Mediaboss Marketing

Again, this is unseemly but not unusual. Eric Cantor did not become the vice chairman of investment bank Moelis & Company because of his proficiency in giving sage investment advice. Chris Dodd was not named the chairman of the Motion Picture Academy of America because of his facility with filmic mise-en-scne. Billy Tauzin did not become the head of PhRMA because he had innovative ideas on how to run effective double-blind clinical trials. These well-connected politicians received these well-compensated sinecures because they possessed the very same skills that Hunter Biden brought to Burisma and nothing more. The vast majority of House members currently waving their arms and frantically shouting, How, oh how, did Hunter Biden manage this feat? How did this happen? fully plan to feather their nests in the exact same way once their careers in electoral politics are over. Its hard to imagine how deeply Hunter Bidens situation can be interrogated before everyone runs headlong into the underlying hypocrisy.

Beyond these This Town matters, theres a more pressing reason why a prolonged exploration of Hunter Biden is not likely to bear fruit: The presidents interest in Burisma has always been a con. Aside from exposing the fact that Hunter had successfully joined the ranks of everyone else playing an angle with their connections to power and influence, at the core of the controversy is only a mad gambit, hatched by the president and his cronies, to bring the likeliest Democratic presidential nominee low. Trumps defenders have attempted to paint the president as being uniquely interested in fighting foreign corruption, but hes always lacked a sincere interest in such pursuits. In fact, any cursory examination of Trumps records will reveal a deep and abiding interest in enabling such corruption, and numerous actions taken to further that interest, both in Ukraine and elsewhere.

There was never going to be a sincere investigation of Hunter Bidens activities. Trump was never going to seek regular status reports from Ukrainian officials or report findings to the relevant authorities. Trumps Biden exploit was to extort Volodymyr Zelenskiy into going on camerathe so-called public boxto announce an investigation, and then rely on the media to whip themselves into a rabid froth over the matter, exploiting the same crisis of adult newsroom supervision that led to the overwrought coverage of Hillary Clintons emails. Were it not for the whistleblower, we might today be living in this alternate reality. Instead, the whistleblower put paid to the extortion of Zelenskiy and ended anything that resembled a sincere interest in rooting out foreign corruption on the part of the president. Theres nothing else to get to the bottom ofwhat lies at the bottom is an aborted scam. This is literally the only thing that further inquiry will discover.

Which isnt to say that the staging of such an inquiry wont be perilous for Hunter Biden or the Democrats. The younger Biden has led something of a troubled life and would likely fare poorly under the kliegs of a congressional inquiry. And the medias aforementioned crisis of supervisory constancy creates the searing potential for a prolonged shitshow, where even a dedication to debunking dark insinuations might only perpetuate them.

As The Washington Posts Greg Sargent notes, the trajectory of Republican defenses of Trumpand the strategy they seem to be bent on should there be an impeachment trial in the Senatelooks to be one in which Republicans will attempt to accomplish some of the very same goals (smearing Joe Biden) that drove the whole corrupt scheme all along. Instead of Zelenskiy being shoved in the public box, it will be Republican electeds serving in that role.

Despite the fact that any further pressing into the Hunter Biden matter is at best going to reveal little more than the way Washington works, and at worst further bolster the case against Trump by putting yet another spotlight on the original con, there can be little doubt that Republicans are up for it. Back in September 2015, thenHouse Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy enthused about his partys efforts to subject that cycles Democratic front-runner to sustained investigation. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee, McCarthy said. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Trumps defenders will, similarly, gleefully implicate themselves in the furtherance of Trumps scam. The only real question remaining is whether the media will do a better job telling the truth throughout these upcoming fugazi hearings than they did during the Benghazi hearings.

Read the original post:
Republicans Prepare to Give Hunter Biden the Benghazi Treatment - The New Republic

House Republicans say their counterparts in the Senate need to do more to help President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump puts Kushner in charge of overseeing border wall construction: report Trump 2020 national spokesperson gives birth to daughter New McCarthy ad praising Trump includes Russian stock footage MORE on impeachment.

The House GOP lawmakers note their power is limited on impeachment hearings, but Senate Republicans have the authority to call witnesses and issue subpoenas. Republicans in the lower chamberhave expressed frustration that little attention has been paid to allegations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 presidential election and that former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenKennedy walks back comments on potential Ukraine interference: 'I was wrong' Nunes faces potential ethics review over alleged meeting with Ukrainian official Bloomberg campaign chief: Trump is winning 2020 election right now MORE may have had a serious conflict of interest with regard to Ukraine because of his son Hunter Biden.

Major media outlets, with the exception of Fox News, have given little credibility to these allegations pushed by Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiNunes faces potential ethics review over alleged meeting with Ukrainian official Ukrainian gas executive says indicted Giuliani associates tried to recruit him for company takeover Prosecutors issue subpoenas for information on Giuliani's consulting work: report MORE and their allies.

Rep. Lee ZeldinLee ZeldinSunday shows - Democrats look forward on impeachment GOP Congressman: Trump's 'prerogative' to weigh in on Navy SEAL review Sunday Talk Shows: After two weeks of testimony, lawmakers look to next steps of impeachment proceedings MORE (R-N.Y.), after a marathon day of impeachment hearings Tuesday, complained that allegations that Ukraine interfered in U.S. politics and that Biden was conflicted in his dealings with Ukraine have been considered debunked without a more thorough review.

The Democrats and some in the media like to just say the Burisma/Zlochevsky issue is just totally debunked, even though Burisma is a corrupt Ukrainian company run by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch hiring Hunter Biden by Hunters Biden own admission solely because [of] his last name, solely because hes the vice presidents son, Zeldin said, referring to Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that paid Hunter Biden generously to serve on its board, and the companys owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.

Several Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee said Senate Republicans should delve into this side of the impeachment story.

While Senate Republicans have discussed the possibility of a Ukraine investigation focused on Joe and Hunter Biden, there has been little follow-through.

I think thats appropriate, said Rep. Jim JordanJames (Jim) Daniel JordanThe Hill's Morning Report Schiff: Clear evidence of a quid pro quo Diplomat seen rolling his eyes amid testy impeachment exchange with Jordan Live coverage: Impeachment spotlight shifts to Fiona Hill, David Holmes MORE (R-Ohio) when asked if the Senate needs to do more to investigate Ukrainian corruption and links to the Bidens. The Democrats keep saying its some conspiracy theory.

I think it would be helpful to get the bottom of all that, added Jordan, a staunch defender of Trump.

He pointed to a claim by a member of the Ukrainian parliament that many of the countrys political figures wanted Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonKennedy walks back comments on potential Ukraine interference: 'I was wrong' Davis: Congressman Will Hurd, If not now, when? What Trump really wanted from Ukraine was not about enemies MORE to win the 2016 election, a critical 2016 op-ed aimed at then-candidate Trump by Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Valeriy Chaly, and criticism that Arsen Avakov, the former Ukrainian interiorminister, leveled at Trump on Facebook.

Thats serious, Jordan said.

He expressed frustration that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffNunes faces potential ethics review over alleged meeting with Ukrainian official Poll: Interest in impeachment inquiry dips among Democratic voters Schiff: Judiciary Committee to receive impeachment report 'soon after' Thanksgiving recess MORE (D-Calif.) has refused to call Hunter Biden or request that the whistleblower testify.

Asked if the Senate should step in and call witnesses left out of the House impeachment hearing, Jordan said heck, yeah and sure they should.

GOP leaders specially appointed Jordan to the Intelligence Committee last month to spearhead Trumps defense.

Rep. Brad WenstrupBrad Robert WenstrupLive coverage: Impeachment spotlight shifts to Fiona Hill, David Holmes House GOP wants Senate Republicans to do more on impeachment Six memorable moments from Ex-Ukraine ambassador Yovanovitch's public testimony MORE (R-Ohio), another member of the House Intelligence Committee, said there really could be a bigger role played by Senate Republicans because Schiff has blocked House GOP requests for witnesses who could show that Trump had a legitimate interest in pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate corruption.

Were really stymied here, he said.

Wenstrup said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamDemocrats challenge South Carolina law requiring voters to disclose Social Security numbers Graham defends call to investigate Bidens: 'My conscience is clear' Graham blocked Armenian genocide resolution upon request from White House MORE (R-S.C.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrHouse GOP wants Senate Republicans to do more on impeachment McConnell hopes Senate impeachment trial 'not too lengthy a process' Bipartisan senators urge national security adviser to appoint 5G coordinator MORE (R-N.C.) could bolster Republican counterarguments by launching their own investigations.

I would love for them to do it because thats the only way I think were going to get to the whole truth, he said.

Graham has given different statements on the need to investigate Ukrainian corruption and the Bidens.

In September, he and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonJuan Williams: Trump has nothing left but smears GOP senators ask Treasury for financial reports on Hunter Biden GOP senator opposes quick dismissal of Trump articles of impeachment MORE (R-Wis.) floated the idea of investigating Biden.

Graham, who is up for reelection next year, told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt someone should look at corruption related to the Ukraine but said the probe should be conducted outside the Senate.

He then told reporters in late September that he didnt call on Hunter Biden to testify because he didnt want to turn the Senate into a circus.

But after coming back to Washington after a two-week recess in October, Graham said he hadnt yet made a decision on bringing Biden before the Judiciary Committee and suggested it would depend on what information Giuliani, who had been invited to testify, would provide.

Graham and other Senate Republicans have also come under pressure from Fox News host Sean HannitySean Patrick HannityRising GOP star thrust into spotlight with Trump defense Mark Levin: Schiff awakened 'sleeping giant' with impeachment House GOP wants Senate Republicans to do more on impeachment MORE to do more.

Its right now time for Republicans to get tough. Senate Republicans need to pay attention, Hannity said on his show last week.Republicans have the power in the Senate, that means you have the power to subpoena people, he said.

Hannity urged Senate Republicans to subpoena the whistleblower as well as Hunter Biden.

Did he speak with his father about his Ukrainian business deals? Their statements we already know and it pointed out are in conflict with each other. We know The New York Times tipped off Joe Biden that his son was being investigated by the prosecutor in Ukraine, he said.

Hannity also challenged Graham in an interview Tuesday evening about the need to investigate Ukrainian corruption and the Bidens.

When Graham said nobodys looked, Hannity shot back: Im looking and what I see is really bad.

Earlier this month, Graham said he hoped Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim RischJames (Jim) Elroy RischChina issues directive to 'intensify' protections around intellectual property rights Overnight Defense Presented by Boeing Deal on defense bill proves elusive | Hill, Holmes offer damaging testimony | Trump vows to block Navy from ousting officer from SEALs Senate approves stopgap bill to prevent shutdown MORE (R-Idaho) would take up a probe of Hunter Biden.

We need to look at whether or not Hunter Biden corruptly engaged in lobbying. DidJoe Bidenask the prosecutor to be fired becausehe was investigating his son?Graham saidduring an interview with Fox NewssLaura IngrahamLaura Anne IngrahamHouse GOP wants Senate Republicans to do more on impeachment Vindman's lawyer requests Fox News retract guest's allegation about espionage Overnight Health Care: GOP senator says drug price action unlikely this year | House panel weighs ban on flavored e-cigs | New York sues Juul MORE.

Risch, however, has said hes not interested in taking his committee down that path. On Wednesday he said the Senate Intelligence Committee would be more appropriate to investigate Ukraine issues related to the impeachment inquiry.

In this instance the majority leader has assigned these issues to the Intelligence Committee to hear, so you want to talk to Sen. Burr, he said.

But Burr on Wednesday said he right now is focused on the intelligence communitys handling of the whistleblowers complaint against Trump and is stuck on trying to get the whistleblower to testify before his committee.

Burr said the jurisdiction more appropriately belongs to Rischs Foreign Relations panel.

Were looking at the whistleblower complaint, the process as to who knew about it, how many people they talked to, and what did they do. Thats the extent of what were looking at right now, he said.

The Senate Republican chairmen who have gone the furthest are Johnson and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyTrump draws ire after retreat on drug prices pledge GOP senators ask Treasury for financial reports on Hunter Biden Trump says drug importation plan coming 'soon' MORE (R-Iowa) who released a letter in September asking the Justice Department to investigate links between Ukrainian operatives and Hillary Clintons 2016 presidential campaign.

Johnson and Grassley last week asked Secretary of State Mike PompeoMichael (Mike) Richard PompeoSchiff: Judiciary Committee to receive impeachment report 'soon after' Thanksgiving recess State Dept. docs show Pompeo, Giuliani contacts before ouster of Ukraine ambassador White House keeps Democrats from critical witnesses MORE to release any State Department records that may exist related to Hunter Bidens position as a Burisma Holdings board member.They also asked for information about what steps the Obama administration took to ensure policy decisions related to Ukraine and Burisma were not influenced by the financial interests of the senior officials family members.

House Republicans say these are steps in the right direction but they want to see more action.

Rep. Chris StewartChristopher (Chris) Douglas StewartHouse GOP wants Senate Republicans to do more on impeachment How House Republicans have stayed unified on impeachment The Hill's Morning Report - Wild Wednesday: Sondland testimony, Dem debate take center stage MORE (R-Utah), a third Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the Senate should investigate the Ukraine- and Biden-related angles of the impeachment debate.

I think they should and I think they will, he said.

Stewart said if Democrats are going to argue it was improper to press Zelensky to investigate corruption, we have to understand the basis of that.

House Republicans last week submitted to Schiff a list of witnesses they wanted to call before the Intelligence Committee. It included Hunter Biden; Devon Archer, a former board member of Burisma Holdings; and Alexandra Chalupa, a former Democratic National Committee staffer who Republicans say worked with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington to get political dirt on Trumps campaign.

Senate Republicans have also come under pressure from other prominent conservatives to play a more active role in Trumps defense.

Rep. Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsDemocrats set to open new chapter in impeachment House GOP wants Senate Republicans to do more on impeachment Michelle Obama presents Lin-Manuel Miranda with National Portrait Award MORE (R-N.C.), a leading member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, on Wednesday said Senate Republicans could use their subpoena power effectively.

Certainly having a much more robust and fair process from the Senate standpoint on issuing subpoenas would be appropriate since were been denied a number of witnesses and due process over on the House side, Meadows said.

Rep. Kenny MarchantKenny Ewell MarchantHouse GOP wants Senate Republicans to do more on impeachment Ethics sends memo to lawmakers on SCIF etiquette Ethics panel investigating Rep. Hastings over relationship with staffer MORE (R-Texas) said it could help Republicans politically if Senate chairmen got more aggressive in investigating Ukrainian corruption and possible ties to the Bidens.

Asked if a Senate investigation of Ukraine and the Bidens would be helpful, Marchant responded, From a political standpoint, for my grassroot voter, yes.

He said it would be a legitimate thing to do to use the Senates investigative powers to balance the story that House Democrats are laying out through their impeachment probe.

Read more here:
House GOP wants Senate Republicans to do more on impeachment | TheHill - The Hill

For the millions of Americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., said on the first day of public impeachment hearings. No. 1: Ukraine received the aid. No. 2: There was, in fact, no investigation into Biden.

Stefaniks side wants this to be the central point that sticks in our heads: The alleged quid pro quo, where Ukraine would receive military aid appropriated by Congress on the condition that it cooked up an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, did not actually occur because Ukraine received the aid the quid and never publicly announced an investigation into Biden the quo.

The extended media arm of the Republican Party has diligently recited this chorus, as well. The right-wing commentator Laura Ingraham said on her Fox News show, Remember, Ukraine got its military aid. It was 14 days delayed big deal. And, remember, Ukraine never made any public statement about any investigation.

While those are both falsehoods the aid was actually delayed 55 days, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was, according to CNN host Fareed Zakaria, scheduled to announce an investigation into Biden on Zakarias show on Sept. 13 we can clearly see the ruse Ingraham seeks to advance.

What is most alarming is not that the GOP is promoting this talking point, but that it appears to be working. Following the impeachment proceedings, The New York Times podcast The Daily concluded with an assessment by top national security reporter Michael Schmidt:

Its a reoccurring theme in the Trump story: The president tries to do something but ultimately is not effective enough to actually get it done. So, should we penalize him for those attempts? Does the attempt . . . reach that bar for Congress to remove the president?

And thats where the debate may be in the coming weeks for the rest of these hearings.

Schmidt was referring to President Donald Trumps habit of trying to do horrible things and either forgetting such as when economic adviser Gary Cohn reportedly took papers off of the presidents desk, causing him to forget he wanted to leave NAFTA or being outright thwarted by his staff, like when he allegedly ordered White House counsel Don McGahn to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation but McGahn refused. The Ukraine scheme was not that: According to testimony from administration officials, Trump and his associates were successfully carrying out their scheme, which only ended once Congress used its oversight powers to stop it.

Nevertheless, Schmidt determines, It didnt happen, and that dilutes the importance of it. This captures is what is so worrisome not only that the GOPs revision of history is untrue but that crucial mediating voices appear to be buying it.

The truth lies in two key dates: On Sept. 9, news of the whistleblower complaint broke into the public sphere, and the House officially launched an investigation. Two days later on Sept. 11, the military aid was released.

Here is why this sequence of events is so important: Imagine someone broke into your home and stole your laptop. A month later, the cops nab the crook, find your laptop in their apartment and return it to you. The crime, in this instance, is robbery. The crime is not attempted robbery just because the laptop was ultimately released. When legal powers step in, the clock on justice begins.

Trump did not fail to extort the Ukrainians. He got caught in the act. Only after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the launch of an official investigation into his scheme did the aid flow.

If we accept the GOP talking point that a crime did not actually happen because it ended once the president was caught, and that Michael Schmidt is, indeed, right that the debate over the coming weeks will be about an attempted crime, then America is in big trouble. Not only for the outcome of this impeachment inquiry but also for the fortitude of the institutions we trust to help us referee fact from fiction.

Schmidts acceptance of the GOP talking point that what happened with Ukraine never actually happened should remind us all once again of Orwell: And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed if all records told the same tale then the lie passed into history became truth.

Original post:
It's the Republicans' biggest impeachment lie, and Americans could fall for it - Salon

Paid leave has long been a Democratic cause, one that candidates rallied around at the debate Wednesday night. Now its also one for Republicans, whove recently embraced a version of it, with a flurry of new bills and a White House summit next month. The debate revealed minor divisions in the candidates approaches; the bigger differences, though, are between the two parties.

The big divide is over which workers would get paid time off and where the money would come from.

In general, Democrats support starting a new federal fund, financed by a payroll tax increase, that would provide paid leave for new parents and for workers with an illness or injury or with sick family members. (Three-quarters of people who use federal unpaid leave use it for their own health reasons or to care for family members other than newborns.)

Republican plans, and one bipartisan idea, focus more narrowly on new parents, with a different way to pay for it: People could dip into their own future federal benefits, and receive smaller benefits later.

Policymakers are addressing the fact that the United States is the only rich country with no federal paid leave, even though most parents work. The countrys lack of family-friendly policies is a factor in womens stalled advancement in the work force and the countrys declining fertility rate, research shows.

The 2016 presidential campaign was the first in which Republican candidates, including Donald J. Trump, called for paid leave. Political analysts say the push is driven by Republicans trying to win back both family-filled suburbs that have turned Democratic and conservative women who have been turned off by President Trump.

Republicans understand that their struggles with female voters, including and especially college-educated female voters, require attention and effort, said Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster.

Even a staunch conservative like Rick Santorum, a former senator, has become a vocal proponent despite voting against the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993, which gives certain workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, he said the Republican Partys base had changed from suburbanites to blue-collar workers, and the party needed to change with it.

These are our people, and if you want to talk to them, if you want to take the Trump coalition and you want to continue that coalition, we better have answers, he said.

Paid leave has widespread support among Americans: Large majorities support it for their own health needs, for a new baby and for family caregiving, according to two recent surveys, one by the Pew Research Center and another by bipartisan pollsters. But when it comes to how to pay for it, theres less agreement, they found.

Democrats led by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut introduced the Family Act in 2013. It would cover 12 weeks of partly paid leave for new parents and for workers who either are seriously ill or who have a close family member who is. It would operate essentially the same way that it does in eight states through a fund financed by a 0.2 percent increase in payroll taxes for both employers and employees. At least two-thirds of people in the two surveys said they supported this financing method.

It is co-sponsored by all seven Democrats in Congress running for president. Other candidates have also endorsed it, and some have said theyd push for even longer leave, including Senator Kamala Harris of California.

Six months paid family leave is meant to and is designed to adjust to the reality of womens lives today, she said at the debate Wednesday.

Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said three months was more financially realistic, but agreed on the need. We must do this and we will do this, she said.

Ellen Bravo, co-director of Family Values @ Work, who has spent her career working on family leave legislation, said, It shouldnt throw you off an economic cliff to be a good parent to your child, a good child to your parent or to follow doctors orders.

The Family Act has been stalled in Congress since its introduction. Most Republicans say they refuse to consider a bill that would increase taxes.

One: Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, who last month became the first in his party to co-sponsor the bill. A spokesman for him, Jeff Sagnip, said it was consistent with a long-term record and commitment to providing compassionate support and job security for families. Mr. Smith, who is anti-abortion, was also the sole Republican co-sponsor on another bill to help working women, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Several Republican proposals would allow new parents to collect Social Security early and receive less when they retire treating it more like an individual account than a social insurance fund. Sponsors of this legislation include Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, Senator Mike Lee of Utah, Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri and Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas.

Some Republicans have also proposed letting people use pretax savings accounts to save for leave, and the 2017 tax overhaul included a credit for companies that voluntarily provide it.

A new bill expected to be introduced in the next month would use a similar strategy of tapping future benefits early. It would allow new parents to advance up to $5,000 of their annual child tax credits after a babys birth. The money could go to paid leave or other infant care expenses, and parents would collect a smaller credit for the next decade.

One sponsor of the bill is Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, the only Democrat so far to endorse the idea of financing leave by collecting future benefits early. The other is Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana and chairman of a Senate working group on paid family leave.

This week, Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, and Representative Colin Allred, Democrat of Texas, said they would sponsor the House version.

There are three major disagreements between supporters of each approach, and the first is over which workers can use paid leave. The Family Act covers all family and medical caregiving, while the other bills cover only new parents.

That is a very, very big difference, Ms. DeLauro said. Its wonderful they got religion to think about one portion of this, but lets go with a standard that meets every single need.

Ive been there, done that, Ms. DeLauro said. You do something, you check the box and its over.

But proponents of the narrower bills say they could coexist with a broader policy in the future. Senator Sinema called her idea a partial solution, but one thats possible in the political world we live in today, speaking at an American Enterprise Institute and Brookings event in September.

Senator Cassidy said at the event, If people decide to make the perfect the enemy of the good, were not going to go anyplace.

Proponents of the plans to collect Social Security or the child tax credit early say they avoid raising taxes, and give people benefits at a time when they need them most.

Critics say it just postpones financial hardship to later in childrens lives, when their care is still expensive, or to retirement, when women generally already collect less Social Security. Just 3 percent of people surveyed after the Social Security idea was announced (but before the child tax credit one was) supported it.

Supporters of providing leave through taxes say its a misnomer to call the other plans paid leave. These proposals would ask families to have their current self borrow from their future self, said Vicki Shabo, senior fellow on paid leave strategy at New America.

Trump administration advisers who have been working on paid leave say Ivanka Trump has been regularly conferring with members of Congress. The White House has not endorsed a specific plan and said that all ideas remained on the table, and that its main priority was a bill with bipartisan support and the votes to pass.

Research shows that paid leave can achieve various goals, like improving child and family health and helping women stay in the work force. But it also shows that policies can sometimes be ineffective or even backfire, depending on the details. A bill that could pass would be important; so would the policy design.

More:
Republicans Now Support a Form of Paid Leave. So Whats the Holdup? - The New York Times

Students at the historically Black Huston-Tillotson University in Austin, Texas, lost their on-campus polling place this semester after the Republican-dominated state legislature outlawed polling places that do not stay open for the entire 12-day, early-voting period commonly referred to as pop-up polls. The new law took effect in September, and Huston-Tillotson students who voted on November 5 had to trek over to the Austin Public Librarys Carver Branch a half-mile away.

The way I see it is disenfranchisement upon students of color, says Jared Breckenridge, a senior majoring in education and the former president of the universitys NAACP chapter. The loss of the campus polling place, he says, comes on top of other barriers Huston-Tillotson students regularly face as they navigate the states voter ID law, which doesnt allow them to use their student ID cards to cast a ballot.

The universitys NAACP regularly organizes student registration and education efforts on campus, and is working on formulating what its new voter engagement strategy will look like now with the loss of the schools polling place, Breckenridge says.

Get reliable, independent news and commentary delivered to your inbox every day.

Along with Huston-Tillotsons polling place, Austin Community College, which has a diverse student body of 72,000 mostly low-income students, lost polling places across nine of its 11 campuses. Other campuses across the state also took major hits, with six polling places shuttered at colleges in Fort Worth, and two shuttered in the border town of Brownsville.

Its not only happening in Texas. Republican lawmakers across the country are erecting new barriers to keep students from the voting booth precisely because young people, who lean heavily to the left, are beginning to flex their electoral power in force: College student turnout more than doubled from 2014 to 2018, according to numbers tracked by Tufts Universitys Institute for Democracy & Higher Education.

Issues like the climate emergency and Trumps attacks on vulnerable communities motivated 40.3 percent of 10 million students tracked by Tufts to vote during the 2018 midterm election, surpassing even the overall increase in the national turnout rate. With 20 million students enrolled at colleges and universities across the U.S., this young and diverse population is emerging as a crucial voting bloc that could potentially determine the outcome of the 2020 general election.

Republican lawmakers are taking these numbers seriously. In response, they are impeding voting eligibility for out-of-state students, outlawing pop-up and early voting sites, and enacting increasingly strict requirements on student IDs under the guise of preventing electoral fraud (which is practically nonexistent) in Republican-controlled, presidential battleground states.

Republicans in Texas argue their new ban on pop-up polls is intended to prevent abuse in school bond elections. Voting rights advocates, however, point out that the new law was crafted just broadly enough to outlaw the routine practice of moving polling places to reach as many voters as possible during the early voting period.

In the broader right-wing effort to keep poor people, people of color, immigrants, and incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people from the ballot, students are just the latest population to become a target of increased suppression efforts.

Florida is adopting Texass strategy: The state legislature reinstated a 2014 ban on early-voting sites at state universities this year after a federal court overturned the ban in 2018. Republicans there effectively skirted the courts ruling by adding a clause into a new elections law requiring densely packed campus voting sites to offer sufficient non-permitted parking.

In New Hampshire, where six in 10 college students come from outside the state, a Republican-backed law now requires newly registered voters who drive to secure expensive New Hampshire drivers licenses and auto registrations. (Students who dont drive can still obtain a state ID without these requirements.)

Republicans in North Carolina and Wisconsin are cracking down on student IDs. Wisconsin now requires student IDs to have signatures in order to function as voter identification, even as many schools are removing such signatures as they issue updated IDs that also serve as debit cards and dorm room keys. The IDs must expire within two years in order to be used for voter identification, but most college IDs expire in four. Even IDs that meet these stringent standards arent enough: Students must also show proof of enrollment in their educational institution before being allowed to vote.

After the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down North Carolinas voter ID law as racially discriminatory in 2016, Republicans enacted a voter ID law last year that allowed student IDs but mandated that universities attest under penalty of perjury that their ID cards are issued only after a students citizenship status, Social Security number and birthday have been verified. A later revision eliminated the mention of perjury, but confusion remains over the laws new requirement that schools submit documentation satisfactory to the State Board of Elections, proving that the ID requirements have been met.

Iowa recently passed a voter ID law that excludes student IDs while imposing new restrictions and requirements on registration, early voting and absentee voting. Arkansas codified its voter ID requirements in the states constitution during the 2018 elections. Lastly, Arizona recently passed a new law that extends its voter ID requirements, which exclude student IDs, to early voting.

But these new restrictions arent being enacted without a fight. Back in Texas, state Democrats and the Democratic campaign arms for the U.S. House and Senate are suing the state over its move to end temporary polling places, arguing the new law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against young voters.

Its not the first time weve seen a tactic like this used against us on this campus, Huston-Tillotsons Breckenridge says. Were just going to have to fight against it. And thats exactly what many students are doing.

Young people on college campuses are finding creative ways to get around these barriers and register more of their peers in advance of the 2020 election. At the University of Texas (UT) at Austin, the nonpartisan voter education group TX Votes, which doesnt engage in advocacy work, has vastly increased turnout through its registration efforts by engaging dozens of student organizations and professors. According to a Tufts report, undergraduate turnout at UT increased from 17.6 percent in 2014 to 54.8 percent during the 2018 midterm election one of the largest turnout increases at any university in the nation.

Kassie Phebillo, a political communications Ph.D. student at UT and coordinator of TX Votes said the organization, in coalition with other student groups, has registered more than 5,000 UT students so far this year. The groups student registrars canvassed more than 200 classrooms during this months early voting period, reaching out to professors directly for an invitation. They also make sure to hit on-campus events and campus move-in dates.

We have this goal of student organizations across campus creating a tradition around voting, so that they do the same thing for every election, and thats something that they know theyre going to do together, because we know we just have to get people into that habit of voting, Phebillo tells Truthout.

The ball really got rolling in 2016, she says, when the organization grew to about 20 members, reflecting a larger national trend in student turnout and engagement in the electoral process. This year, she says, the group has ballooned to 62 members. We were shocked. We were actually really not prepared for that, Phebillo says of the explosion in interest.

UTs two polling sites are permanent, meaning they operate for the entirety of the early voting period and on Election Day, so the campus wasnt impacted by the new ban on pop-up polls. Still, Phebillo says she has encountered problems at the polls before, thanks to the states ID law. TX Votes aims to help students figure out the ID process ahead of voting.

The groups tight partnership with Travis County election officials has made all the difference in its success rates. The county tax assessor, who oversees voter registration, and the county clerk provide the group every assistance they can. Their support helped UT students win a second on-campus polling site in March of 2018. County officials even hold deputy registrar trainings on campus for the groups organizers.

The open communication that we have with their office and also with the county elections office is super helpful, Phebillo says. So, if something weird does happen at a polling location, I can email our county clerk and say, Hey, I want you to know this happened, and then the problem gets fixed immediately.

Phebillo says the group hopes to work with other universities in the county to potentially facilitate a space for students from other campuses to vote at UTs permanent polling spots. The idea is still in its beginning stages, Phebillo says, but with enough backing, could make a difference as mobile polling places are shuttered across the state. We can certainly make our campus a more welcoming space to other college students if we can figure out how to get them to us, she says.

Moreover, TX Votes is networking with universities and colleges in other states through a network of national organizations that provide funds, share information and help students develop their voter engagement plans. The network is already paying off, Phebillo says: A new student voter education group at the University of Oklahoma is adopting the TX Votes model.

Were incredibly effective at what were doing, where we just understand the law incredibly well, make sure no ones breaking it, and still find ways to turn out students to vote, Phebillo says.

A robust student turnout could easily tip the scales in favor of Democrats in many close contests throughout the country, including in states like Texas where Republican control is beginning to erode. In the 2018 U.S. Senate race in Texas, Rep. Beto ORourke performed best in counties with a high percentage of young voters, whose turnout in the state tripled between 2014 and 2018. UTs registration efforts could represent just the beginning of a student engagement model that could eventually help unseat entrenched Republican stalwarts like Sen. Ted Cruz, as ORourkes close challenge shows.

Other close contests across the country could be determined by the population of a single college or university alone. Donald Trump carried the state of Wisconsin by fewer than 23,000 votes; if more than 170,000 University of Wisconsin students voted en masse in 2020, they could make an election-deciding impact. North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper was elected in 2016 by about 10,000 votes in a state with nearly 500,000 undergraduates. New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan was likewise elected in 2016 by just 1,017 votes over her Republican rival, incumbent Kelly Ayotte.

High school students could also make a significant dent in such contests, but likewise find themselves locked out of the process: Texas doesnt allow high school students to register to vote until two months before their 18th birthday, for instance, even though many other states allow students to preregister at 16 or 17, and vote in primaries if they turn 18 by Election Day. Moreover, while Texas law requires high school teachers to distribute voter registration forms to their students, that requirement is simply bypassed by most of the states secondary schools.

For advocates like Phebillo, the solution is simple, even if a states voting requirements are complex and difficult. If we treated young people as the smart and driven individuals that many of them are, they wouldnt kind of rebel against voting in the first place, she said. I like to think that were seeing that start to happen, where people are starting to give the voter back their agency in the process.

Read more from the original source:
More Students Are Voting But Republicans Are Trying to Get in Their Way - Truthout