Sunday, party members choosebetween two candidates willingto jumpinto thedriver's seat anddetermine which direction their party will take.

The question facingDavid Khan and KerryCundal: Should they continue to fight on under the Liberal flagor allow the tattered brand to simply fade away,folding it into something new.

For Khan, it is a simple choice. If he wins the party leadership, he hopes to lead the Liberals down the road to redemption and into the next provincial election.

Premier Arthur Sifton, front left, and his Liberal government in the Alberta legislature circa 1917. (Glenbow Museum)

"I am very optimistic about the next election," he said. "I think the NDP are going to lose a lot of seats and I want them to lose them to us."

Khan believes his Liberals canwin at least five to eight seats in 2019, mainly in Calgary and suburban Edmonton.

The source of that optimism is hissense that with the NDP in power, and the imminent demise of the Progressive Conservative Party,centrist voters in Alberta are looking for a new home.

"We have got a huge opportunity because there is a huge opening in the centre, and much of that NDP vote in the last election was a protest vote," Khan said.

And he believes that under Justin Trudeau,the Liberal brand is now a strength rather than a weakness.

"We elected two federal MPs for the first time since 1967 in Calgary,and two more in Edmonton I think federally and provincially, the Liberal brand is on the rise here in Alberta."

There is a precedent for this kind of comeback.

Oneneed look no further than the B.C. Liberals, who went from having no seatstoOfficial Oppositionto forming governmentin just two elections in the 1990s.

Of course, staying the courseisn't the only way forward.

Liberalleadership candidate Kerry Cundal agrees that many centrist voters in Alberta are up for grabs, but the Calgary lawyer isn't ruling out co-operating with other parties to get them.

David Khan, left, and Kerry Cundal are vying for the leadership of the Alberta Liberal Party after Nolan Crouse, who had been the lone candidate, dropped out two days before the nomination deadline. (Stephanie Wiebe/CBC News; Kerry Cundal/YouTube)

"If we share the same principles and the same vision for Alberta, then we should be working together, not against each other," she said.

Cundaltook part in a"unite the centre" meeting in Red Deer in April and says that she would consider merging with another party or dropping the Liberal name if party members supported it.

"By July orAugust we will be in a position to know how we are going to move forward," she said, "whether it is under the existing label, whether it is under a new labelor whether it is going to be a formal co-operation with another party."

Cundal saysher greatest fear is that Alberta will become a two-party system where voters in the centre are forced to choose between two extreme choices.

"We don't have to look too far south of the border to see what that looks like you just end up in loggerheads, with people butting heads and not getting anything done."

But it may simply be too late for either strategy to work.

Political scientist Keith Brownsey says thatthe provincial NDP have governed"well within spitting distance of centre," making the current government a reasonable option for centrists.

And Brownseyadds that the past decade has not been kind to Alberta's Liberals.

Interim party leader David Swann is the sole Liberal member of Alberta's Legislative Assembly. (Mike Spenrath/CBC News)

"It's a disaster there is no question about that,' he said. "They have fallen apart for all sorts of reasons, everything from lack of organization to poor leadership."

On the surface, that may make a merger with another party or a renamingof the Liberal Partymake sense. But Brownsey says that could be a mistake.

"The Liberals have a brand, they have a loyal core of supporters, they have five to seven per cent of the province you can build on that," he said.

Building on thator building something new, however, will take timeand moneytwothings the party has little of these days.

That meansthat even after a century of wandering Alberta's political wilderness, the province's Liberals may need to march a little further still.

Originally posted here:
After a century of stumbles, Alberta's Liberals march on - CBC.ca

Leftists and progressives are calling for Bill Mahers head following comments he made last night on his HBO series Real Time with Bill Maher. The quick-to-offend group of so-called liberals took issue with his use of the n-word during an interview with Republican Senator Ben Sasse.

Ive got to get to Nebraska more, said Maher.

Youre welcome. Wed love to have you work out in the fields with us, the senator replied.

Work in the fields? Senator, Im a house n****r. Quipped Maher. No, its a joke.

The audience offered a mixture of laughter and applause and a few pained groans and Sasse appeared visibly discomfited by Mahers use of the n-word. No harm appears to have beenintended, and Bill Mahers the last person anyone would call a racistbut that didnt stop media personalities like Black Lives Matter leader Deray McKesson from calling onHBO to drop his show and for Maher to be fired over the offhand remark.

Others on the left dredged up their grievances with Maher, declaring the HBO host to be racist for his views critical of all religions, including Islam. Complaints emerged from New York Times and HuffPo contributor Wahajat Ali, HuffPos Rowaida Abdelaziz, and CNNs Reza Aslan.

The New Republics Sarah Jones remarked that the only thing shocking about it was that Maher hadnt previously used the n-word on air.

Some, like the Womens Marchs Sophie Ellman-Golan said that people who denounced Mahers use of the racial slur were deplorable for not also condemning criticism of Islam.

Some members of the new right, like Jack Posobiec, joined in the chorus of condemnation and urged for Bill Maher to be sacked from HBO.

But conservatives like former congressman Joe Walsh disagreed. In a series of tweets, Walsh defended the comedian for making the politically incorrect joke. Grow a pair, HBO, he wrote.

Maher has since apologized for the remark, following remarks from HBOthat declared his comment inexcusable. In a statement today, Maher wrote:

Friday nights are always my worst night of sleep because Im up reflecting on the things I should or shouldnt have said on my live show. Last night was a particularly long night as I regret the word I used in the banter of a live moment. The word was offensive and I regret saying it and am very sorry.

Its notable that Mahers ABC show, ironically titled Politically Incorrect, was canceled in 2002 after he made the politically incorrect comment that the 9/11 hijackers should not necessarily be described as cowards.

Its a sad day when comedians have to kowtow to humor-impaired politically correct liberals for fear of losing their jobs.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

Visit link:
Liberals Calling for Liberal Bill Maher's Head After HBO Comic Makes N-Word Joke - Heat Street

Ivanka Trumps best trick is her disappearing move. When the White House makes an announcement thats bad for her personal brand, like withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, Ivanka is somehow nowhere to be found. Its a Friday night and shes observing Shabbat, or, like during the first disastrous Affordable Care Act repeal-and-replace attempt, shes out of town with her kids on a spring break vacation. And on Thursday, Ivanka, who had been working behind the scenes to convince President Trump not to put his fingers in his ears and sing la-la-la while the environmental dystopias of our summer reading list build momentum around us, celebrated the holiday Shavuot with her husband and kids as her father tuned up the jazz band to play a jaunty funeral tunefor the planet.

That Donald Trump didnt make Ivanka stand behind him in the Rose Garden with a poised smile on her face while he took a whizz all over her alleged values is perhaps the most compelling evidence that the president is capable of caring for someone other than himself. But if liberals and progressives take one thing away from Ivankas massive failure to influence the presidents understanding of climate change, its that if daddys love and esteem for his favorite child has such hard limits, the rest of us are definitely screwed.

This clumsy overestimation of her own influence after Trump called Kimberly Guilfoyle to get her take on the Paris agreement, he probablyanonymously submitted a photo of a corgi rowing through floodwaters to We Rate Dogs (verdict: h*ckin scary, 0/10 would not pull out) hasnt put a damper on Ivankas champagne popsicle summer just yet, though. Politico reports that while the rest of the world reels from Trumpsstunningly ignorant display of chest-thumping, Ivanka and Jared remain sanguine, all things considered.

Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, have taken the defeat in stride, according to two people familiar with their thinking on the issue. Their view of their roles in the White House is that theyre playing the long game, helping the president to be successful. And they dont tally their own influence day by day or bill by bill.

(Someone thinks theyre getting that sea wall around Mar-a-Lago!)

Whats instructive here is what the long game actually means for Ivanka and Jared, and it has nothing to with you, me, or anyones children other than their own kin. What part of helping Donald Trump be successful translates into upholding Americas end of an international agreement to reduce carbon emissions? Or for that matter, making sure Americans have access to affordable health care, and women have access to birth control and abortions, and women and minorities receive equal pay for equal work, and LGBT people have civil rights?

Might it now be painfully obvious that the presidents barometer for success has nothing to do with what a person who has no intention of ever voting for him thinks about him, not even for one second?

In the days leading up to and the aftermath of Donald Trumps victorywe heard a lot about the Ivanka Voter the suburban women who found the presidential candidate distasteful but admired his daughter first profiled by Anne Helen Petersen in BuzzFeed.In the sober light of June 2017, it looks more and more like those Ivanka Votersused her as a shield just like her father did, and that Donald was their one true Trump love. Its likely that more Democrats than Republicans held high hopesfor an allegedly smart and classy and compassionate force to set up shop in the White House, like strategist Rebecca Katz, whotold Politico,With Ivanka, we thought at least well always have Paris. But that turned out to be fiction, too.

Im a big fan of Ilana Glazer and I applaud her using her platform to call attention to this issue, but Please tell your dad is not a plan of action to fight climate science denial and harmful isolationism, let alone the nasty mix of ego and petulance that reportedly helped Trump double down on his resolve here. Butwhen it comes to Ivanka wishcasting, Katz and Glazerwere hardly alone out there. Hate to say I told you so to the very well-meaning people I know who clung toan Ivanka the Stealth-Liberal Savior narrative, but two months ago I pointed out the disastrous implications of waiting around for Ivanka and Jaredto inject theirso-called moderating influence into the bottomless breadsticks basket of the apocalypse that is her fathers administration:

. . . liberals and progressives shouldnt make the mistake of mistaking the Democrats for actual Democrats Ivankaisnt in the White House to play Daddy Whisperer on behalf of anyone but herself.Shesthere to shore up herown power, and Jareds, in whatever future form itwill take.

Heres a scary long game for Ivanka and Jared and their designer knock-off vision of Camelot that just could stretchpast the next four years and the four years after that: If Jared could get Pussy-Grabbin Donald elected, what could he do with Poised, Polished, Parental Leave-Passing Ivanka?

Ivanka emergedfrom her Shavuot observance with no remark about theParis agreement, but plenty of empty platitudes about Pride month.

The scathing replies show a near-universal level of personal loathing and frustrationlevied atIvanka that I had yet to see, which means maybe the gloves are finally off when it comes to the First Lady Daughter. Ivanka and Jared will reportedly evaluate every six months whether they willstay in Washington and or return to New York to keep exploiting funding loopholesto build luxury buildings, dragging Section 8 tenants to courtand plundering Cuban culturefor jewelry designsas the president considers rolling back Obamas progress on Cuba-U.S. relations, which no amount of paste bangles and necklaces will be able to stop. Let us hope that Ivanka does what she does best and disappears, this time back to Manhattan.With those two gone,there will be no moresilly false hopes to distract from the three and a half years of work ahead.

Read this article:
The myth of Ivanka's influence: Liberals built her up as much as Ivanka voters did - Salon