US Senate

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Corporate’ Senate Democrats imperil the Build Back Better plan, says Tlaib

      by

      ‘Corporate’ Senate Democrats imperil the Build Back Better plan, says TlaibHouse progressive warns such Democrats are influenced by donors who ‘don’t have the best interests of the American people in mind’ “Corporate” Democrats in the Senate imperil Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act, a leading House progressive warned – but not just Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, the targets of most leftwing ire.Such Democrats, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan said, are influenced by donors who “don’t have the best interests of the American people in mind”.Republicans’ vilification of Trump critics is ‘ruining’ the US, says governorRead moreAt the same time, the New York Times reported that Manchin and Sinema are increasingly receiving money from corporate and conservative donors.The president’s domestic spending package is worth $1.75tn and seeks to increase spending on social programs and healthcare and to combat the climate crisis.After months of negotiation, and after Biden signed into law a $1.2tn bipartisan infrastructure bill, the House of Representatives passed Build Back Better on Friday.There was no Republican support and there will be none in the Senate. That gives Manchin of West Virginia and Sinema of Arizona huge influence, in a chamber split 50-50 and controlled by the vote of Vice-President Kamala Harris.The two senators have already pressured the Democrats to cut the cost of the spending plan in half.Tlaib is one of the first Muslim women in Congress, representing the third-poorest congressional district.In an interview broadcast on Sunday, she told Axios she was “fearful” that “corporate Dems” would “guide this agenda. It’s gonna be the people that are gonna continue to profit off of human suffering.“I know that they’ve been influenced and guided by folks that don’t have the best interests of the American people in mind.”Tlaib said she was referring to Manchin and Sinema, “but I think there are some others that … have issues with the prescription drug negotiations there.“And so I can’t say it’s just those two. They seem to be leading the fight, but I wouldn’t be surprised if folks are hiding behind them.”Manchin has spoken regularly, mostly painting the spending plan as too expensive. Sinema is less vocal but on Friday she gave an interview to ABC15, an Arizona station.Saying she was “a workhorse, not a show horse”, she said she welcomed progressive criticism.“I appreciate the first amendment,” she said. “So I appreciate when folks are willing to tell me they agree with me or disagree with me. If they want to protest, if they want to offer things, all of that is welcome.“So I guess my message to folks would be keep telling me what you think. I appreciate it. And I’m going to keep doing the work and delivering results for Arizonans.”Sinema said she would not “bend to political pressure from any party or any group”.In terms of financial pressure, the New York Times reported on Sunday that Manchin and Sinema were attracting support from “conservative-leaning donors and business executives”.Kenneth Langone, a Wall Street billionaire, usually gives to Republicans but has praised Manchin and promised to fundraise for him.Langone told the Times: “My political contributions have always been in support of candidates who are willing to stand tall on principle, even when that means defying their own party or the press.”Stanley Hubbard, a billonaire Republican donor who has given to Sinema, said: “Those are two good people – Manchin and Sinema – and I think we need more of those in the Democratic party.”TopicsRashida TlaibDemocratsUS SenateUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US legislation banning ‘forever chemicals’ far from certain as Senate fight looms

      by

      US legislation banning ‘forever chemicals’ far from certain as Senate fight loomsDespite mounting evidence of the chemicals’ toxicity, a similar bill that passed the House was filibustered in the Senate Bipartisan legislation introduced this week in Congress would ban PFAS “forever chemicals” in US food packaging and significantly reduce exposure to the highly toxic compounds, supporters say, but its passage is far from certain as a fight with industry allies in the Senate looms.‘Forever chemicals’: the hidden threat from the toxic PFAS on your shelfRead morePFAS are a class of compounds that are used across dozens of industries to make products resistant to water, heat, stains and grease. The chemicals are especially common in food packaging because they repel grease and liquid, which prevents paper products from disintegrating.They get their nickname because of their immense longevity in the environment.“We cannot continue to be poisoned by these chemicals,” said Michigan Democratic congresswoman Debbie Dingell, who introduced the bill in the House. “Chemical manufacturers are going to try to get senators to stop PFAS from being banned, but there’s enough data that shows that it’s a threat to people … so we need to do something.”Researchers have found PFAS are frequently used in sandwich wrappers, paper straws, baking papers, carryout containers and molded fiber products like “clam shells”. The chemicals have been detected in products from a range of businesses, including fast food restaurants like McDonald’s, Subway and Chipotle; grocery chains like Whole Foods; and independent restaurants and grocers that use packaging products marketed as “green”.PFAS are also commonly applied to nonstick aluminum wrap and in bulk plastic containers used to store flavorings. Studies show that the chemicals can leach from packaging into food and are linked to cancer, liver disease, kidney problems, decreased immunity, birth defects and other serious health problems.“People don’t realize that the chemicals are coming in contact with food that they’re eating and that’s a way that PFAS is getting into their bodies,” Dingell said.Despite mounting evidence of the chemicals’ toxicity over the last 10 years, a similar bill that passed the House last legislative session was filibustered in the Senate, though it’s unclear who killed it because Senate rules allow members to anonymously filibuster.PFAS manufacturers have spent heavily on lobbying and campaign contributions in recent years, and public health advocates say industry’s efforts have paid off. Last session, chemical company allies in the GOP defeated about 100 other pieces of legislation designed to reign in the chemicals’ use, and Donald Trump had promised to veto any that made it through.“It’s the dark and invisible hand of big money in politics,” said Erik Olson, a lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which supports the new proposed ban.Among industry allies who have opposed PFAS legislation is Senator Jim Inhofe, who sits on the environmental committee and has received at least $60,000 from PFAS producers, including $14,000 last session that was donated as legislation was referred to committee.Senate armed forces committee member Thom Tillis last session cast the deciding vote against legislation that would have helped hold PFAS manufacturers accountable for pollution around military bases. Chemical giants DuPont and Honeywell donated to his campaign in the days after the vote.Advocates say they expect similar opposition this time around, despite growing public pressure to act.“I don’t think the chemical or food packaging industries are retreating even though there’s mounting evidence that there’s a lot of the chemical in food packaging,” Olson said. “Clearly there’s a big problem with an evenly divided Senate and the opportunity to filibuster.”Even if Congress fails to pass the ban, similar legislation has been enacted in seven states, including in California, New York and Vermont, though most only prohibit the chemicals’ use in paper products, not plastic. Several other state legislatures are considering similar bills, which advocates say is putting pressure on industry to stop using the chemicals.Companies like Chipotle, Freshii, McDonald’s, Panera Bread, Sweetgreen, Trader Joe’s, Wendy’s and Whole Foods have committed to stop using packaging with the chemicals. But Olson said PFAS in food packaging “is an issue that’s not going away”, even if legislation fails again.“Until we get toxic forever chemicals out of our food supply, there will continue to be mounting pressure to move legislation,” he said.TopicsUS CongressUS politicsHealthUS SenateHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Professor or comrade?’ Republicans go full red scare on Soviet-born Biden pick

      by

      ‘Professor or comrade?’ Republicans go full red scare on Soviet-born Biden pickSenator asks Saule Omarova, nominated to be comptroller of the currency, if he should call her ‘professor or comrade’

      US politics – live coverage
      Three decades have passed since their hero, Ronald Reagan, went to Berlin to exhort Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!”, the Soviet Union collapsed and America claimed victory in the cold war.Paul Gosar retweets same video aimed at AOC after House censures him – reportRead moreFor Republicans in Washington, however, these appear to be mere historical footnotes. On Thursday they dusted off the “red scare” playbook to portray Joe Biden’s choice to run one of the agencies that oversees the banking industry as a dangerous communist.Saule Omarova, 55, was nominated in September to be America’s next comptroller of the currency. If confirmed, she would be the first woman and person of colour in the role in its 158-year-history.Omarova was born in Kazakhstan when it was part of the Soviet Union and moved to the US in 1991. For John Kennedy of Louisiana, a member of the Senate banking committee, this was like a red rag to a bull.Questioning whether Omarova was still a member of communist youth organisations, Kennedy said: “I don’t mean any disrespect: I don’t know whether to call you professor or comrade.”The remark prompted gasps in the hearing room on Capitol Hill.Omarova replied, slowly and firmly: “Senator, I’m not a communist. I do not subscribe to that ideology. I could not choose where I was born.“I do not remember joining any Facebook group that subscribes to that ideology. I would never knowingly join any such group. There is no record of me actually participating in any Marxist or communist discussions of any kind.”Omarova then told how her family suffered under the communist regime.“I grew up without knowing half of my family. My grandmother herself escaped death twice under the Stalin regime. This is what’s seared in my mind. That’s who I am. I remember that history. I came to this country. I’m proud to be an American and this is why I’m here today, Senator.”Omarova has worked mainly as a lawyer and most recently as a law professor at Cornell University. She has testified often as an expert witness on financial regulation and even worked briefly in the administration of George W Bush.But in a letter to Omarova after she was nominated, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania requested a copy of a graduation paper she wrote about Karl Marx when she was an undergraduate at Moscow State University – “in the original Russian” .At Thursday’s hearing, Toomey noted that Omarova has written several academic papers that propose sweeping changes to the banking system.“Taken in totality, her ideas do amount to a socialist manifesto for American financial services,” he said.The attacks, echoed by rightwing media, earned rebuke from the Democratic chairman of the committee, Sherrod Brown of Ohio.He said: “Senate Republicans have a formula. Start with a passing and inaccurate reference to her academic work, distort the substance beyond recognition, mix in words – Marx, Lenin, communism. End with insinuations about Professor Omarova loyalties to her chosen country.“That’s how Republicans turn a qualified woman into a Marxist boogeyman … Now we know what happens when Trumpism meets McCarthyism.”This was a reference to the 1950s “red scare”, when the Republican senator Joseph McCarthy, of Wisconsin, insisted hundreds of communists had infiltrated the US government, pursuing a witch-hunt that reached into the army and Hollywood.On Thursday, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts added: “This is a vicious smear campaign, coordinated by Republicans who are doing the bidding of the large banks.“Sexism, racism, pages straight out of Joe McCarthy’s 1950s red scare tactics … welcome to Washington in 2021.”TopicsUS politicsUS SenateBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Beto O’Rourke to run for governor of Texas in 2022 election

      by

      Beto O’Rourke to run for governor of Texas in 2022 electionFormer congressman seeks to take on Greg Abbott, the Republican governor, following failed 2018 Senate run against Ted Cruz Beto O’Rourke, a former congressman, Senate candidate and contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, will run for governor in Texas next year.Steve Bannon surrenders over contempt charges for defying Capitol attack subpoena – liveRead moreO’Rourke, 49, is seeking to take on Greg Abbott, the Republican governor who is pursuing a third term.Abbott is seen as more vulnerable than previously, given demographic changes and events including the failure of much of the Texas power grid in very cold weather in February this year, which led to numerous deaths.“I’m running for governor,” O’Rourke announced on Monday. “Together, we can push past the small and divisive politics that we see in Texas today – and get back to the big, bold vision that used to define Texas. A Texas big enough for all of us.”Possible rivals include Matthew McConaughey, a Hollywood star who has flirted with a switch to politics.A recent poll by the University of Texas and the Austin American-Statesman gave Abbott 46% of the vote to 37% for O’Rourke but also put Abbott’s job disapproval rating at 48%. In September, Quinnipiac University found that 50% of Texas voters did not think O’Rourke would do a good job as governor; 49% said the same for McConaughey.In a statement, the Texas Democratic chair, Gilberto Hinojosa, said the party “welcomes Beto O’Rourke to the race for Texas governor. He has been a longtime champion for hard-working Texans and his announcement is another step towards driving out our failed governor.”Juan Carlos Huerta, a professor of political science at Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, told the Guardian Abbott was “a formidable candidate” who had already “shown he can win statewide office” and “knows how to wield power”.But Abbott has been slammed on both sides of the political divide over his management of Covid-19. Facing protests over public health measures from the right of his own party, he course-corrected by throwing Texas open to business and trying to ban mask mandates in schools – even though young children could not then be vaccinated.Abbott has also used the legislature to shore up his conservative bona fides on issues like voting rights and abortion – a political calculation that may isolate some voters, Huerta said.“Can he win?” Huerta said, of O’Rourke. “I think there are some issues that are out there that he can capitalise on.”O’Rourke, from the border city of El Paso, can also call on a proven ground game to get out younger voters who trend Democratic but often have low turnout.“Beto O’Rourke has shown he has an ability to mobilise voters and get people engaged in politics,” Huerta said. “That’s why I’m wondering, would he be able to find examples of things that Abbott did, actions he took, things he advocated for that he can make issues in the 2022 gubernatorial election?”Democratic hopes of turning Texas blue, or at least purple, based on demographic changes involving increased Latino representation and liberals moving into the state, have repeatedly run up against hard political reality. The 2022 midterm elections may represent an even tougher task than usual, as Democrats face pushback against the Biden administration‘s first two years in office.“If you go back, election after election, newspapers always write the headline, ‘Will this be the election that Texas turns blue?’ said Emily M Farris, an associate professor of political science at Texas Christian University. “And it hasn’t happened yet.”O’Rourke’s 2018 Senate run, against Ted Cruz, was a case in point. The former congressman ran strongly but still fell short against a relatively unpopular Republican.O’Rourke then ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, starting brightly but flaming out amid missteps over media coverage and, some analysts said, a strong position on gun control that was at odds with voters in his home state.O’Rourke’s presidential bid left questions about whether he still wanted to run in Texas, Farris said. But O’Rourke has re-established himself in Lone Star politics through work for voter registration and activism amid the winter storm. More recently, O’Rourke stood alongside Texas Democrats to oppose a restrictive voting law introduced by state Republicans.Long road to recovery: effects of devastating winter freeze to haunt Texas for yearsRead moreSpeaking to the Texas Tribune in an interview to accompany his announcement for governor, O’Rourke also highlighted Texas Republicans’ introduction of one of the strictest and most controversial anti-abortion laws.O’Rourke is also a strong fundraiser, one of few Democrats who may be able to compete with Abbott’s massive war chest, which stood at $55m earlier this year.Hinojosa pointed to the Senate campaign in 2018, when he said “Beto rallied Texans by the millions – and showed the entire world that the roots of change run through Texas”.Abbott and O’Rourke have effectively been campaigning against each other already, Farris said. From here, Farris said, Abbott would probably try to draw attention to O’Rourke’s controversial comments on guns while O’Rourke was likely to zero in on the power grid failure last February.“I think those are gonna be at least what the two campaigns try to focus on,” she said.In his announcement video, O’Rourke said Abbott “doesn’t trust women to make their healthcare decisions, doesn’t trust police chiefs when they tell him not to sign the permit-less carry bill into law, he doesn’t trust voters so he changes the rules of our elections, and he doesn’t trust local communities” to make their own rules on Covid.Speaking to the Tribune, he said: “I’m running to serve the people of Texas and I want to make sure that we have a governor that serves everyone, helps to bring this state together to do the really big things before us and get past the small, divisive politics and policies of Greg Abbott. It is time for change.”TopicsBeto O’RourkeUS SenateTexasUS politicsDemocratsGreg AbbottnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican senator won’t condemn Trump for defending chants of ‘Hang Mike Pence’

      by

      Republican senator won’t condemn Trump for defending chants of ‘Hang Mike Pence’
      John Barrasso, Senate No 3, dodges Capitol attack questions
      Retiring representative Gonzalez predicts new Trump coup
      Is Trump planning a 2024 coup?
      A senior Senate Republican refused four times on Sunday to condemn Donald Trump for defending supporters who chanted “Hang Mike Pence” during the deadly assault on the US Capitol on 6 January.‘Pence was disloyal at exactly the right time’: author Jonathan Karl on the Capitol attackRead moreTrump made the comments about his vice-president, who did not yield to pressure to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory, in an interview with ABC’s chief Washington correspondent, Jonathan Karl.John Barrasso of Wyoming, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, appeared on ABC’s This Week. He was asked: “Can your party tolerate a leader who defends murderous chants against his own vice-president?”“Well,” said Barrasso. “Let me just say, the Republican party is incredibly united right now and … I think the more that the Democrats and the press becomes obsessed with President Trump, I think the better it is for the Republican party. President Trump brings lots of energy to the party, he’s an enduring force.”He also said the party was focused on elections and policy debate, not the past.His host, George Stephanopoulos, said: “So you have no problem with the president saying, ‘Hang Mike Pence’ is common sense?”“I was with Mike Pence in the Senate chamber during 6 January,” Barrasso said. “And what happened was they quickly got Vice-President Pence out of there, certainly a lot faster than they removed the senators. I believe he was safe the whole time.“I didn’t hear any of those chants. I don’t believe that he did either. And Vice-President Pence came back into the chamber that night and certified the election.”Stephanopoulous said: “We just played the chants. I’m asking you if you can tolerate the president saying ‘Hang Mike Pence’ is common sense.”“It’s not common sense,” Barrasso said, before pivoting to Trump’s lie that the election was subject to widespread voter fraud.“There are issues in every election,” he said. “I voted to certify the election. And what we’ve seen on this election, there are areas that needed to be looked into, like what we saw in Pennsylvania. We all want fair and free elections. That’s where we need to go for the future.”Stephanopoulos said: “But you’re not going to criticise President Trump for those views?”Barrasso said: “I don’t agree with President Trump on everything. I agree with him on the policies that have brought us the best economy in my lifetime. And I’m going to continue to support those policies.”Karl released more snippets of his interview with Trump. Asked if reports he told Pence “you can be a patriot or you can be a pussy” were accurate, Trump said: “I wouldn’t dispute that.”Trump also said he thought Pence could have sent electoral college results back to the House – the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars say he could not – and said: “I don’t know that I can forgive him.”“He did the wrong thing,” Trump said. “Very nice, man. I like him a lot. I like his family so much, but … it was a tragic mistake.”Trump’s flirtation with another White House run has seen critics within the GOP subject to primary challenges, political ostracisation and even death threats.Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio voted for Trump’s impeachment over the Capitol attack. Like Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of only two Republicans on the House select committee investigating 6 January, Gonzalez will retire next year.He told CNN’s State of the Union he feared Trump was formulating plans for a coup.“I think any objective observer would come to this conclusion: that he has evaluated what went wrong on 6 January. Why is it that he wasn’t able to steal the election? Who stood in his way?“Every single American institution is just run by people. And you need the right people to make the right decision in the most difficult times. He’s going systematically through the country and trying to remove those people and install people who are going to do exactly what he wants them to do, who believe the big lie, who will go along with anything he says.“I think it’s all pushing towards one of two outcomes. He either wins legitimately, which he may do, or if he if he loses again, he’ll just try to steal it but he’ll try to steal it with his people in those positions. And that’s then the most difficult challenge for our country. It’s the question, do the institutions hold again? Do they hold with a different set of people in place? I hope so, but you can’t guarantee it.”Gonzalez said he “despised” most Biden policies and would never vote Democratic.Betrayal review: Trump’s final days and a threat not yet extinguishedRead moreBut he said: “The country can’t survive torching the constitution. You have to hold fast to the constitution … and the cold, hard truth is Donald Trump led us into a ditch on 6 January.“… I see fundamentally a person who shouldn’t be able to hold office again because of what he did around 6 January, but I also see somebody who’s an enormous political loser. I don’t know why anybody who wants to win elections would follow that … If he’s the nominee again in ’24 I will do everything I can to make sure he doesn’t win.“… 6 January was the line that can’t be crossed. 6 January was an unconstitutional attempt led by the president of the United States to overturn an American election and reinstall himself in power illegitimately. That’s fallen-nation territory, that’s third-world country territory. My family left Cuba to avoid that fate. I will not let it happen here.”Trump issued a statement on Sunday, repeating lies about election fraud and alluding to the indictment of his former strategist Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress, for ignoring a subpoena from the 6 January committee, and legal jeopardy faced by others including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows.“American patriots are not going to allow this subversion of justice to continue,” Trump said, adding: “Our country is going to hell!”TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpRepublicansUS politicsUS SenateUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 275 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The president and Senate are the oldest in US history – what’s stopping a younger generation breaking through? | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      OpinionUS CongressThe president and Senate are the oldest in US history – what’s stopping a younger generation breaking through?Arwa MahdawiThere’s nothing wrong with senators being in their 70s and 80s – but perhaps it’s time to reassess our ideas of leadership Tue 9 Nov 2021 10.12 ESTLast modified on Tue 9 Nov 2021 14.12 ESTNikki Haley should have joined the circus, because she is great at walking a tightrope. Ever since she left her position as Donald Trump’s ambassador to the UN in 2018, Haley has kept on the right side of the former president, while simultaneously keeping a safe distance from Trumpism. She has criticised Trump just enough that she can cut ties with him should he become a liability; she has also backed him just enough to count him as an ally should he prove useful. Haley, who is expected to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, alternates between throwing red meat to Trump’s base and keeping one foot in polite society. Hers is a very polished populism.Haley’s balancing act was on full display last week, during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, during which she was asked about the mental health of Joe Biden. Haley cannily avoided commenting directly on Biden, who turns 79 this month, but did make pointed remarks about the need for cognitive tests for ageing politicians. She was rude under the guise of reasonableness.“Let’s face it, we’ve got a lot of people in leadership positions that are old,” Haley said. “That’s a fact … this shouldn’t be partisan. We should seriously be looking at the ages of the people that are running our country and understand if that’s what we want.”Buried within the ageism, Haley has a point. Biden is the oldest sitting president in US history. Meanwhile, the current US Senate is the oldest in history, with an average age of 64.3 years. Dianne Feinstein, the oldest senator, is 88 and has held her California seat since 1992. She is closely followed by the Iowa senator Chuck Grassley, also 88, who has been in his job for four decades. Six senators are at least 80; 23 are in their 70s.There is nothing wrong with politicians being in their 70s or 80s. Experience can be an important asset, and, while we tend to associate youth with energy and innovative thinking, some of the oldest politicians in the US have the most dynamic ideas. Senator Ed Markey, 75, co-sponsored the green new deal. Bernie Sanders, 80, captured young people’s passion like no other US politician in recent years – as did Jeremy Corbyn, 72, in the UK. Meanwhile, fresh-faced Pete Buttigieg, 39, whose 2020 ambitions made him the first competitive millennial presidential candidate, ran on stale ideas. He is a McKinsey millennial, whose status quo platform resonates better with older voters than with his peers. You can sell out at any age.That said, it is worth asking if there is a reason why US leadership skews so old, particularly as the US is an outlier among the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in this respect. The New York Times noted last year that the average OECD leader is almost 25 years younger than Biden. Again, while it is good to have politicians above retirement age – there is a problem if it is because the political structure is making it hard for a new generation to rise to the top.The US system massively favours incumbents: members of the US Congress are typically re-elected about 90% of the time. That breeds complacency. It can also breed myopia. Barack Obama, for example, has admitted that fundraising for his 2004 Senate campaign made him more like his wealthy donors: “I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality and frequent hardship of the other 99% … I suspect this is true for every senator: the longer you are a senator, the narrower the scope of your interactions.”Ultimately, it is not the age of our politicians we need to worry about. What matters is having a government that represents the people it serves. Age limits won’t solve that, nor will cognitive tests, but reassessing our ideas about leadership might. Truly great leaders are not the people who cling to power the longest; they are the ones willing to pass the baton to a new generation.
      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsUS CongressOpinionUS politicsAgeingUS SenateHouse of RepresentativescommentReuse this content More