US Politics

The Guardian’s Washington bureau chief, David Smith, speaks to the campaign director for 51 for 51, Stasha Rhodes, who is advocating for the US capital to become a state, giving more than 700,000 residents equal representation in Congress

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Washington DC’s residents pay more in federal taxes than those of 22 other states. The District of Columbia’s 700,000-plus residents are essentially disenfranchised, however, with no voting representation in either chamber of Congress. Both sides of the DC statehood debate put forward their arguments at a hearing before the House committee on oversight and reform last week. David Smith talks to Stasha Rhodes about why Republicans are trying to block a statehood bill up for a vote on the House floor before the summer. Send us your questions and feedback to [email protected] Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts More

Poor old Joe Biden. He might have won the electoral college and the popular vote but he’ll never feel the love of his underlings like Donald Trump did.
The former president’s first full cabinet meeting in June 2017 remains an unparalleled opera of oleaginousness. Secretary after secretary all but flung themselves at his feet, sang songs of praise and paid homage to the divine emperor of the universe.

Has any parent ever known such undying adoration from their child? Only King Lear from Goneril and Regan, perhaps. And most telling was the fact that the world was allowed to see it. Trump made sure it was one more chapter in his reality TV presidency.
Not really Biden’s style. His first cabinet meeting on Thursday was relocated to the East Room because of coronavirus restrictions – the 16 permanent members wore face masks and sat in a giant square with empty chairs between them – but was otherwise a return to the staid old way of doing things.
The main item on the agenda was not the American president’s sculpted handsomeness, nor his towering intellect, nor his indubitable virility, nor his ability to hit holes in one, but merely his freshly announced $2tn infrastructure plan.
Flanked by the secretary of state, Antony Blinken, and the defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, with the vice-president, Kamala Harris, opposite, Biden said he was asking five cabinet members to “take special responsibility to explain the plan to the American public”.
He took no questions from the media and, after less than two and a half minutes, reporters were ushered out. “I thank the press for being here, but I’ll talk to you all later.” More

President Joe Biden is governing like a man in a hurry. Three weeks ago, he persuaded the US Congress to pass his $1.9tn Covid stimulus package. This week, he began the task of building congressional support for an even larger jobs and infrastructure renewal plan. The package is worth at least another $2tn. It involves massive investment in transport, housing and commercial buildings, green jobs, social care and much else besides. Further spending plans on “human infrastructure” – in the shape of aid to the poor, to parents and to women – are expected in a few weeks’ time. The total cost may end up close to £4tn.This week’s package involves several bold bets whose outcomes should be closely watched in America and beyond. Mr Biden’s central proposition is that the federal government can resume the activist role in economic growth that it played in the mid-20th century under leaders from Franklin Roosevelt to Richard Nixon. This comes with a second twist, that the activist role can deliver tens of thousands of well-paid and unionised climate change and clean-technology jobs, rather than those that involve pouring concrete or boosting fossil fuel consumption. Wrapped into this is a third gamble, that the United States can take on and defeat China and other Asian economies to become a global leader in the semiconductor, electric battery and electric vehicle industries.Spending of $213bn on energy-efficient housing and construction, and of $174bn on electric vehicle incentives are the centrepieces of the package. Given that the US is the planet’s second largest fossil fuel emitter, these are the right priorities. Whether they go far enough is more doubtful. In a country with more than 276m vehicles, the planned 500,000 vehicle charger points by 2030 will not go far, for example. But improved high-speed broadband in rural and urban America is desperately needed, not least to reduce inequality. More traditional infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges, rail and disaster resilience are part of the package. Airports, on the other hand, come low down the pecking order.The president is also making a big gamble on taxation. Unlike the stimulus package, the new spending will be paid for by new corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy, not by new borrowing. Eight years of planned new spending will demand 15 years’ worth of new taxes, the White House says. Mr Biden plans to raise corporate tax rates from 21% to 28%. This falls well short of the 35% rate that was slashed by Donald Trump in 2017. The top rate of income tax is expected to rise from 37% to 39.6%, precisely reversing a Trump cut. Even so, Mr Biden’s initiative offers a huge ideological and fiscal challenge to the small state, low tax orthodoxies that have shaped politics in the US and beyond since the Ronald Reagan era 40 years ago.Partly for that reason, Mr Biden faces an even tougher road in getting Congress to back him. While many Democrats say that the plan does not go far enough, others cavil at its size and implications. With wafer-thin Democratic majorities in both houses, and the Republican party obdurate in its opposition, the president is unlikely to get his way without concessions on both wings.If this suggests an ultimately doomed effort to re-energise bipartisan politics in an era of ideological confrontation, it is important at the same time to recognise the historic nature of the president’s basic proposition. Mr Biden may be acting like a man who is aware his congressional base may not outlast 2022. But he is also trying to show that government is still capable of doing big things, and even of proving that democratic capitalism can work. More

Four US Navy officers have made history this week – and breaking new ground in a traditionally white and male-dominated field.For the first time in US Navy history, four women of color are now commanding war ships at the same time, NBC News has reported.The four officers, Kimberly Jones, LaDonna Simpson, Kristel O’Cañas, and Kathryn Wijnaldum, recently said that there have been dramatic changes for women serving in the Navy over the years.The Navy “looks different in the fact that as an ensign, I looked around and at that time, there were not many senior female officers that I could necessarily go to for gender-specific questions,” Jones, who joined the Navy more than two decades ago, remarked in an interview clip obtained by People magazine.“I may not have felt comfortable asking my male boss,” Jones also said. “Now, to their credit, they were phenomenal leaders. However, when it came time [for] some of those more intimate conversations on how to plan your career with a family, as a mom, that did not exist.”She added: “And I was overseas, so the population was slightly smaller. And now walking this waterfront, there are leaders, there are role models, at every rank…That is something that I hope ensigns, young sailors, gravitate towards and take advantage of.”These four women are all based at Norfolk Naval Station, in Virginia. They are all “Nuclear Surface Warfare Officers” – a qualification which is “extremely competitive” to obtain, according to the US Navy.All four women “have spent a considerable amount of their time serving aboard nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and in nuclear-related shore duty billets,” the Navy noted.Simpson said that while she was never discouraged from going after her career goals, she did not have many female role models.“The Navy has been very supportive of my journey and my professional training. There weren’t any voices in the Navy that said that I could not achieve this goal,” Simpson said. “The only limitation was the fact that women as a whole hadn’t been on board combatant vessels until, I believe, it was 1994.” More

Happy Thursday,As Georgia lawmakers debated significant new voting restrictions over the last month, many of the most powerful companies in the state stayed neutral. Now, nearly a week after governor Brian Kemp signed the measure, companies are pivoting and speaking out more forcefully on the measure.Sign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterSeveral of the country’s leading Black executives penned a letter Wednesday urging the business community to protest more forcefully. “There is no middle ground here,” Kenneth Chenault, the former CEO of American Express, who led the effort, told the New York Times. Kenneth Frazier, the CEO of pharmaceutical company Merck, told the Times he only really started paying attention to the Georgia measure once it passed. “There seems to be no one speaking out,” he told the Times. “We thought if we spoke up, it might lead to a situation where others felt the responsibility to speak up.”Sure enough, other companies have started to criticize the measure.The first was Delta Airlines, one of several Georgia-based companies that has issued muted statements over the last few weeks as activists pressured them to take a stand. Ed Bastian, the company’s CEO, finally issued a clear rebuke of the measure on Wednesday. The law, Bastian wrote, was “unacceptable”.“After having time to now fully understand all that is in the bill, coupled with discussions with leaders and employees in the Black community, it’s evident that the bill includes provisions that will make it harder for many underrepresented voters, particularly Black voters, to exercise their constitutional right to elect their representatives. That is wrong,” he wrote.“The entire rationale for this bill was based on a lie: that there was widespread voter fraud in Georgia in the 2020 elections. This is simply not true,” he said.The comments reportedly infuriated Republicans in the Georgia legislature, who were considering punishing the airline, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Kemp said he was caught off guard by the statements.Republicans in the Georgia legislature made a last minute effort Wednesday to punish Delta for its opposition, advancing a measure that would strip a tax break for the airline. The measure ultimately failed, but Republicans made it clear they were sending a warning.“They like our public policy when we’re doing things that benefit them,” David Ralston, the speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives, told the Atlanta Journal Constitution.“You don’t feed a dog that bites your hand. You got to keep that in mind sometimes.”James Quincey, the CEO of Coca-Cola, which like Delta had declined to publicly take a stance on the bill, also condemned it on Wednesday. “This legislation is unacceptable. It is a step backwards,” he told CNBC. “This legislation is wrong and needs to be remedied and we will continue to advocate for it both in private and now even more clearly in public.”Activists welcomed the statements from companies, but warned that words would not be enough. “We’re just getting started!” tweeted Cliff Albright, a co-founder of Black Voters Matter, one of the groups that has been pressuring businesses to take a stand. Now that the statements are (belatedly) more forceful, we need the words joined by more forceful actions. We have a few ideas for them….”Nse Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project, told the Guardian earlier this month that the companies have some of the most powerful lobbyists and believed powerful public statements during the legislative process could have killed the legislation. On Wednesday, Ufot urged the companies to speak up against voting restrictions pending in other states.“This is where the problem lies,” she said in a statement.” Conversations with Black and Brown leaders must happen at all stages and all areas of decision-making, not after the damage is done. Here’s the lesson: listen to Black and Brown people. Listen to young voters. Listen to new voters. We are the future, and our voices matter.”“Its too little, too late,” said Deborah Scott, the executive director of Georgia Stand-Up, a civic action group that on Wednesday called for a boycott of Georgia over the law. “We’re glad they’re making these statements. We wish they would have made them 20 days ago, 10 days ago, before it was passed. I think the pressure activist groups are putting on them are making them say that. But they could have stopped it a long time ago had they made a statement.”Also worth watching…
Crystal Mason, the Texas woman sentenced to five years in prison for mistakenly voting while ineligible in 2016, will get another chance to appeal her conviction, Texas’s highest criminal court announced Wednesday. Mason’s case attracted national outcry because of the severity of her conviction and because Mason was never told she couldn’t vote.
Rita Hart, an Iowa Democrat, announced Wednesday that she was withdrawing her contest to a US House race she lost by just six votes to Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks. Her campaign claimed it had identified 22 ballots that went uncounted and was asking the US House to investigate and overturn the election. Republicans had rallied around Miller-Meeks, pointing to the fact that Hart declined to pursue her case in state court before asking Congress to step in. More

It’s rare a federal lawmaker makes a complete about-face on an issue with major legislative consequences.But for Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, the need to shift her position on one of the most crucial issues facing the Biden administration – reform of the filibuster rule – has become too strong to ignore.She now believes that without reform, the filibuster – a rule by which the minority party in the Senate can block legislation – will do serious “damage” to American democracy, she told the Guardian.Smith’s move is crucial. Behind the loud voices of the Senate Democratic caucus calling to either dramatically scale back or gut entirely a tool used to obstruct legislation, there’s a usually quieter set of senators, like Smith, who are finally speaking out. They’ve had enough, these senators say, and want to see a substantial change to the filibuster – either workarounds for certain legislative proposals like voting rights, or modifications so the threat of a filibuster doesn’t bring Congress to a standstill.Senator Angus King of Maine, in a recent op-ed, laid out his shift on the filibuster. Similarly, Smith laid out her own rationale for coming around on some kind of major change on the filibuster. Smith, a former lieutenant governor of Minnesota who came to the Senate via an appointment from then governor Mark Dayton in 2018, initially saw value in it. That has changed.In an interview with the Guardian, Smith argued that contrary to how the filibuster is portrayed by its advocates – as a tool to make the minority heard – it simply gives a minority of lawmakers outsized power.“I often thought that it’s important that the minority view is heard in the Senate, and that there should be an opportunity for people to come together across lines of difference to get things done. But that wasn’t happening either,” Smith said.“The filibuster wasn’t encouraging compromise. The filibuster was making it easy for any member of the Senate to say no. And the more I looked at that, the more I looked at the damage it was doing to our democracy.”She added: “The more I realized this is so undemocratic, and [that] every other governing body I’ve ever worked with has fundamentally operated on the rule that the majority gets to decide, I came to the conclusion that the filibuster was contributing to a broken Senate.”Smith’s comments come as Republican senators go in the opposite direction from Democrats on the filibuster.Top Senate Republicans have argued that the Democrats’ move to change the legislative tool is simply a grab to snatch power from lawmakers in the minority. The former senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a firebrand conservative Republican, recently wrote his own op-ed arguing that the importance of the filibuster for small states.“The people who want to get rid of the filibuster are precisely the people the Founders wanted to protect us from!” DeMint wrote.But even as support for doing something about the filibuster is growing, Democrats haven’t decided on exactly what yet.Smith said: “Well, I think that decisions about what we need to do, and how we need to change the rules – if we need to change the rules – are decisions that need to happen in their own way. But it happens in a particular place and time. So I’ve come to the conclusion that I would vote to get rid of the filibuster hook, line and sinker.“Others in my caucus haven’t come to that position. If we got to a point where somebody were to say, ‘We should get rid of the filibuster for this issue’, I would, of course, consider that. Of course I would.”Whatever they decide, if Democrats do make a drastic change to the filibuster, they could come to rue it if Republicans regain power in the Senate in the 2022 midterms. Then, they would be the minority party facing the prospect of little input into legislation.Asked about that prospect, Smith paused.“Well,” Smith said. “I thought long and hard about that. And I thought about the issues that I care so much about that I’d be concerned that Republicans could overturn, like women’s reproductive choice, or issues that they could turn the clock back on, like labor, [or] people’s rights to organize.”“But fundamentally, I believe that the core value in a democracy, in a republic … a majority of the people need to be able to decide, and we need to be able to make sure that that happens. If the Republicans were to take steps to roll back values and steps and rights Americans really cherish, then that is going to be a big problem for them.” More

The once all-powerful National Rifle Association is mired in legal and financial woes but its 5 million members still exert hefty grassroots influence with most Republicans as a fresh gun control debate in Congress heats up, say gun experts and NRA veterans.The NRA’s grassroots clout – via the Internet, letters, phone and other tools – coupled with the influence wielded by millions of other gun owners, keep many Republican allies fighting almost reflexively against gun curbs, notwithstanding recent NRA problems including electoral setbacks, staff cuts, drops in member dues revenue and legal threats, according to analysts.Which means that even after two mass shootings in March in Atlanta, Georgia and Boulder, Colorado spurred the House to pass bills to ban assault weapons and require mandatory background checks on gun purchases, the outlook in the evenly divided Senate to pass these bills seems very slim – unless filibuster rules are changed, say analysts.Still, NRA and Republican sources say if a weaker background check bill than the House passed one is introduced it may have enough Republican support in the Senate to pass as a compromise measure.To be sure, the NRA’s political strength by some key measures is markedly less than in recent years.After giving Donald Trump a huge boost in 2016 with over $30m in ad spending to help him win the White House, the NRA had a much smaller presence in 2020 to Trump’s and the Republican party’s dismay. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA’s spending in 2020 fell to $29.4m from $54.4m in 2016.What’s more in 2018, gun control advocates were credited with helping the Democrats take back control of the House in 2018 as their spending for the first time edged the NRA’s spending. And in 2019, the NRA’s revenue from its members dues declined from 2018 when it was $170m to $113m.Nonetheless, the NRA’s grassroots muscle remains formidable and is working to block the House passed measures.“The NRA is in a weakened condition, and their very future is at stake,” said Robert Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland and author of several books on guns, in an interview. “But the gun rights movement is deeply embedded in the GOP. Even though the NRA as an organization is seriously weakened, grassroots supporters are still out there, and are willing to act on the issue.”“For the GOP, support for gun rights from its gun base is pretty much on autopilot,” Spitzer added.Moreover, Spitzer noted that the Senate prospects for the two bills that passed the House seem dim. “The divisions between the two parties are sharper than in the past. Democrats are clearly behind strong gun laws, and Republicans are mostly opposed.”“The filibuster is the real stumbling block,” he added. “ We’ve seen this movie before.”Similarly, a former senior NRA official touted the group’s grassroots strength.“The grassroots of gun owners are still a political force with or without the NRA. Even though the NRA has had significant problems and continues too, they will raise more money” to fend off new gun curbs, if past experience holds.But the ex-official cautioned that “if they changed the filibuster rule, all bets are off”.Further, the NRA veteran noted that he thought a weaker background checks bill like one sponsored in previous sessions by Senators Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a Republican, had a decent chance of getting enough Republican votes to pass the Senate if Democrats accepted it as a fallback option.Republican operative and lobbyist Charlie Black agreed that the less onerous bill like that previously backed by Manchin and Toomey has a good shot of getting through the Senate if Democratic leaders embraced it.But Black noted that the odds of the House’s mandatory checks bill passing the Senate are slim. “You’re not going to get the House bill through the Senate,” Black said in an interview.President Joe Biden has called on the Senate to pass the House measures which he called “common sense”, but at his first press conference last week gave mixed signals about how hard he will push for them.Just 10 days before the Boulder shooter killed 10 people, the NRA weighed in on Twitter and applauded a Colorado court ruling blocking a Boulder assault weapons ban enacted in 2018 which it had sought to overturn.However, the NRA and its leadership remain mired in legal and political battles to defeat the New York attorney general’s lawsuit that accused the nonprofit NRA, which has been chartered in the state for 150 years, of mismanagement and corruption.The lawsuit that attorney general Letitia James filed charges last summer that the NRA’s veteran chief executive Wayne LaPierre and a few other top NRA leaders looted the group costing it about $64m in just the three prior years.LaPierre was accused of self dealing by letting the NRA pay for millions of dollars of junkets with his wife and other family members to Europe, the Bahamas and other scenic spots.LaPierre and NRA lawyer William Brewer III have denounced the lawsuit as fueled by “political animus”, noting that James is a Democrat. And Brewer has said the NRA has taken steps to correct its financial problems including replacing some senior staffers. The NRA’s long-time top lobbyist Chris Cox, who had become a critic of LaPierre, was forced out in 2019.But the NRA’s 76 member board was mostly in the dark this January, when NRA leaders announced it was filing for bankruptcy in Texas where it hoped to incorporate, steps that two NRA veterans say were aimed at thwarting James’s probe.James has filed a motion seeking to halt the NRA’s bankruptcy move, and a bankruptcy judge in Texas is slated to hold a hearing on 5 April on the matter.On Sunday the NRA held an emergency board meeting in Dallas specifically to get the board to “retroactively” ratify the bankruptcy action before the 5 April hearing , say two NRA sources.Despite all the NRA’s legal and political maneuvering, Black sounds bullish that the House bills won’t get through the Senate.“The NRA’s grassroots is still active and powerful and influential with members of Congress,” he said. More