Mediaboss Marketing

MADISON, Wis. (AP) Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said Wednesday that Republicans were done negotiating on a bill that would increase state aid to local governments, unveiling a new proposal that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and the GOP-controlled Senate have yet to agree to.

The Assembly passed the latest version hours after Evers expressed optimism that a bipartisan agreement could be reached. But he was not included in the discussion that led to the latest proposal, which boosts the increase in aid for local governments from at least 10% to 15% but retains provisions that Milwaukee and Evers had objected to.

We are done negotiating, Vos said. We have negotiated in good faith literally for months.

The Assembly passed it 56-36, with all Republicans in support except for three who joined all Democrats in opposing it. The measure now goes to the Senate, where its future is uncertain. Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Vos did not say if the Senate agreed to the latest version of the bill.

Is this bill perfect? Hell no its not perfect, said Republican Rep. Tony Kurtz, the measures sponsor. But he emphasized that Milwaukee officials, Democratic lawmakers, Evers and those representing cities, counties, towns and villages have all been involved with crafting the proposal.

Wisconsins local governments have clamored for years for more state aid to help cover basic services, including police and fire protection, after decades of frozen funding and cuts.

Under the bill, $1.5 billion in aid to municipalities known as shared revenue would be paid for by tapping 20% of the states 5-cent sales tax, an idea Evers has supported. Aid would then grow along with sales tax revenue.

The bill would increase funding to counties, cities, towns and villages by $261 million at least a 15% increase for everyone over the next two years, but that could only be spent on police and fire protection, emergency medical services, emergency response communications, public works and transportation. The city and county of Milwaukee would see a 10% increase, but could ask voters for more.

Evers spokesperson Britt Cudaback said the governor had not signed off on any changes and he looked forward to continuing negotiations, which he previously said he expected to take weeks more. Evers promised to veto the original bill.

Democratic Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, during Assembly debate, said the bill was not ready for prime time.

We need to go back to the negotiating table and get it right, Neubauer said. We can and must do better.

Under the bill, Milwaukee could levy a 2% sales tax and Milwaukee County could add 0.375% sales tax to its current 0.5% sales tax. One of the biggest sticking points has been whether Milwaukee taxpayers would have to approve that tax increase before it could be enacted. Milwaukee city and county officials dont want to have to take it to a vote.

Under the Republican amendment, that requirement for taxpayer approval would remain.

Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson warned lawmakers last week that the city faces bankruptcy by 2025 without help. He, along with groups representing municipalities, police and firefighters, as well as numerous mayors and other local officials, all testified in support of reaching a deal that increases funding.

Milwaukee, the states largest city and a Democratic stronghold, faces an underfunded pension system. Milwaukee has increasingly become reliant on federal pandemic aid to fund its essential services, which city leaders have said cost $150 million more per year to maintain.

Evers, and many of the local officials who testified last week, had complained that the proposal came with too many strings attached. Those include cutting aid to communities that reduce the number of police officers and firefighters and banning public health officials from ordering businesses closed for more than two weeks,

The Assembly amendment would allow health officials to close businesses for up to 30 days, with the local governing body able to extend that once for another 30 days.

The amendment also still bans local advisory referenda questions on everything except those for certain projects that would be funded with property tax money. The bill would not allow questions on hot-button issues like whether voters support abortion rights or legalizing marijuana.

It would also mandate that local governments approve projects under the states land stewardship program that are north of U.S. Highway 8, which runs across roughly the northernmost quarter of the state. Republicans have long raised concerns about such projects that protect the land from future development.

The shared revenue program to fund local governments, created in 1911, has remained nearly unchanged for almost 30 years, despite overall growth in tax revenues. Shared revenue for counties and municipalities was cut in 2004, 2010 and 2012 and since then has been relatively flat.

Read the original post:
Vos says Republicans 'done negotiating' local aid; Evers optimistic ... - The Associated Press

Erie County Legislature Chairwoman April Baskin angrily denounced Republican legislators Thursday after committee meetings, accusing them of not truly caring about racism.

"Ever since May 14, you ain't said (expletive) about racism. Since May 14. You haven't raised your hand to call out racism before. Ever," she yelled atRepublican Legislator Chris Greene, of Clarence, and a group of other Republicans.

She hurled the accusations across the Legislature floor after a Buffalo News reporter asked about two resolutions addressing allegations that the Clover Group operated under a racially biased policy to keep its housing developments out of Black communities.

The Clover Group controversy on Thursday broke open simmering resentments between Republican legislators and the Legislature chairwoman, who has championed issues of racial equity.

People are also reading

The Lancaster-based company has strongly denied the allegations against it.

When the issue came before the Legislature last week, Greenebrought up the topic of Clover and the audio recording of Clover executives referring to African Americans as "Canadians" and saying they wouldn't build senior housing in communities where more than 20% of the residents were Canadian.

Greeneand the rest of the Republican minority caucus subsequently shared a resolution with the Democrats calling on the boards of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center and the AKG Art Museum to suspend Clover President Michael Joseph from their boards until an investigation into the allegations could be completed.

Joseph has contributed thousands to New York Democratic governors and contributed $16,000 to the campaign of Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz from 2011 to 2014.

A Democratic staffer later presented the Republicans with an alternateresolution that did not mention Joseph but included broader language about standing up against racism and referenced Buffalo being a target of racist attacks such as the May 14, 2022, mass shooting.

Unlike the Republican resolution, which focused on Joseph, the Democratic resolution called for Clover to fire the individuals heard on the recording,for the company to make a statement against racial housing discrimination, and for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to investigate Clover.

The Republican resolution failed on party lines. All legislators voted in favor of the Democratic resolution.

A reporter asked Baskin and Legislator Howard Johnson, two Democratic city legislators who represent districts with large Black populations, why Joseph's name was not included on the Democratic resolution and whether any outside Democratic leaders had asked Democratic legislators to leave his name out of their resolution.

Clover Group, a real estate development firm headquartered in Lancaster, is about to get hit with two federal lawsuits that accuse the firm of deciding where to build senior housing on the basis of race.

Democratic legislators and staffers strenuously denied this, saying they received no calls from anyone about that.

Peter Anderson, a spokesman for Poloncarz,said any suggestion that there was any outside political involvement in the Democratic resolution is "100% wrong."

"Neither the County Executive nor anyone from this administration told the Legislature to do anything regarding a vote," he said.

Baskin went on to say she doesn't know Joseph and would never defend someone who might be racist for political reasons.

Baskin then angrily accused Greene of suddenly caring about racism when it involves someone with a history of contributing to Democratic officials.

"You tried to use me and Howard ... you tried to use racism as a political victory lap!" she said.

"Roll the tape back! Find the meeting minutes where you talk about racism."

Greene said he's always cared about racism, that he's strongly opposed racist behavior and pushed back against Baskin's assertions that he hasn't been supportive of racial equity issues that have come before the Legislature. He agreed with comments by Baskin and Johnson that racism was a community issue.

He also pointed out to The Buffalo News later that the Republican resolution was modeled on Buffalo Common actions. He noted that Council Council Member Rasheed Wyatt was demanding that Joseph step down from board positions.

"It's insulting to me that she's using the decade-old trope that somehow Republicans don't care about racism," he said.

Michael Joseph had been on Roswell Park's board for 19 years, including the last 16 as board chair, but had recently faced a growing chorus calling for his removal from that post after his development company was hit last week with a federal racial discrimination lawsuit.

Baskin and Johnson falsely accused Republicans of never otherwise saying anything denouncing racism.

Legislators on both sides of the aisle have expressed opposition to racism and racial discrimination, especially after the May 14 attacks, though Democrats and Baskin in particular have been the ones to push issues of racial justice in floor resolutions.

Baskin said she didn't believe Greene was sincere in his positions about racism because he and the rest of the Republican minority caucus opposed the creation of an Office of Health Equity and opposed the women- and minority-owned business modernization act that would give preferential treatment to such business owners in government contract deals.

Greene said he didn't believe people should be treated differently by government based on their race or gender, and that while he supports funding to address health disparities, he did not support the creation of a new, permanent county department.

Johnsonsaid the Legislature, in general, does not talk in any meaningful, bipartisan way about the issue of racism, which makes it hard to trust the intentions and motivations of the Republican caucus.

News Staff Reporter Stephen T. Watson contributed to this report.

Sign up for a behind-the-scenes look at Western New York's political power brokers with our weekly newsletter.

See the rest here:
Baskin accuses Republicans of not truly caring about racism - Buffalo News

Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Reuters

Republicans say theyre simply following due process. Democrats say theyre trying to do right by voters and Congress. And all the while, as the two sides bicker, indicted Rep. George Santos (R-NY) will remain in Congress.

After Republicans turned a long-shot motion to kick Santos out of Congress into a vote to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee, Democrats were quick to cry foul, complaining that Republicans were just using due process as an excuse to keep Santos in Congress indefinitely.

The House voted 221-204-7 on Wednesday along party lines, with seven Democrats voting present, on a procedural motion to refer the matter of Santos expulsion to the Ethics Committee. That decision will allow Santos to continue serving while a slow-moving judicial process takes place, and it gives Republicans the cover they wanted to not remove Santos. (They didnt vote to not remove Santos; they simply voted to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee.)

Republicans said they wanted to wait for either House Ethics to hand down some recommended sanctions, or for Santos to be formally convicted after his indictment on 13 federal charges last week, to actually remove Santos from Congress. But as Democrats noted, all Republicans really did was buy Santosand themselvessome time.

George Santos Staffer Faces Discipline for Menacing Sexual Comments to Reporter

Ethics investigations are slow. Prosecutions for criminal misconduct are potentially even slower. And the Department of Justice generally asks House Ethics not to investigate something they are also investigating.

By delaying a Santos expulsion, Republicans get to keep their slim majority from getting even slimmerparticularly ahead of critical votes on the debt limit and federal budget. If he were to be expelled, or to resign, it would spark a special election in his swing district, which went to President Joe Biden in 2020.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-C) has urged House Ethics to move rapidly. And hes insisted the committee will move forward, even if DOJ objects.

Story continues

Still, not all of his members think its that simple.

Does Ethics ever work quickly? Its kinda hard to say, said Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) on Wednesday. I will vote to refer it to ethics, thats the right move. In the past we have expelled members when there's a conviction. I did a little bit of research on the history and precedent and that's how we've done it in the past but I will say this: George Santos should resign. Period.

Santos has a year-and-a-half left in office, in which hell live on a taxpayer-funded salary, receive the perks of staff and resources given to members of Congress, and be the voice representing his hundreds of thousands of constituents. Hes running for re-election, too, and has shown no willingness to resign.

All the same, every single House Republican in attendance on Wednesday voted in favor of sending the referendum to the Ethics Committee. Democrats voted against, except for seven Democrats that voted present, most of whom were on the Ethics Committee themselves. (Its highly unusual for members on House Ethics to vote on a referendum to come to themand the support from House Republicans raised some eyebrows.)

Three memberstwo Democrats and one Republicansimply didnt vote.

A number of House Republicans have called on Santos to resign. But it seems that outright expelling him is a different storyas even those anti-Santos Republicans fell in line with McCarthy plan Wednesday.

Some Republicans have justified their opposition to expulsion by insisting its a political move by Democratsand that expulsion historically has been reserved for members who are already convicted.

Democrats say its a matter of not kicking the can down the roadand getting Santos out sooner rather than later.

Republicans in the House now have an opportunity to stand with the American public and their constituents or to stand with someone who has been indicted on 13 counts, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who introduced the resolution, said at a press conference Wednesday morning. We also understand that expulsion is serious.

Another frequent critic of Santos, freshman Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), was emphatic that criminal standards of law shouldnt be the standard for serving in Congress.

Indictment Highlights One of George Santos Greatest Hypocrisies

We should not be in a body where criminal law concepts of due process dictate whether or not someone belongs here, Goldman said. The measure of whether someone deserves to be a member of Congress is not merely whether they are a criminal or not.

In the past, there has been a high bar for expelling a member of Congress, one even Santos hasnt quite reached. The last expulsion happened two decades ago after Rep. Jim Traficant (D-OH) was convicted for bribery, tax evasion and racketeering. Before that, it was Rep. Michael Myers (D-PA), who was expelled after he was convicted of bribery. Before that, it was the 1800s, when more than a dozen members were convicted for supporting the confederacy.

But the quantity of evidence against Santos for so many different misdeeds is, to say the least, staggering.

Santos has already admitted to some of his embellishments, acknowledging in January that he jazzed up his resume for the sake of electability. But hes adamantly denied wrongdoing in many of the reports that have come out since, ranging from him stealing puppies from an Amish dog breeder, to numerous questionable campaign finance filings of $199, to his massive campaign loans probably not being legal.

In order for an actual expulsion vote to succeed, all Democrats and 77 Republicans would have to vote for the measure, which was always unlikely. A vote to refer the issue to House Ethics only requires a simple majorityand it saved Republicans from actively to taking a vote to save Santos.

To be sure, there is also an obvious political motivation for Democrats in the expulsion vote: On top of potentially taking out a Republican vote, it was a chance to put Republicans on the record protecting the scandal-plagued member.

As of Wednesday, Democrats House Majority Forward had already begun making robocalls in districts held by vulnerable House Republicans, encouraging voters to pressure their members to support the expulsion, according to Axios.

Meanwhile, Santos appears to be outright enjoying the attention. He changed his Twitter profile picture to a shot of him exiting the courthouse last week, surrounded by reporters.

On the House floor Wednesday evening, Santos did, in fact, support delaying a vote on his expulsion too. He told reporters on the Capitol steps as he exited that he believes he has a "constitutional right" to defend himself.

When The Daily Beast asked if he would willingly comply with an Ethics Committee recommendation that he step down, Santos said, Well, of course, I mean, I'm not chaining myself here. If the ethics committee makes that recommendation that's a different story.

Santos says he has been cooperative with the Ethics Committee but has not yet appeared before them.

Santos ultimately cut out of the gaggle as two of his New York colleaguesReps. Jamaal Bowman and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY)started heckling him.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Get the Daily Beast's biggest scoops and scandals delivered right to your inbox. Sign up now.

Stay informed and gain unlimited access to the Daily Beast's unmatched reporting. Subscribe now.

Read the original:
Republicans Pull Off Face-Saving Gambit to Keep George Santos in Congress - Yahoo News

US politics

Experts say partys tough-on-crime approach for 2024 could spark rise in violence and worsen US mass incarceration

Republican and rightwing rhetoric over the state of crime in the US could spark a rise in violent incidents and worsen the countrys mass incarceration problem, experts say, as tough-on-crime political ads and messaging seem set to play a large role in the 2024 election.

Violent crime was a huge focus for Republican candidates during the 2022 midterm elections. Republicans spent about $50m on crime ads in the two months leading up to those elections, the ads pushing a dystopian vision of cities ridden by murder, robbery and assault, and of Democratic politicians unwilling to act.

As the 2024 contest heaves into view, it is clear that Republicans plan to follow the same playbook.

Joe Biden and the defund-the-police Democrats have turned our once-great cities into cesspools of bloodshed and crime, Trump said in a recent campaign video.

Trump said if elected president he would order police forces to reinstate stop and frisk a police tactic which has been shown to disproportionately target young Black men and said he wanted to introduce the death penalty for drug dealers.

Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who is expected to be Trumps closest rival for the Republican presidential nomination, has also leaned into tough-on-crime rhetoric and policy. Last month, DeSantis signed a law lowering the death penalty threshold in Florida, allowing people convicted of certain crimes to be sentenced to death if eight or more jury members recommend it.

They think thats the way to score political victories, said Udi Ofer, a professor at Princeton University and the former deputy national political director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

I think theres a bit of a kneejerk, and, quite frankly, lazy attitude that tough-on-crime is the only way to win an election, despite the fact that we have so much evidence today that shows there are other ways.

There is also an element of Republicans, and, Ofer said, some Democrats, pouncing on an increase in violent crime during the Covid pandemic.

The Brennan Center for Justice found that the number of murders per 100,000 people rose by nearly 30% nationwide in 2020, while aggravated assault rose by 11.4%. The rate of murder rose in big cities, which tend to vote Democratic and which are repeatedly demonized by Republicans and the rightwing media. But it also rose across the rest of the country.

So-called red states actually saw some of the highest murder rates of all, the Brennan Center said.

Since that peak, most types of violent crime have now dropped. Crime declined in 35 large cities in 2022, according to the Council on Criminal Justice, although rates remain higher than pre-pandemic levels. Still, the rate of homicide in major cities was about half that of historic peaks in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The 1980s was when tough-on-crime rhetoric exploded, Ofer said. It culminated in the election of prosecutors who promised more convictions and longer sentences.

The impact, Ofer said, was an exponential growth in incarceration in the US. About 300,000 people were in prisons and jails in 1973, but by 2009 that number had grown to 2.2m making the US the largest incarcerator in the world.

This was a result of hundreds of new laws and practices at the local level, at the state level, at the federal level, including new mandatory minimum laws, more cash bail and pre-trial detention, and more aggressive prosecutorial and policing practices, Ofer said.

In this crime crackdown, not everyone was treated equally. Black people have been historically more likely to be arrested than white people, which led to higher rates of incarceration. A 2003 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that in 2001 an estimated 16.6% of adult black males were current or former State or Federal prisoners. Just 2.6% of adult white males had been incarcerated.

Some progress has been made in the last two decades. By 2020 the number of people in jail or prison was down to 1.2 million meaning the US still has the fifth highest incarceration rate in the world but the obsession with tackling crime, through measures including more arrests, more prosecutions and more imprisonments, could see a reversal.

We are on the verge again of seeing the types of policies that devastated particularly low-income communities of color grow again as it did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Republicans have led the charge on crime rhetoric, Ofer said. But now Democrats are getting in on the act we are seeing a growing movement within the Democratic party pushing for more tough-on-crime policies, Ofer said.

The rhetoric and fearmongering over crime has led, in part, to an expansion of stand-your-ground laws in the US. In the past 10 years, 14 states in the US have added some form of the law, which can rule that people determined to have acted in self-defense can escape prosecution for actions up to and including murder.

A 2022 investigation by Reveal found that 38 states now have some version of stand your ground and the laws have proved devastating: a study published in 2022 found that the legislation was linked with an 8-11% increase in homicides.

Ironically, given the accusation from the right that Democrats are too soft on crime, it appears to be traditionally red states that have the more serious crime problem.

The murder rate in the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump has exceeded the murder rate in the 25 states that voted for Joe Biden in every year from 2000 to 2020, Third Way, a US thinktank, reported in January. Third Way also found that in 2020 murder rates were 40% higher in Trump-voting states than Biden-voting states.

Although Republicans harangued Democrats over crime in the 2020 midterms, the strategy seems to have had mixed success. Republicans largely underperformed in those elections, and Ofer pointed to the success of progressive prosecutors across the country as evidence that a tough-on-crime message is not always a successful route to take.

As well as the impact on incarceration and violent offenses, the tough-on-crime approach can also lead to the demonization of certain communities, said Stephen Piggott, a researcher at Western States Center, a non-profit organization which works to strengthen democracy.

Republican talking points about the danger of immigrants and people who live in inner cities could be behind an increase in attacks on minority groups. In recent years, theres been a real mainstreaming of both violent and dehumanizing rhetoric, and its espoused by elected officials and media personalities, Piggott said.

And its really served to kind of normalize this political violence. When you have individuals with large platforms, like elected officials and media personalities, and theyre talking about things like an impending civil war, it could lead to folks kind of taking that to heart and then acting on it.

The number of hate crimes in the US increased by 12% in 2021, according to the FBI, although the true number is likely to be much higher, given data from some of Americas largest cities was not included in the FBIs report.

About 65% of the hate-crime victims were targeted because of their race, according to the report, while 16% were targeted over their sexual orientation and 14% of cases involved religious bias.

So there are direct consequences on the ground for people of color, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, Piggott said.

Theres a lot of impact going on right now.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Go here to see the original:
Stark warning over Republicans dehumanizing rhetoric on crime - The Guardian US

Governmentagencies haveproposed dozens of major regulations so far this year. One specifies the kinds of operating cords that can be used on custom window coverings, and another would effectively require carmakers to transition two-thirds of all new passenger cars to electric technology.

Under a little-noticed provision in a House bill that passed this month, all of those regulations would need to come before Congress for a vote before they could go into effect.

It may seem like its in the weeds, but it really affects all of us, said Susan Dudley, the director of the regulatory studies center at George Washington University, who was the top regulatory official in the George W. Bush administration. She was one of several leading experts who were unaware that the bill contained this provision.

The Republican legislation, which is not expected to become law in its current form, has mostly attracted attention for its part in the debate about raising the countrys borrowing limit, and for its proposals to reduce federal deficits over the next decade. But its effort to reshape the federal regulatory process could arguably have a deeper impact on the future functioning of government.

While Congress passes laws every year, federal agencies tend to roll out many, many more regulations. Those long, often technical rules help business understand how the government works, by setting standards for allowable pollution, establishing how much doctors and hospitals will be paid for medical care, and explaining what numerous technical or vague terms and processes in legislation really mean. The process of rule making often takes years, and requires a period of public comment before a regulation becomes final.

Regulations are not apolitical. As Congress has become more polarized and gridlocked, presidents have become more aggressive about enacting major policies through them. Barack Obama tried to use rule making to limit carbon emissions from power plants. Donald J. Trump used rule making to deny green cards to immigrants who had used certain social benefit programs. And President Biden is hoping to use regulation to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans.

But many major regulations make fewer headlines, and most rely on technical expertise by federal agencies that Congress would be hard-pressed to replicate. This years list includes one updating technical standards for mammography equipment, and one clarifying when a guns features mean it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. A recent payment rule for Medicare Advantage changed the formula meant to pay private insurers for covering customers with vascular disease, based on a detailed review of medical data.

The legislation would require Congress to approve each of those actions before they go into effect, under a fast-tracked legislative process that would force up-or-down votes on the rules without any possibility of amendment. Any major rule that failed to pass both houses of Congress could not be proposed again for at least a year. Current law allows Congress to upend a regulation it does not like, but the process requires majority votes by both houses of Congress, and a signature by the president, meaning nearly all regulations go into effect.

The legislation to change this default was first written more than a decade ago by Geoffrey Davis, then a Republican congressman from Kentucky. Mr. Davis, who came from a business background, was concerned about the number of high-cost regulations he saw approved while he was in government.

One day he received a visit in his district office, and this gentleman asked me one question, and this was my turning point: Why cant you just vote on this? Mr. Davis said. And it just clicked.

Supporters of Mr. Daviss idea, known as the REINS Act for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny say it would force Congress to take more responsibility for being clear about what its laws mean. Mr. Davis said he felt that Congress had too often written vague laws that delegated too many important decisions to executive agencies to decide.

It would increase the incentives for Congress to be more proactive, said Jonathan Adler, a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University, who wrote an article supporting the idea in 2011. We need legislators to legislate, and part of legislating is taking accountability for the big policy decisions that are being made.

Others, of course, like the idea because it would make it harder for the government to enact any regulations at all the same reason that many regulatory experts are less enthusiastic about the REINS Act.

The practical impact of this in a time of divided government like we have now is that I think no major rule would ever get done, said Jonathan Siegel, a law professor at George Washington, who has written about the bill at length.

If the Republican House wanted to deny the Biden administration policy wins, it could simply vote no on every regulation it proposed. Those might include rules that explain how major portions of last years Inflation Reduction Act are meant to work. In a REINS Act world, the Republican House could just block those rules, effectively thwarting legislation passed by a previous Congress.

If you starve the beast by never allowing the implementing regulations to issue, then you have in effect nullified the legislation, said Sally Katzen, a co-director of the legislative and regulatory process clinic at N.Y.U., who was the top regulatory official in the Clinton administration. She pointed out that Republicans tend to schedule votes on the REINS Act when there is a Democratic president, but not when a Republican holds the office.

What they want to do is to make it impossible to regulate, said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan.

The obstruction can work both ways. Imagine how the Democratic House might have voted on Trump-era rules that had the effect of cutting all family planning funding for Planned Parenthood, limiting civil rights protections for transgender Americans, or rolling back controls on power plant emissions.

Mr. Davis said blocking rules wholesale was not his intention. His hope was to improve Congresss process. I want to make the legislation specific enough to force a bipartisan dialogue, he said.

But Congress already has problems writing legislation in technical and contested areas. Many Republicans dislike environmental regulations interpreting the Clean Water Act, which asks the E.P.A. to limit pollution that is harmful to human health. But Congress has not made major revisions to that lawin decades. Simply voting on rules about how those old laws apply to new scientific findings may not be enough to prompt robust new legislating.

Its hard to get anything through Congress, even in the best of times, and now is not the best of times, Mr. Bagley said. Its a recipe for stasis.

Read more from the original source:
From Electric Cars to Windows, Republican Bill Could Limit Regulation - The New York Times