US domestic policy
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
McConnell will ‘make Biden a moderate’ if Republicans retake Congress
McConnell will ‘make Biden a moderate’ if Republicans retake Congress Senate minority leader projects ‘pretty good beating’ for Biden administration in November midterms The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, said on Sunday Republicans will force Joe Biden to govern as a “moderate” if the GOP retakes Congress in November.Liz Cheney disputes report January 6 panel split over Trump criminal referralRead moreSpeaking to Fox News Sunday, McConnell attacked Biden on subjects including reported crime increases in large US cities, the decision to extend a moratorium on repaying student loan debts, and the administration’s attempt to lift a Trump policy that allowed border patrol agents to turn away migrants at the southern border, ostensibly to prevent the spread of coronavirus.“This administration just can’t seem to get their act together,” McConnell said. “I think they’re headed toward a pretty good beating in the fall election.”If that beating were to materialize, giving Republicans control of the Senate and House, McConnell said his party would try to confine Biden to the center of an increasingly polarized political spectrum.“Let me put it this way – Biden ran as a moderate,” McConnell said. “If I’m the majority leader in the Senate, and [House minority leader] Kevin McCarthy is speaker of the House, we’ll make sure Joe Biden is a moderate.”Without delving into specifics, McConnell outlined a broad set of policy priorities, including reducing crime, overhauling education, pursuing cheaper gasoline prices and investing in defense following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.McConnell said Biden’s low poll numbers reflected dissatisfaction with his administration’s response to all those problems.“I like the president personally,” McConnell said. “It’s clear to me personality is not what is driving his unpopularity.”McConnell did not mention – and was not asked about – whether he would seek to block any further Biden nominations to the supreme court, which for now has a 6-3 conservative majority.In a recent interview with Axios, McConnell would not commit to hearings for any potential nominees if he led the Senate at any point before the 2024 presidential election, Republicans’ next opportunity to retake the White House. ‘TV is like a poll’: Trump endorses Dr Oz for Pennsylvania Senate nominationRead moreLast year, he said the GOP would block a Biden supreme court nominee if it controlled the Senate in 2024, an election year. McConnell blocked Barack Obama’s final nominee, Merrick Garland, from even receiving a hearing in 2016, citing that year’s presidential election. In 2020, he oversaw the confirmation of Donald Trump’s third nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, shortly before polling day.McConnell’s comments on Sunday echoed some of the remarks he made in the interview with Axios, when he predicted that Biden would “finally be the moderate he campaigned as” if the Democrats lost their congressional majority in November.The Democrats hold a 12-seat advantage in the House and generally hold a single-vote edge in the 50-50 Senate, where vice-president Kamala Harris can serve as tiebreaker.TopicsUS midterm elections 2022US politicsJoe BidenBiden administrationUS CongressUS SenateUS domestic policynewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Kentucky and Idaho measures severely restricting abortions are halted
Kentucky and Idaho measures severely restricting abortions are haltedMeasures’ constitutionality brought into question amid flurry of abortion restrictions passed in US states
Opinion: these are the final days of US reproductive freedom
Two measures that severely restrict abortions were halted on Friday, one by Kentucky’s governor and a second by Idaho’s supreme court.In Kentucky, Democratic governor Andy Beshear vetoed a Republican-priority bill on Friday that would ban abortions in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy and regulate the dispensing of abortion pills.Mail-order abortion pills become next US reproductive rights battlegroundRead moreThe governor raised doubts about the constitutionality of the proposed legislation and criticized it for not including exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Kentucky law currently bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.Idaho’s supreme court delivered a late decision Friday afternoon halting a law – modeled after a similar abortion ban in Texas – that would allow family members of an aborted fetus to sue doctors who perform a procedure after six weeks of pregnancy for a minimum of $20,000.Chief justice Richard Bevan said in court documents that the court stayed the law, which was scheduled to go into effect on 22 April, to give state attorneys more time to address a legal challenge from Planned Parenthood. State attorneys have until 28 April to address the lawsuit.In a statement, Rebecca Gibron, interim chief executive of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky, said: “Patients across Idaho can breathe a sigh of relief tonight”. Gibron said abortions can continue in Idaho’s three Planned Parenthood locations.While Idaho’s governor Brad Little signed the ban into law 23 March, he said he had reservations about the civilian enforcement measures of the ban, saying that it could prove itself to be “unconstitutional and unwise”. If deemed constitutional, Little said that states “hostile” to the first and second amendments could use similar methods against religious freedom and gun rights.The block on Idaho’s law could be temporary. If the court allows it to pass, it would be just the latest of a slate of Republican-led states that have passed abortion restrictions over the last three years. Abortion bans have been seen across several states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Montana, Texas and Alabama. Most recently, Oklahoma lawmakers passed a bill this week that makes performing an abortion a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and with a $100,000 fine.Meanwhile, state lawmakers in Kentucky will have a chance to override the governor’s veto when they reconvene next week for the final two days of this year’s 60-day legislative session. The abortion measure won overwhelming support in the Republica-dominated legislature.Kentucky’s proposed 15-week ban is modeled after a Mississippi law under review by the US supreme court in a case that could dramatically limit abortion rights. By taking the pre-emptive action, the bill’s supporters say that Kentucky’s stricter ban would be in place if the Mississippi law is upheld.Republicans have already sharply criticized Beshear’s veto on the legislature’s abortion ban, with state GOP spokesperson Sean Southard saying on Friday that the governor’s veto was “the latest action in his ideological war on the conservative values held by Kentuckians”. The bill will probably surface as an issue again next year when Beshear runs for a second term in Republican-trending Kentucky.Beshear condemned the bill for failing to exclude pregnancies caused by rape or incest.“Rape and incest are violent crimes,” the governor said in his veto message on Friday. “Victims of these crimes should have options, not be further scarred through a process that exposes them to more harm from their rapists or that treats them like offenders themselves.”The governor said the bill would make it harder for girls under 18 to end a pregnancy without notifying both parents. As an example, he said that a girl impregnated by her father would have to notify him of her intent to get an abortion.Beshear, a former state attorney general, also said the bill was “likely unconstitutional”, noting that the US supreme court struck down similar laws elsewhere. He pointed to provisions in the Kentucky bill requiring doctors performing nonsurgical procedures to maintain hospital admitting privileges in “geographical proximity” to where the procedures are performed.“The supreme court has ruled such requirements unconstitutional as it makes it impossible for women, including a child who is a victim of rape or incest, to obtain a procedure in certain areas of the state,” the governor said.TopicsAbortionKentuckyUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansUS healthcareUS domestic policynewsReuse this content More - in US Politics
‘Fake’ US federal agent claimed ties to Pakistani intelligence, prosecutors say
‘Fake’ US federal agent claimed ties to Pakistani intelligence, prosecutors sayArian Taherzadeh, 40, and Haider Ali, 35, accused of posing as homeland security officials and cultivating Secret Service access One of two American men arrested in Washington for posing as US federal security officials and cultivating access to the Secret Service, which protects Joe Biden, claimed ties to Pakistani intelligence, a federal prosecutor told a judge.Justice department assistant attorney Joshua Rothstein asked a judge not to release Arian Taherzadeh, 40, and Haider Ali, 35, the men arrested on Wednesday for posing as Department of Homeland Security investigators.Pakistan court orders Imran Khan confidence vote to go aheadRead moreThe men also stand accused of providing lucrative favors to members of the Secret Service, including one agent on the security detail of the first lady, Jill Biden.Rothstein told the court that in 2019, just months before the two began cultivating security professionals in their Washington apartment building, Ali had travelled to Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and Qatar, and transited Doha multiple times.In addition, Rothstein said, Ali “made claims to witnesses that he had connections to the ISI, which is the Pakistani intelligence service”.The Department of Justice (DoJ) is treating the case as a criminal matter and not a national security issue. But the Secret Service suspended four agents over their involvement with the suspects.“All personnel involved in this matter are on administrative leave and are restricted from accessing Secret Service facilities, equipment, and systems,” the Secret Service said in a statement.According to an affidavit filed with the court, Taherzadeh and Ali, both US citizens, lived in an apartment building in Washington where numerous federal security-related employees live.They convinced some of those agents that they themselves were special homeland security investigators, displaying uniforms and documents in support of those claims.Both were initially charged with one count of false impersonation of an officer of the US, which could bring up to three years in prison.But Rothstein told the court that the charge could be expanded to conspiracy, which carries a maximum of five years in prison.The motives of the two men were unclear, but at one point they recruited a third person to work for them, assigning him “to conduct research on an individual that provided support to the Department of Defense and intelligence community”.Taherzadeh meanwhile provided several Secret Service and homeland security employees with rent-free units costing as much as $4,000 a month, according to the affidavit.He also gave them iPhones, surveillance systems, a television, and law enforcement paraphernalia, according to the affidavit.Taherzadeh offered a $2,000 assault rifle to the Secret Service agent who worked on Jill Biden’s team, and did favors for the agent’s wife, including lending her his car.The affidavit said Taherzadeh and Ali appeared to control several units in the apartment complex, and that Taherzadeh had access to the building’s entire security system.Like many in law enforcement, the two drove large black GMC-brand SUVs affixed with emergency lights.Taherzadeh carried handguns that are used by US federal law enforcement, and demonstrated to others that he had secure access to what appeared to be homeland security computer systems.TopicsUS newsUS foreign policyUS domestic policyPakistanSouth and Central AsiaUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
The Presidency of Donald Trump review: the first draft of history
The Presidency of Donald Trump review: the first draft of history Julian Zelizer of Princeton has assembled a cast of historians to consider every aspect of four years that shook AmericaAfter thousands of articles and scores of books about Donald Trump’s mostly catastrophic presidency, it’s difficult for anyone to break dramatic new ground. But this new volume, with contributions from 18 American academics, is broader and deeper than all its predecessors, with essays covering everything from Militant Whiteness to the legacy of Trump’s Middle East policies, under the title Arms, Autocrats and Annexations.The result is a great deal of information that is familiar to those who have already plowed through dozens of volumes, enlivened by a few new facts and a number of original insights.One of the best essays, about the Republican party Trump inherited, is written by the book’s editor, Julian Zelizer. The Princeton historian reminds us that the “smashmouth partisanship” perfected by Trump actually began when Newt Gingrich snared the House speakership nearly 30 years ago. In 1992, Pat Buchanan’s speech to the Republic convention featured all of the gay-bashing Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, (and may other Republicans) have revived with so much gusto in 2022.Trump swooped in to profit from White House photographer’s book deal – reportRead moreWith major contributions from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the rightwing media machine, most of the GOP moved so far right it didn’t become Trump’s party because he “seized control” but rather because “he fit so perfectly” with it. Most Republicans were “all in” for Trump, from Mitt Romney, the ex-never Trumper who voted with his former nemesis more than 80% of the time, to “moderate” Chris Christie, who gave Trump an “A” four months after his four years of scorched-earth governance were over.Nicole Hemmer, from Columbia, offers an excellent primer on the irresistible rise of rightwing media, reminding us that in the last year of the first George Bush presidency, Limbaugh was spending the night at the White House. By 2009, the shock jock “topped polls asking who led the Republican party”.By the time Trump started his run for the presidency, in 2015, he had “grown far more powerful than the political media ecosystem that had boosted his rightwing bona fides”. This became clear after his dust-up with Megyn Kelly. Moderating a primary debate, the Fox anchor challenged his long history of sexist statements. Trump declared afterwards: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”The Fox News chief, Roger Ailes, “stayed silent”, Hemmer writes. Another executive, Bill Shine, “told on-air anchors not to come to Kelly’s defense”.By the spring of 2016, Fox was becoming less important than Breitbart, an extreme-right website which researchers at Harvard and MIT declared the new anchor of a “rightwing media network”. It was Steve Bannon of Breitbart who “armed Trump with something like a cohesive political platform … built on anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Muslim, and anti-liberal politics – the same agenda Breitbart.com was promoting”.“Sure enough”, Trump’s Twitter feed “during the campaign linked to Breitbart more than any other news site”.Eventually, just about everyone on the right became a Trump disciple. Glenn Beck compared him to Hitler in 2016. By 2018, Beck was wearing a red Make America Great Again hat, though he blamed the media’s “Trump Derangement Syndrome” for “forcing him to become a Trump supporter”. As a former rightwing radio host, Charlie Sykes, explained: “There’s really not a business model for conservative media to be anti-Trump.”A Brown historian, Bathsheba Demuth, demonstrates that Trump was also a perfect fit for a party that endorsed a propaganda initiative of the American Petroleum Institute that portrayed environmental protection as “a dangerous slide toward communist authoritarianism”. Among loyal constituents were evangelicals, who either saw human dominion over nature as “a doctrinal requirement” or just thought the whole debate was irrelevant because of “Christ’s imminent resurrection”.The most surprising fact in this chapter is that the fossil fuel industry was so sure Trump was a loser in 2016, it gave the bulk of its contributions to Hillary Clinton.Margaret O’Mara, of the University of Washington, describes big tech’s key role in our national meltdown. She reminds us of a key, mostly forgotten moment 10 years ago, when “Google and Facebook successfully petitioned the Federal Election Commission for exemptions from disclaimer requirements” that required political ads to say who paid for them and who was responsible for their messages.The companies argued the requirements would “undermine other, much larger parts of their businesses”. Disastrously, the FEC went along with that pathetic argument. After that, no one ever knew exactly where online attack ads were coming from.O’Mara also recalls that Facebook provided the 2016 Trump campaign with “dedicated staff and resources” to help it purchase more ads on the platform. O’Mara mistakenly reports that the Clinton campaign received the same kind of largesse. Actually, in what may have been the campaign’s single worst decision, it refused Facebook’s offer to install staffers in Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters.Dignity in a Digital Age review: a congressman takes big tech to taskRead moreAnother chapter, by Daniel C Kurtzer of Princeton, analyses what Trump supporters consider their president’s greatest foreign policy achievement: the initiation of diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Morocco.A conservative journal summarized the accomplishment this way: “Washington is strengthening repression in Bahrain, underwriting aggression by UAE, sacrificing the Sahrawi people [of Western Sahara, to Morocco], undermining reform in Sudan and even abandoning justice for Americans harmed by Sudan. The administration calls this an ‘American first’ policy.”The last chapter focuses on the two failed attempts to convict Trump in impeachment trials. Those outcomes may be Trump’s worst legacy of all. Gregory Downs, from the University of California, Davis, writes that the failures to convict “in the face of incontrovertible proof” may convince all Trump’s successors “that they have almost complete impunity as long as they retain the support of their base, no matter what the constitution says”.
The Presidency of Donald Trump is published in the US by Princeton University Press
TopicsBooksDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsUS elections 2020RepublicansUS domestic policyreviewsReuse this content More - in US Politics
Biden targets America’s wealthiest with proposed minimum tax on billionaires
Biden targets America’s wealthiest with proposed minimum tax on billionairesTax on households over $100m aims to ensure wealthiest Americans no longer pay lower rate than teachers and firefighters Joe Biden proposed a new tax on America’s richest households when he unveiled his latest budget on Monday.The Biden administration wants to impose a 20% minimum tax on households worth more than $100m. The proposal would raise more than $360bn over the next decade and “would make sure that the wealthiest Americans no longer pay a tax rate lower than teachers and firefighters”, according to a factsheet released by the White House.‘I make no apologies’: Biden stands by ‘Putin cannot remain in power’ remarkRead moreThe plan – called the “billionaire minimum income tax” – is the administration’s most aggressive move to date to tax the very wealthiest Americans.The tax is part of Biden’s $5.8tn budget proposal for 2023, which also sets aside billions for the police and military as well as investments in affordable housing, plans to tackle the US’s supply chain issues and gun violence.“Budgets are statements of values, and the budget I am releasing today sends a clear message that we value fiscal responsibility, safety and security at home and around the world, and the investments needed to continue our equitable growth and build a better America,” Biden said in a statement.Billionaire wealth grew significantly during the coronavirus pandemic, helped by soaring share prices and a tax regime that charges investors less on their gains than those taxed on their income.“In 2021 alone, America’s more than 700 billionaires saw their wealth increase by $1tn, yet in a typical year, billionaires like these would pay just 8% of their total realized and unrealized income in taxes. A firefighter or teacher can pay double that tax rate,” the White House factsheet notes.Under the plan households worth more than $100m would have to give detailed accounts to the Internal Revenue Service of how their assets had fared over the year. Those who pay less than 20% on those gains would then be subject to an additional tax that would take their rate up to 20%.The Biden administration calculates that the tax would affect only the top 0.01% of American households, those worth over $100m, and that more than half the revenue would come from households worth more than $1bn.The budget also looks set to tackle another issue that some economists have argued contributes to widening income inequality: share buybacks.In recent years cash-rich companies including Apple, Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft, have used their funds to buy back huge quantities of their own shares, boosting their share price. Last year companies in the S&P 500 bought back a record $882bn of their own shares and Goldman Sachs estimates that figure will rise to $1tn this year.Critics say that the purchases divert money from hiring new staff, raising wages and research and development.Research by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shows that there is “clear evidence that a substantial number of corporate executives today use buybacks as a chance to cash out”.The Biden proposal would stop executives from selling their shares for three years after a buyback is announced.Biden attempted to impose a 1% tax on share buybacks last year but the proposal failed in Congress. Both Biden’s billionaire tax and the share buyback proposal will also face tough opposition in Congress.TopicsUS taxationBiden administrationUS politicsUS economyJoe BidenUS domestic policynewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Republican senator says tax rises in own plan are ‘Democratic talking points’
Republican senator says tax rises in own plan are ‘Democratic talking points’Rick Scott of Florida grilled on Fox News Sunday about suggested income tax rise and letting social security and Medicare fall A Republican senator and reputed presidential hopeful found himself in a tough spot when he claimed tax rises contained in his own “11 point plan to rescue America” were “Democratic talking points” instead.‘Rick Scott had us on lockdown’: how Florida said no to $70m for HIV crisisRead more“No, no, it’s in the plan!” his interviewer exclaimed, on Fox News Sunday. “It’s in the plan!”Rick Scott, from Florida, is a former healthcare chief executive whose company admitted 14 felonies related to fraudulent practices. As the South Florida Sun-Sentinel put it, “most happened under Scott’s leadership”.As the Guardian reported, when Scott was governor of Florida “his administration presided over the effective blocking of $70m in federal funds available for fighting the state’s HIV crisis”.Scott beat an incumbent Democrat for a Senate seat in 2018 and is now chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) as the party eyes a Senate takeover in the midterm elections.Last month, Scott released an “11 Point Plan to Rescue America”. It proposes that more Americans pay federal income tax and says Congress could “sunset” social security and Medicare within five years, meaning allow them to lapse.The plan immediately came under fire.The non-partisan Institution on Taxation and Economic Policy (Itep) said Scott’s plan “would increase taxes by more than $1,000 on average for the poorest 40% of Americans”.Itep also noted the effect Scott’s plan would have on Republican heartlands, saying the states most affected, “where more than 40% of residents would face tax increases, are … Mississippi, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Georgia, New Mexico, South Carolina and … Florida”.Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, disowned the plan, saying: “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people and sunsets social security and Medicare within five years.”Dana Milbank, a Washington Post columnist, said Scott had given Democrats a much-needed election-year gift.“All Democrats need do,” he wrote, regarding a plan which would also cut trade with China and slash tax-gathering resources, “is repeat Scott’s own words.”The Fox News Sunday host John Roberts asked Scott: “Why would you propose something like that in an election year?”Scott said Roberts was repeating “Democrat talking points”.“No, no, it’s in the plan!” Roberts said. “It’s in the plan!”Scott said: “But here’s the thing about reality for a second.”Roberts said: “But, Senator, hang on. It’s not a Democratic talking point! It’s in the plan!”Scott defended his plan, saying, “We ought to every year talk about exactly how we are going to fix Medicare and social security” but “no one that I know of wants to sunset” either.“Here’s what’s unfair,” he added, of his tax plan. “We have people that … could go to work and have figured out how to have government pay their way. That’s not right. They ought to have some skin in the game. I don’t care if it’s a dollar. We ought to all be in this together.”Scott is reportedly Donald Trump’s choice to replace McConnell as Senate leader – an effort that shows no sign of succeeding.Scott was asked if, with a Wall Street Journal column entitled “Why I’m Defying Beltway Cowardice”, he was calling McConnell a coward. He dodged the question, saying he wanted “to get something done”.Complaining about “the woke left” and Democratic policy on immigration and energy, he said: “We’ve got to change this. You don’t change it without having a plan.”TopicsUS midterm elections 2022RepublicansUS taxationUS domestic policyUS SenateUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
