Mediaboss Marketing

I remember Duncan Black (the blogger known as Atrios) remarking that Congress would be a more functional place if every House and Senate office turned off the cable news networks that buzzed all day long, generating artificial momentum around politics. Id like to add an additional observation: Congress would work better for the American people if House and Senate offices blocked the morning Beltway tipsheets from their in-boxes.

For years, political intelligence newsletters from Politico, Axios, and elsewhere have been a key part of the Washington ecosystem, as a sort of slightly more evolved form of horse-race journalism, where whos up and whos down is still completely divorced from the needs of the American people, but at least nominally focused on the policies that we all will eventually have to endure. What can be lost on the reader is the razor-thin dividing line in access journalism between reporting the news and creating it: the way in which the tipsheets launder the desires of powerful people and pressure their opponents to go along.

Thats precisely the dynamic were seeing from Punchbowl News, the two-year-old tipsheet that is rather obviously a direct window into the wishes of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in the debt ceiling drama. The closeness between Punchbowl and the Speakers office is one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington. McCarthy has called Punchbowl his first morning read.

More from David Dayen

In this case, theres been almost no daylight between McCarthys debt ceiling demands and what Punchbowl has reported as the essential elements for a deal. Now, Democratic leaders dont have to mindlessly accept media narratives; they have agency. But pushing the GOP line through objective journalism gives it a momentum it wouldnt otherwise have.

My colleague Ryan Cooper has already explained how tipsheet culture has normalized the threat to default on government debt as just another political fight. Jake Sherman, the Punchbowl co-founder who is college pals with the leader of McCarthys super PAC, set off this part of the narrative on CNBC by nonchalantly stating that in modern times, the debt ceiling is raised with negotiations. This presumption helped push the White House to the bargaining table.

Sherman proceeded to tweet a short history of the debt ceiling that dismantled his own narrative. Of the 25 debt ceiling increases since 1993 that he listed, he conceded that nine were clean, and another eight were folded into bills that were passing anyway. Then the 2011 Obama-Boehner grand-bargain talks yielded the Budget Control Act, which led to the sequestration cuts. The eight subsequent increases of the debt ceiling were either clean or efforts to undo the damage that the Budget Control Act caused, with the debt ceiling increase folded in.

In other words, every increase of the debt ceiling over the past 30 years was not a hostage negotiation under threat of extinguishing the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, except one: the 2011 Obama-Boehner debacle. Out of that single instance, Sherman spun a narrative that was favorable to McCarthys line that his demands were routine.

On May 11, after the first staff-level negotiations to avoid default, Shermans Punchbowl morning tipsheet exulted that normal conversations over the debt limit have broken out. Thanks in no small part to his work, taking the governments ability to pay its bills hostage is now widely considered routine.

A review of the past two weeks of Punchbowl editions reveals similar dynamics. Punchbowl has been at the forefront of claiming that only one-on-one negotiations between Biden and McCarthy can resolve the situation. It was clear to several participants that any potential agreement would have to be cut between Biden and McCarthy, Punchbowl wrote on May 9. Aides on both sides of the aisle have complained that there are too many people involved in the talks for there to be a deal, at least right now, was in the May 12 edition. Weve never seen a fruitful negotiation with more than 10 people in the room, they added on May 16.

This was McCarthys key ask; he has wanted to shrink the table and get congressional Democrats out of the room. Biden succumbed to the twin pressures of McCarthy and the Punchbowl-set media narrative by agreeing to the demand, with OMB Director Shalanda Young, Biden consigliere Steve Ricchetti, and congressional liaison Louisa Terrell negotiating on the White House side.

It was something that a lot of people in the talks were hoping for, Sherman tweeted upon the announcement. The May 17 Punchbowl edition makes clear who those people were: Senior Republicans wanted McCarthy to nail down a deal with the White House first.

Another Punchbowl talking point is about how long it would take for McCarthy to pass a deal if he got it. Theyll need an agreement in principle by next week, Punchbowl wrote on May 10, based on a direct quote from McCarthy. It will probably take a week to get a bill through the House, it wrote May 12.

This ticking clock is based on the claim that McCarthy agreed when he took the gavel to give members 72 hours to review legislation. Left unsaid is the fact that McCarthy broke that promise for his own debt ceiling bill, the Limit, Save, Grow Act. There was no markup and the final bill did not have a 72-hour window. Whats more, there was no pushback, because of the time crunch.

In other words, this ticking-clock story is another fake narrative, and helpful only to one person in this negotiation: Kevin McCarthy, who wants to shorten the window as much as possible to force the White House to make a deal.

The latest talking point is around work requirements for benefit programs like SNAP, TANF (formerly known as welfare), and Medicaid. These are obviously just an obscure way to take benefits away from poor people, and Democrats are loudly rejecting them.

I think theres concern that work requirements become the last man in, something introduced late in the talks not as a real issue but to make one side angry, so when they are removed, it feels like a win to that side, and they overlook the other really bad elements of the outcome (like multiyear spending caps). If you read between the lines of Punchbowls reporting on work requirements, theyre kind of telegraphing that.

On May 12, Punchbowl wrote that rescinding COVID aid, spending caps, and permitting reform were the keystones of the deal, with work requirements far less likely to happen. On May 16, Punchbowl noted, There will be a lot of attention given to additional work requirements for SNAP and other social welfare programs, but thats a heavy lift. They acknowledged that McCarthy was pushing hard for work requirements on May 17, but that there was strong resistance among progressives, and that the issue will need to be finessed very delicately in order not to unravel the negotiations.

If you read that knowing that this is McCarthys house organ, you can see that theyre helping him normalize the idea that an economically ruinous multiyear spending cap is part of a relatively straightforward deal, and that work requirements are the last man in. This benefits what McCarthy is trying to accomplish.

Its becoming clear that the Democratic rank-and-file in both chambers may have to be prepared to accept spending cuts in order for this all to work, Punchbowl wrote on May 17. You can see the normalizing process at work, where Beltway pack journalism determines the boundaries of discussion. Punchbowl was not describing what Democrats will have to be prepared to do, it is trying to force them to do it. There are a whole lot of reasons why Democrats are at the point where their president is submitting to Republican austerity demands, but tipsheet culture is definitely playing a role.

Read more:
The Access JournalismHouse Republican Mind Meld - The American Prospect

The U.S. Capitol is seen on July 6, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Carlos Bongioanni/Stars and Stripes)

WASHINGTON A House appropriations panel advanced a spending bill Wednesday for the Department of Veterans Affairs that Republicans touted as proof of their commitment to veterans but Democrats dismissed as an empty promise.

The House Appropriations Committee's VA and military construction subcommittee agreed to move the legislation to the full committee over the loud objections of Democrats who say the Republican-led plan does not fully fund toxic exposure benefits.

Republicans, in turn, argued their bill supports fiscal responsibility while still meeting the Biden administrations $143 billion budget request for the VA for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1.

We kept our promise, and we did it responsibly, said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, chairman of the subpanel.

The bill is the latest showdown between House Republicans and Democrats over funding for veterans health care and benefits following the passage of a controversial measure last month to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for slashing federal spending.

Democrats, the VA and veterans groups criticized the Republican proposal for failing to carve out protections for spending on veterans and said it would result in a 22% budget cut to the VA.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the top Democrat on the VA appropriations subcommittee, accused Republicans on Wednesday of continuing a disturbing trend of underfunding veteran services.

I cannot in good conscience support this bill, and it saddens me, the Florida congresswoman said. Ive been in a leadership role on this subcommittee since 2014, and I have never felt more sickened and sad about the product that we are producing today.

The main point of contention is the Toxic Exposures Fund, a dedicated reserve set up by last years sweeping Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics, or PACT, Act to cover the treatment costs of veterans exposed to burn pit smoke and other toxins. The fund is considered mandatory spending and is not subject to the annual congressional spending process.

The Republican spending bill proposes putting $5.5 billion into the fund nearly $15 billion less than the VA requested and supplementing the difference with discretionary spending that can be adjusted annually.

Democrats said Wednesday that the move breaks the promise made to veterans under the PACT Act to guarantee health care and benefits and puts the fund at the mercy of future political fights.

The Republicans in Congress are now proposing we toss that guarantee in the garbage and put funding at risk on an annual basis, said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of California, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. That goes beyond morally reprehensible, it is just plain cruel.

Carter said Republicans did not accept the shift of nearly $15 billion to the mandatory side of the budget.

We utilized the Toxic Exposure Fund as intended: to cover the incremental costs above the fiscal year 2021 baseline to implement the PACT Act, he said.

Democrats said Republicans were also seeking to remove dedicated funding for military installation climate change and resilience projects, oversight of privatized housing and the cleanup of toxic PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

They slammed the bill for failing to provide adequate funding for military construction though the bill proposes spending $1 billion more on barracks and other facilities than the $17 billion that the White House had requested.

Committee chairwoman Kay Granger, R-Texas, said the Republicans budget plan, the first of 12 appropriations bills that will be introduced by the House committee in the next few weeks, demonstrates how were able to reduce overall spending without impacting our committee commitment to veterans, national defense and homeland security.

In addition to budgeting, the bill advances a conservative agenda that takes aim at several liberal initiatives. It includes a ban on implementing executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion and prohibits the use of funds to promote or advance critical race theory, which examines structural racism and inequality.

The bill also notably eliminates funding for the VAs public affairs office in response to what Republicans described as inaccurate and politically motivated press releases making false claims about budget cuts.

More than 50 House Republicans lashed out at the VA earlier this month for publicizing the potential impact to veterans of a debt ceiling bill that returns federal spending to 2022 levels. The bill narrowly passed the Republican-led House but lacks support in the Democrat-led Senate. The VA budgeting bill in its current form is also unlikely to gain traction in the upper chamber.

Original post:
VA spending bill approved by Republican-led House subcommittee ... - Stars and Stripes

US news

The former Democrat says she speaks frequently with White House but rejects party politics and stays mum on re-election

US senator Kyrsten Sinema has vowed to never join the Republican party after she changed her party affiliation from Democrat to independent late last year.

In an interview aired on Sunday on CBSs Face the Nation, the Arizona senator said that she is absolutely done with the countrys two-party political system.

The shows host, Margaret Brennan, asked: Now that youre an independent, youll never become a Republican?

No, said Sinema, who has been accused of actually being a Republican after past legislative actions that have been hostile to Democrats agenda. She added: You dont go from one broken party to another.

Sinema elaborated by saying: Arizona is one of the states that has the highest level of independents in the country. We are a state of folks who dont often march to the drum that is being taught to us, right. So most of us dont fit neatly in one box or another. And I think the challenge that we have right now in our political discourse is to make it OK for folks to think on their own.

Reports emerged last month that Sinema was preparing to run for re-election in 2024 as an independent after landing her office as a Democratic candidate in 2018.

Those reports came after Sinema in December switched her party affiliation from Democrat to independent. She announced the change almost immediately after Democrats and independents who caucus with them had secured a 51-49 majority in the Senate.

I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington, Sinema said in a statement at the time.

Despite reports about her re-election plans, Sinema herself has remained tight-lipped in that respect.

It sounds like you want a second term, Brennan told Sinema in the interview aired on Sunday. Sinema replied: Im not here to talk about elections today.

Brennan countered, Why keep people guessing?

Sinema said: I want to stay focused on the work that Im doing. I hope folks who are here today can tell how much it matters to me to actually make progress, solve challenges, deliver results.

That is why I get up and go to work every day. I dont get up and go to work every day so that people can say, you know, is she running again or not? Thats just not my concern.

During her first term as senator, Sinema has often withheld her support for various legislative initiatives put forth by the Joe Biden White House, including voting rights protections. That drew the ire of progressives, many of her colleagues and supporters of the Democratic president.

Sinema nevertheless has maintained that she has a working relationship with the White House particularly on immigration reform legislation despite her changed party affiliation.

I talked to the White House several times this week. I feel confident that if we are able to get a workable plan that has the support of 60-plus senators in the United States Senate, I feel confident that President Biden would support it. I feel confident, said Sinema.

Sinemas pursuit of another Senate term as an independent could mean a competitive three-way race for her seat in Arizona. Democratic US House representative Ruben Gallego, 43, has declared as a candidate, and unsuccessful 2022 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, 53, has said she is exploring a run.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Read the original:
Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema vows to never join Republican party - The Guardian US

opinion

When Republican lawmakers and talking heads speak these days, this is what I hear:

I HATE liberal cancel culture and believe in absolute free speech! I would also like to ban, do away with or silence Disney, NPR, Bud Light, the FBI and CIA, this big pile of books over here, M&Ms, Mr. Potatohead, college professors, any Democratic lawmaker I dont want to hear speak, wokeness, any mention of diversity, drag shows, people who defend drag shows, people who defend people who defend drag shows, any mention whatsoever of the existence of LGBTQ people, this other big pile of books over here, the entire Department of Education, PBS and Oreos.

It all makes perfect sense if you have too much time on your hands and too few functioning brain cells to process the meaning of the word hypocrisy. And it confirms that todays mainstream Republican Party the party of Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has become the party of cancel culture, a bubble-dwelling collection of right-wing caricatures who speak an intolerant and often conspiratorial language most regular Americans, and particularly most younger Americans, cant understand.

And it's happening all over the country.

Consider a recent comment from DeSantis when he was asked about the possibility of Elon Musk relocating Twitters headquarters to Florida: You know, I know Elon Musk, and what I would tell him is like, Ok, if youre going to move Twitter to Florida, are you bringing woke employees to Florida or are you bringing just your people? If its just his people then it may be good.

So the woke are unwelcome. People who disagree with DeSantis anti-woke stance whatever that happens to be, since it changes from day to day are unwelcome.

DeSantis continued to praise Musks attempts to de-woke-ify the social media platform: So I really applaud him for taking on Twitter, trying to moor it back towards facts and truth and stop (parroting) the ideology and trying to censor beliefs that conflict with it.

Allow me to translate that into English: DeSantis is glad Musk is silencing people he disagrees with because, in his mind, that will stop them from trying to censor things they believe are wrong.

Its worth keeping in mind the things the woke at Twitter want to ban include: Nazis, bigots, misogynists, racists and others spouting violent rhetoric. That, by DeSantis logic, is bad. That stifles free speech. And the best way to stop that free-speech stifling is to silence the woke and not welcome them to your state.

Some conservatives will argue this kind of thinking the thinking that leads a governor like DeSantis to try to cancel a huge corporation like Disney because it spoke out against one of his policies is not what the Republican Party is all about. To that I say: Prove it. Because as best I can tell these days, that is ALL the Republican Party is about, a grand old departure from the partys previous belief in limiting government intrusion into peoples lives.

In states like Tennessee, North Dakota, Montana and Oklahoma, GOP lawmakers are working to ban drag shows.

Republican-led legislatures in Florida, Iowa, Utah, Indiana and several other states have taken away a parents right to get gender-affirming care for a transgender child.

Florida passed DeSantis now-infamous Dont Say Gay law, restricting K-12 teachers from discussing sexuality or gender identity in the classroom.

And Republicans, from high-ranking lawmakers down to small-town school board members, have been banning books at a feverish pace. The non-profit free speech group PEN America studies school book bans and found that last fall, there were 1,477 instances of individual books banned, affecting 874 unique titles, an increase of 28 percent compared to the prior six months.

The group wrote in its report: These efforts to chill speech are part of the ongoing nationwide Ed Scare a campaign to foment anxiety and anger with the goal of suppressing free expression in public education. As book bans escalate, coupled with the proliferation of legislative efforts to restrict teaching about topics such as race, gender, American history, and LGBTQ+ identities, the freedom to read, learn and think continues to be undermined for students.

The Washington Post reported that a New Jersey school board recently rejected a sociology textbook in part because the book gave an accurate description of Michael Brown, who was killed by police in 2014, as an unarmed Black teenager.' The books offense? It didnt also describe Browns size and weight, or that he was scuffling with a cop when killed apparently failing to depict the victim as threatening enough.

A recent Indianapolis Star report said the young-adult shelves at the Hamilton East Public Library in Fishers, Indiana, are mostly empty. Books have been pulled because the librarys conservative-led board ordered a review to suss out any books that might contain profanities, descriptions of criminal acts or any instance of visual depiction of sexual nudity as described or any level of written description, even incidental, of sexual conduct as described.

Protesting the review and possible book bans, Fishers parent Matthew Rhea said during a recent board meeting: As a parent, I believe its my responsibility to watch out for my children, not to have other people watch out for my children. I don't know why other people think they need to help me with my children's education.

In Oklahoma, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt wrapped up the month of April by vetoing a bill that funds the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority, one of the nations most-watched Public Broadcasting Service networks. He claimed the network aims to indoctrinate kids.

His evidence? Episodes of Clifford the Big Red Dog and Work it Out Wombats! that included lesbian characters.

Some of the stuff that theyre showing just overly sexualizes our kids, Stitt said, remarkably not choking on the absurdity of that comment.

PBS: Canceled. Transgender kids: Canceled. Woke Twitter employees: Canceled. Bud Light, because the company partnered with a transgender influencer: Canceled. Books that contain a passing profanity or a mention of criminal activity or, heaven forbid, something suggesting that sexual attraction is a thing that exists: Canceled.

This is todays free-speech-loving (as long as its their speech and not yours) Republican Party. The party of un-intrusive government (unless youre up to something that doesnt fit their mainly white, mainly straight and often male world view).

Diversity? Canceled! Equity? Canceled! Inclusion? Canceled!

If I didnt know better, Id say theres something these folks are afraid of. Cant imagine what it might be. But I suppose I should look it up soon before all the books that explain it get banned.

FollowUSA TODAY columnist Rex HuppkeonTwitter@RexHuppkeand Facebookfacebook.com/RexIsAJerk

More from Rex Huppke:

US debt ceiling crisis can be explained in three words: Marjorie Taylor Greene

Could age hamper President Biden's reelection bid? Have you seen the competition?

Shootings over wrong door, wrong car, wrong driveway. The right answer? Always more guns.

Read more:
Liberal 'cancel culture'? GOP bans anything it disagrees with - USA TODAY

FILE - The Missouri State Capitol is seen on Sept. 16, 2022, in Jefferson City, Mo. Jeff Roberson/AP hide caption

FILE - The Missouri State Capitol is seen on Sept. 16, 2022, in Jefferson City, Mo.

Lawmakers in statehouses across the country have spent the past several weeks debating bills that would bring local issues like zoning, education and police powers under state control.

In recent years, national culture war debates have driven a surge of new legislation, known as preemption bills, in Republican state houses aimed at rolling back laws passed by more progressive cities. Mayors and advocates say the trend risks alienating voters who lose faith in the power of their local leaders.

"What we're seeing lately is an increase of home rule grab type legislation," said Clarence Anthony, the CEO of the National League of Cities. "This year, there are 600 different preemptive laws that are being proposed by different legislatures throughout America. That, in fact, is a rise and it's very concerning to our municipal leaders."

Bills targeting education, transgender and LGBTQ rights, housing policy, gun rights and policing are among the most prevalent in the legislative sessions this year, according to the NLC.

FILE - Members of the Missouri House debate legislation on March 21, 2023, at the state Capitol in Jefferson City, Mo. David A. Lieb/AP hide caption

FILE - Members of the Missouri House debate legislation on March 21, 2023, at the state Capitol in Jefferson City, Mo.

The national fight over crime, policing and public safety boiled over in Missouri this week as Republican state lawmakers pushed to transfer control of the St. Louis Police Department to a state-appointed board of trustees. The move was part of a broader crime reduction bill that included a plan to appoint a special prosecutor to oversee some criminal cases in the city.

The legislation was removed Thursday after the city's embattled prosecutor, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, resigned as part of a broader agreement, according to reporting from St. Louis Public Radio.

"I can neither enable nor allow the outright disenfranchisement of the people of the City of St. Louis," Gardner said in a statement announcing her resignation. "Nor can I allow these outsiders to effectively shut down our important work."

Still, the fight over policing in the city has angered residents and local officials who fear a series of ongoing attempts by the state to undercut laws in the city.

St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones said the attempt to overtake the police department would have overturned a statewide referendum that passed in 2012 granting St. Louis local control of their public safety.

"The Republican controlled state legislature is trying to take over our police department by putting in a five member board that are appointed by them and confirmed by them to make all of the decisions on public safety in the city of St. Louis," Jones said in an interview with NPR before the bill was scuttled.

Republican lawmakers, like State Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, said the bill was necessary to curb high crime rates in the city.

"Recently we've seen major St. Louis businesses leave or threaten to leave the region because of crime," Luetkemeyer said this week in a speech on the senate floor.

But Jones said these bills to preempt local control are pure politics.

"None of the legislators who are pushing for this live in the city proper," she said. "This isn't about public safety. It's about power and control of our democratically led cities by outstate Republicans."

Bills like these are not new. Governors and state legislatures from both parties often work together to pass uniform laws for the entire state. Advocates for the approach say it's a way to avoid a patchwork of rules by setting state-wide standards, like for ride share companies or the minimum wage.

But there has been a rapid increase in preemption laws centered around national hot button cultural issues. Mark Treskon, a senior researcher at the Washington DC-based Urban Institute, said the political battles between GOP-led states and more liberal cities have grown.

"Increasingly what's happened is states have been active actors in looking for local laws that might not fit into the ideological underpinnings of who is at the state level," Treskon said. "So I think there's been a little bit more of an act of searching for laws that can be preempted."

At the same time, liberal advocates are working with city leaders to try to advance progressive policies on issues like abortion, gun control, housing policy and the minimum wage.

Last month Mississippi's Republican governor Tate Reeves signed a law giving state-appointed leaders control of policing in Jackson, the state's largest city. In Florida, lawmakers are taking aim at school districts, rent control and gun rights and energy laws. Other similar fights are ongoing from Oklahoma and Texas to Idaho and Alabama.

Republicans are not alone in trying to impose their political aims through preemption. Most analysts point to state-mandated minimum wage increases as an area where Democrats have traditionally tried to set state-wide rules that may conflict with local leaders.

Mike Ricci, a former adviser to Larry Hogan, the former Governor of Maryland, said the pattern of preempting local laws took on a new form during the initial COVID-19 outbreak. Governors were using their power to manage the health emergency and saw an opportunity.

"You know, a light bulb goes off," Ricci said in an interview. "If we can do this with local health powers, can we do it in other areas? Whether it's law enforcement or housing or energy policy? So it just takes on a life of its own."

Ricci said the push for preemption is also about messaging in an era where voter bases for both parties are demanding action, results and conflict from their party leaders. In some cases, Republicans who might have once advocated for small government and local control are now meddling directly in those issues.

"It would have been unthinkable to see governors getting so involved and in law and order and day to day public safety issues in cities," Ricci said. "But now we see it all the time, and I think that will continue. I truly believe that preemption and these tools will be the new normal."

Clarence Anthony of the National League of Cities says many of these bills will ultimately fail - like the one in Missouri. Many more will change. But the uptick in state governments trying to restrict the rights and actions of cities is significant.

"One size does not fit all," he said. "Our local leaders were elected to lead their community and to make those decisions."

And mayors like Tishaura Jones in St. Louis say there are serious consequences to undermining local leaders.

"It makes voters angry," Jones said. "Especially when they elect their leaders on the local level. Then they see that their leaders constantly have to fight for the rights of our cities."

It is particularly stark when those voters have nobody to represent them state-wide. Advocates worry that voters who lose faith in the power of their local leaders may stop participating in elections all together.

Jason Rosenbaum of St. Louis Public Radio contributed to this report.

See the rest here:
Preemption bills gain prominence in Republican states to subvert local laws - NPR