|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:16:56 GMT
Now that Republicans have used voter suppression and outright flipped elections for themselves the things outlined in this article (and worse) are going on in RED STATES all over the country. When I read this stuff it appears that Republicans are acting like they have just overtaken Germany in the 1930s and are about to rule with an iron fist and start their discriminatory practices and stack the election deck to continue stealing elections. Unbelievable.
North Carolina is probably the worst but Wisconsin is pretty bad.
By SCOTT BAUER Associated Press 17 hrs ago MADISON, Wis. (AP) — For the first time in nearly half a century, Republicans in 2017 will control the Wisconsin Legislature, the governor's office and the presidency in a GOP supersizing that could speed the state's conservative transformation of the last few years.
Wisconsin legislative leaders and Gov. Scott Walker are practically giddy at the prospect of working closely with President-elect Donald Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan, of Janesville, and Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus, who used to run the state Republican Party.
It's the first time since Richard Nixon was president and Warren Knowles was governor, in 1970, that Republicans have controlled the executive and legislative branches in Wisconsin at the same time a fellow Republican has been president. Trump's road to the White House was paved with his victory in Wisconsin, the first for a Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
Conservatives also have a 5-2 majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, giving the GOP a friendly venue for whatever legal challenges may be brought against their policies.
"This is the fantasy conservatives have had for generations and now is their moment," said University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee political scientist Mordecai Lee, a former Democratic state representative who joined the Assembly in 1976, shortly before Democrats took a similarly commanding position.
Lee expected Republicans to take advantage.
"I think we'll see more efforts to restrict labor unions in the private sector, more efforts to do what the business sector wants and environmentalists don't, more efforts to cut regulations across the board and more efforts to reshape the university," Lee said.
Walker and Republican leaders are poised to work closely with Trump, Ryan and Republicans nationally — including newly re-elected Sen. Ron Johnson — on a series of priorities designed to strengthen state government's power.
Walker in December sent Trump a letter requesting his help with a number of conservative priorities that he may or may not be able to quickly address, like giving the state more authority over refugee resettlement, removing obstacles to drug-testing food stamp recipients and loosening clean air requirements.
"We look forward to partnering with you to change the course of the federal and state relationship," Walker wrote to Trump.
Walker, Ryan and Trump's incoming administration have also talked about giving states more leeway with how they spend federal money on massive programs like Medicaid, transportation and education by delivering the money through block grants rather than earmarked for specific programs or projects.
A weakened Wisconsin Democratic Party, which returns to the Legislature with their lowest numbers since 1957 in the Assembly and 1971 in the Senate, are trying to chart a course with no real ability to stop what Walker and Republicans want to do.
"I think the Republicans are going to overreach," said Democratic Senate Minority Leader Jen Shilling. "They are going to make mistakes."
Shilling said Democrats, who have just 13 seats out of 33 in the Senate, will focus on holding Republicans accountable and try to keep them working on issues affecting the middle class. That includes infrastructure, income security, health care, the University of Wisconsin and public schools, she said.
Walker and Republican legislative leaders have the votes to do whatever they want, but they're already showing signs of internal strife.
Faced with a $1 billion shortfall in the Department of Transportation budget, Walker has ruled out any gas tax or vehicle registration fee increases without a corresponding tax cut elsewhere. But Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and other Assembly Republicans argue everything, including tolling and tax and fee increases, should be considered.
Plugging that shortfall, while debating the next two-year state budget Walker will introduce in February, will drive legislative debate for the year. Walker says his priority is workforce development, but Republican lawmakers have already signaled they want to push other ideas, like breaking up the state Department of Natural Resources, barring transgender students from using bathrooms for the sex they identify with and restricting early voting times.
Follow Scott Bauer on Twitter at twitter.com/sbauerAP and find more of his work at bigstory.ap.org/content/scott-bauer
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 23, 2020 10:19:04 GMT
Make of this what you will especially with Jones as the interviewer. I know Bob Chapman to be a reliable source. This doesn't surprise me. As I said, Republicans are quite easy to blackmail and Reagan was no different.
Ronald Reagan blackmailed for sexual behavior ; communist turns into right-wing political puppet
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 10:20:32 GMT
Republicans Planning Historic Sell-Off Of Federal Lands The chance for Republicans to finally give away our land to corporations is pretty good now with Trump in office.
Congress Is Preparing to Give Away Public Land
dcreport.org/2017/01/31/land0117/
A huge corporate freebie, just like in Russia
By Sarah Okeson and David Cay Johnston
IN BRIEF
Congress is preparing to give away millions of acres of public land worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The first move, transferring property owned by all Americans to individual states, was quietly adopted by the House in early January as part of a routine internal rules change.
The end game? Vast expanses of land passed for free to ranching or mining companies—or even corporate logos splattered across national landmarks such as Yosemite park or Devil’s Tower.
The House move is not yet a done deal. The Senate has to act, as will the White House.
Congress moved quietly in January to give away public land to benefit private industry.
The move is the first step in what may become the wholesale transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of public property to private hands with little or no payment. It also smacks of how Russia created its network of billionaire oligarchs while making that country poorer by turning commonwealth property into private property without full compensation. (See this update from The Guardian.)
ACTION BOX / What Do You Know?
If you know more about this, or know people who can help us develop this story and track what happens please send an email to davidcayjohnston@dcreport.org or fill out the brief form at our TIPS Line.
Public land and buildings being given away are to be valued at zero for federal budget purposes under a Republican-sponsored resolution adopted on Jan. 6.
You might expect something so potentially costly to taxpayers would be the subject of robust public hearings and debate. Nope.
This initial step to giving away valuable federal real estate was buried on Page 35 of amendments to the House Rules, an arcane internal procedure that rarely makes news but can be used to make mischief.
The new rules, with emphasis added, provide that, “…requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal land to a State, local government, or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.”
That language, approved on a party-line vote of 234-to-172, means that the value of the real estate and any revenue it generates will be ignored for federal budget purposes. Nothing in the new rule prevents the gift of land from being re-gifted to individuals or companies.
The issue the new House rule raises is not the lease, sale or transfer of federal lands. Our government makes real estate deals all the time. The issues are about financial integrity, fairness to current and future generations of Americans and crony capitalism.
The new rule raises at least three significant issues for taxpayers.
One is the threat posed to taxpayers that their property, held in trust by our federal government, will be given away or sold without regard to the value of the asset or the income it generates. If such land ends up in private hands the result is a form of welfare. The beneficiaries may well be those who need subsidies least – the wealthy individuals and corporations comprising the political donor class.
Second, federal ownership of land helps protect the environment by preventing destructive uses, which in turn lowers costs and makes the economy more efficient.
ACTION BOX / What You Can Do About It
“Any attempt to privatize public lands is going to engender broad opposition across the political spectrum,” says the Sierra Club’s John Hickey. “There will be a firestorm against it if Trump and his honchos try to move forward.”
Maybe so, but only if people know what is up and such giveaways are not buried in arcane legislation that obscures such actions until it’s too late.
Tell your representatives and senators what you think. Phone or write Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee at (202) 225-2761; 1324 Longworth House Office Building / Washington, D.C. 20515. Don’t just send an email. They ignore emails.
Third, the transfer of government property at less than full value is how the Russian oligarchs came to be billionaires. The oligarchs acquired the wealth of Russia — land, oil, minerals timber, real estate, factories, infrastructure — for a fraction of the real value.
To give away federal land Congress would have to pass additional legislation. But removing such matters from the budget debate makes such gifts easier to do and hides the true costs.
The language in the new rule came from Representative Rob Bishop of Utah, a Republican and the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Bishop has long complained that too much land in his district is owned by the federal government.
Lee Lonsberry, a spokesman for Bishop, said the language was an “effort to remove a bureaucratic rule” that blocks economic development and that “this is a conveyance from one government to another.”
Once federal land is transferred gratis to a state or local government or a Native American organization it could be re-gifted or sold.
The ranking Democratic member on the House Natural Resources Committee, Raúl Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, has called the rule change outrageous and absurd.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 10:21:06 GMT
The gall of this man (Mr. Turtlehead) is unbelievable.Capitol Hill Buzz: Mitch McConnell defends obstructionismBRUCE SCHREINER,Associated Press 9 hours ago .
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is speaking up for obstructionism.
Addressing a chamber of commerce meeting in his home state of Kentucky, the Republican said Wednesday that obstruction can be OK — as long as it has a purpose.
That's different from futile obstruction, which he argues Senate Democrats are practicing to stall the formation of President Donald Trump's Cabinet.
"Look, I'm not against obstruction if you have a purpose. And I've from time to time been involved in that myself," McConnell said.
"Obstruction with a purpose is different from futile gestures. The futile gestures that are going on in the Senate right now are our Democratic friends using every tool available to slow the process down for Cabinet confirmations, but they have no chance for success."
No Democrat would dispute McConnell's acknowledgment that he's been involved in obstructionism himself, particularly regarding former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, denied a hearing by McConnell for 10 months last year.
But whether obstructionism is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, and Democrats believe their obstruction of Trump's Cabinet is not futile. Democrats say they're shedding light on the nominees' records even if they can't ultimately defeat them.
An occasional look at what Capitol Hill is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 10:21:32 GMT
Liberals, Progressives and Democrats are making a big mistake if they don't continually tie the Republican Party to Trump and Trump to the Republican Party. The party will cut Trump loose when they think he is too much of a detriment to them but only after Trump helps them get their pathetic Libertarian agenda through. That will happen around the mid term elections...probably just after. Does my heart good:
How soon they forget:
where is this headed?:
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 10:22:00 GMT
From its chaotic Executive through its occasionally baffled congressional majorities, the Republican Party has continued its eight-year project to delegitimize the presidency of Barack Obama. Right now, at the congressional level, it manifests itself in legislation that will undo the Obama administration's primary accomplishments. In the executive, apparently, it is going to manifest itself in attempts to sling mud at what was a scandal-free presidency. Why Republicans Can Never Fully Separate Themselves from Trump
Delegitimizing the presidency of Barack Obama is a proud pastime.By Charles P. Pierce www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a53619/republicans-separating-from-trump/ Mar 6, 2017
The Washington Post provided the cherry on top. Apparently, El Caudillo del Mar-A-Lago spent the entire flight to the Winter Palace eating huge chunks of the furnishings on Air Force One. If the Post's reporting is accurate, it's a wonder that he wasn't taken off the plane trussed up like Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs.
Trump was mad — steaming, raging mad. Trump's young presidency has existed in a perpetual state of chaos. The issue of Russia has distracted from what was meant to be his most triumphant moment: his address last Tuesday to a joint session of Congress. And now his latest unfounded accusation — that Barack Obama tapped Trump's phones during last fall's campaign — had been denied by the former president and doubted by both allies and fellow Republicans. When Trump ran into Christopher Ruddy on the golf course and later at dinner Saturday, he vented to his friend. "This will be investigated," Ruddy recalled Trump telling him. "It will all come out. I will be proven right." "He was pissed," said Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax, a conservative media company. "I haven't seen him this angry."
Let us pause here for a moment to recall that the person to whom the president* vented, Christopher Ruddy, first came to national notice by peddling the theory that the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered. Ruddy wasn't just a casual observer, either. He was the source point from which this particular toxin got into the mainstream. He even accused Ken Starr of being part of "the cover-up." He was so central that 60 Minutes devoted a segment to debunking his nonsense. Apparently, there is no corner of the fever swamp in which the current president* is not welcome.
Trump, meanwhile, has been feeling besieged, believing that his presidency is being tormented in ways known and unknown by a group of Obama-aligned critics, federal bureaucrats and intelligence figures — not to mention the media, which he has called "the enemy of the American people." That angst over what many in the White House call the "deep state" is fomenting daily, fueled by rumors and tidbits picked up by Trump allies within the intelligence community and by unconfirmed allegations that have been made by right-wing commentators. The "deep state" is a phrase popular on the right for describing entrenched networks hostile to Trump.
Ensconsed in Camp Runamuck, the president* is a voracious consumer of angry paranoid junk food. We are all now living in Talk Radio Hell.
John Oliver Invites America to 'Stupid Watergate'
This latest episode began, of course, with the Twitter frenzy of early Saturday morning, when the president* accused his predecessor of having tapped—or, more accurately, "tapp-ped"—his wires in the Trump Tower. There followed a serious of mystified comments from inside and outside the White House which culminated in an appeal by FBI director James Comey—yeah, that guy again—to the Justice Department, in which Comey asked his superiors to reject the president*'s charges. On Monday, the White House trotted out Sarah Huckabee Sanders, perhaps the world's worst surrogate, to shoot back at Comey. It did not go well, via The New York Times:
A White House spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, was asked early Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" whether Mr. Trump accepted Mr. Comey's contention. "I don't think he does," she said. "I think he firmly believes that this is a story line that has been reported pretty widely by quite a few outlets," said Ms. Sanders. She went on to cite several news reports about the F.B.I.'s investigation into links between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia. George Stephanopoulos, the ABC News host interviewing Ms. Sanders, pointed out that the articles Ms. Sanders cited did not back up Mr. Trump's claims that Mr. Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped the month before the election.
Well, OK, then.
There is no telling where this ends. There are only three possibilities as to what happened. First, the president* doesn't know what in hell he's talking about and is just trying to distract us all. Second, the previous president engaged in nefarious dirty tricks on behalf of the Democratic candidate and then, shrewdly, declined to make the results available to the public or to the Democratic campaign! (That evil genius!) Or, third, the previous administration got some information that was alarming enough to convince some federal judge or judges that the situation demanded further investigation. None of these three options is comforting.
The obvious fact is that the executive branch of the government is beginning to eat its own entrails. The president* has made open war on the intelligence community, and on the agencies over which he is ostensibly in charge. He has appointed people to run agencies that they actively despise, or that their utter incompetence is guaranteed to cripple. (Or, in the case of Betsy DeVos at Education, they can be both.) The destruction of the administrative state is well underway, and the administrative state is fighting for its life in the only way it can. This seems to afflict the president* in some visceral way, causing him to spiral even further out toward the far fringes of American thought, and it seems to frustrate him into a kind of ungovernable rage.
Meanwhile, Beggar's Day is coming for obvious anagram Reince Priebus, the comically out-of-his-depth White House chief of staff, and the attorney general has had to recuse himself from a controversy he started himself. This may be what Steve Bannon wants. It may even be what Vladimir Putin wants. (Although I'm coming around to David Remnick's sharp insight that it's really the Russians who are the dog that caught the car.) It can't be good for the country, though.
Trump Accused Obama of Wiretapping Him
In truth, the really fascinating element of this great carnival of fools is the behavior of the Republican Party. Watching Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan whistle their way past the graveyard of American democracy on their way to constructing the deregulated, privatized oligarchical hellscape of their dreams is like watching two men building a mansion in the middle of Chernobyl. Even this weekend, the Republicans who expressed vague regrets that the president* had gone around the bend did so in such a way as to keep one foot in the crazy.
The standard Republican position is, "let's investigate everything," which is a way to keep the president*'s basic charge alive while deploring the fact that he made it. The reaction of Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, who is one clever climber, was quite typical. From CNN:
Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, a frequent Trump critic, said the President should publicly release the FISA Court order that would have been needed if his phones were legally tapped by the government. And, if Trump believes his phones were illegally monitored, he "should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this," Sasse said in a statement. "We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President's allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots," Sasse said. "A quest for the full truth, rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and health."
Deep between the lines of Sasse's statement, you can discern the one unifying principle of the Republican Party in 2017. From its chaotic Executive through its occasionally baffled congressional majorities, the Republican Party has continued its eight-year project to delegitimize the presidency of Barack Obama. Right now, at the congressional level, it manifests itself in legislation that will undo the Obama administration's primary accomplishments. In the executive, apparently, it is going to manifest itself in attempts to sling mud at what was a scandal-free presidency.
This is what unites all Republicans, including people like Ben Sasse, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and all the rest of them who have made hay in "deploring" the actions of a lunatic presidency without doing anything substantial to stop it. This is what not even Donald Trump can make them let go.
Update (2:45 PM): Amazingly enough, Andrea Mitchell hosted Mr. Ruddy on her teevee program without mentioning that Ruddy left any credibility that he ever had under a tree in Fort Marcy Park 20 years ago.
Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 10:22:43 GMT
The heart, soul and now the face of the Republican Party is ugly. Ugly and racist. Don't be fooled. Donald J Trump is the epitome of today's Republican Party. There is no difference. Just different styles of ugliness. And this is the face we now show to the world. And every Republican and every Conservative is proud. Politics www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-vs-barack-obama-085608849.html
Donald Trump vs Barack Obama: From the 'birther' row to the wiretapping accusation
Chiara Palazzo,The Telegraph 23 hours ago .
Donald Trump's relationship with Barack Obama descended to a new low over the weekend after the US president made explosive accusations that his predecessor orchestrated an illegal Watergate-style bugging operation at Trump Tower in New York.
The unprecedented attack follows a years-long feud between the two men. We look back at their strained relationship.
'Birther' movement
Donald Trump did not accept President Barack Obama was born in the United States until September 2016 - ending a bizarre eight-year conspiracy theory that his critics say shows Mr Trump to be racist.
Mr Trump revived the "birther" question in an interview with The Washington Post, in which he said he was "not ready" to publicly acknowledge Mr Obama's legitimate right to be president. Former President Barack Obama leaves the National Gallery of Art in Washington, Sunday, March 5, 2017.
Mr Obama published his birth certificate in April 2011, to end what he described as a "sideshow".
"We do not have time for this kind of silliness," he said at the time. "We’ve got better stuff to do."
When asked on Thursday why his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway insisted he accepted the birth certificate, Mr Trump said she could say what she liked, but it wasn't necessarily accurate.
His campaign team later put out a statement saying that Mr Trump believed it - but critics of the billionaire were astonished that he said he was not able to state it publicly.
The 'mental health' tweet
Mr Trump has been firing abusive messages at the President even back in February 2015, when he issued this curt appraisal of Mr Obama's handling of the ebola crisis.
He was referring to Mr Obama's refusal to completely close off the borders as the U.S. Centres for Disease Control had argued that doing so could undermine efforts to trace the infected and stem the contagion.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump
I am starting to think that there is something seriously wrong with President Obama's mental health. Why won't he stop the flights. Psycho!
1:23 AM - 16 Oct 2014 1,804 1,804 Retweets 1,594 1,594 likes The White House correspondents' dinner
Speaking at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, Mr Obama mocked Mr Trump in front of the Washington political establishment. The then president sarcastically derided the "credentials and breadth of experience" of real estate mogul and reality television host as he watched stone-faced.
"Donald Trump is here tonight," said Mr Obama, beaming. "Now, I know that he's taken some flak lately, but no one is prouder to put this birth certificate to rest than The Donald. Now he can get to focusing on the issues that matter.
"Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened at Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?" Mr Obama said citing subjects of conspiracy theories.
The five minute long roasting included jokes about Mr Trump's tv show Celebrity Apprentice, a mock-up of what a Trump White House would look like, tacky, and Mr Obama's "long-form birth video," which ended up being a clip from Disney movie The Lion King.
The 'wiretapping'
Mr Trump had called for a congressional investigation after alleging that he was the victim of a dirty tricks campaign akin to Watergate.
In an extraordinary attack on his predecessor, Mr Trump claimed that his predecessor had ordered a wiretapping operation on Trump Towers, his campaign's headquarters. FBI Director James Comey
James Comey, the FBI director, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly refute Mr Trump’s assertion, unnamed officials told the New York Times on Sunday.
Mr Comey and the Justice Department have been working to reject the claim because it falsely insinuates that the FBI broke the law, it was reported.
Mr Obama has said the allegations made against him by Mr Trump were "simply false". James Clapper, his former intelligence chief, also "absolutely denied" the claims. But Mr Trump told a friend he was convinced he would be "proven right".
Additional reporting: Nick Allen, Harriet Alexander
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 10:23:22 GMT
Once again Republicans have sold our privacy rights down the river. Ever since the Republican written and installed Patriot Act Republicans have been moving full force in taking our rights and our privacy away. Not a word for the great Donald J Trump about this either as he too is on board with this destruction of our privacy because THIS IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS. That is their excuse and their mantra. You will notice this vote is all along party lines. Democrats voted against it, all Democrats and ALL Republicans voted in favor to take our rights away. THE PROBLEM AND THE BILL (SEE THE VOTE BELOW)This bill could allow telecom companies to sell your private Internet history
govtrackinsider.com/this-bill-could-allow-telecom-companies-to-sell-your-private-internet-history-69d37081eb8e
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), lead Senate sponsor
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN7), lead House sponsor
A Republican bill would block a regulation of President Obama’s that they see as executive overreach, but privacy advocates claim it could allow companies to sell your private Internet and search history. Who’s right?
The context and what the bill does
The Federal Trade Commission maintains jurisdiction over most aspects of the Internet. But after the 2016 election during the lame-duck session, another Washington agency called the Federal Communications Commission issued new regulations related specifically to Internet service providers, also known as ISPs. (You’ve probably heard of some of the country’s biggest ISPs, which include Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, Cox, and CenturyLink.)
These new rules required all Internet browsing data, as well as data regarding app usage on mobile devices, be subject to the same privacy requirements as sensitive or private personal information. This overtook the previous rule by the FTC, the agency which previously had authority over regulating ISP’s and differentiated privacy requirements based upon the sensitivity of the information, with more stringent rules for such things as health information or Social Security numbers. The methods are also more invasive to the ISP companies, since the FCC also issues pre-emptive regulations while the FTC primarily conducted investigations.
Introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) — chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law — and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN7), Senate Joint Resolution 34 and House Joint Resolution 86 are companion bills that would nullify the FCC’s rule. However, they would not return jurisdiction over regulating ISP’s back to the FTC, as they were previously.
What supporters say
Many Republicans saw these new rules as a power grab during the closing days of the Obama Administration. The rule was issued on December 2, 2016 and took effect on January 3, 2017, less than three weeks before President Trump took office. Supporters of the bill argue that the legislation would prevent the one-size-fits-all regulation.
“Under the FTC’s watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the world. The agency’s evidence-based approach calibrates privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of information collected,” Senate lead sponsor Flake wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
“The FCC rules subject all web browsing and app usage data to the same restrictive requirements as sensitive personal information. That means that information generated from looking up the latest Cardinals score or checking the weather in Scottsdale is treated the same as personal health and financial data.”
ISP companies also contended that the FCC rules have placed them at a disadvantage with other non-ISP Internet companies that also collect user data, like Netflix or Facebook.
What opponents say
Privacy advocates warn that the legislation could produce dire consequences for consumer privacy, with Privacy News Online calling it “a bill to let telecoms sell your private Internet history.”
“Its goal is to remove all the hard-earned net neutrality regulations gained to protect your internet history from advertisers and and worse,” they wrote. “Specifically, the FCC had been able to prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from spying on your internet history, and selling what they gathered, without express permission. This legal protection on your internet history is currently under attack thanks to these 24 Senators and lots of ISP lobbying spend.”
That’s not false, as ISPs have been previously shown to sell user data to third parties, who in turn use it for marketing or other purposes.
Odds of passage
The odds of passage are decent — if Trump’s new FCC Commission Ajit Pai doesn’t overturn the rule on his own first. Pai already placed a partial halt to some of the ISP rules in February.
The Senate legislation has attracted 23 cosponsors, all Republicans. It awaits a vote in the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
The House legislation has attracted 16 cosponsors, also all Republicans. It awaits a vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Blackburn is the third-most conservative House member, based on a GovTrack analysis of voting records so far during this Congress.
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin. Republicans in Congress Will Not Protect Your Internet Privacy, So Protect it Yourself Jason Koebler Mar 27 2017, 10:14am
Unlike the ACA, however, Republicans are completely united on loosening regulations for telecom monopolies.
Tuesday, the House of Representatives will vote to allow your internet service provider to spy on you. Right now, there are a series of last-minute letter writing campaigns and protests trying to salvage rules that would protect your privacy, but make no mistake: These efforts will almost certainly fail. It's time to protect yourself.
I hate to be fatalist, but the Federal Communication Commission rules that the Senate voted to repeal last week and the House will vote on tomorrow are not controversial within the Republican party, which has the power to impose its will. This fight is not similar to the Affordable Care Act battle, which was marked by rampant infighting and the disastrous optics of passing legislation that would have literally killed many of Republicans lawmakers' core voters.
The bill would repeal rules passed by the FCC last year that would have made it illegal for ISPs to sell your browsing history to advertisers, hijack your Google searches in order to redirect them to advertisers' websites, and inject ads into websites you visit. The repeal of these rules will also allow wireless carriers to preinstall undeletable software trackers onto your phone and ISPs to use "super cookies" to track you around the web. Not great.
more motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/republicans-in-congress-will-not-protect-your-internet-privacy-so-protect-it-yourself
THE VOTEPosted on Mar 23, 2017 by Caleb Chen US Senate votes 50-48 to do away with broadband privacy rules; let ISPs and telecoms to sell your internet historyDespite widespread disapproval from constituents, S.J.Res 34 has passed the United States Senate with a vote of 50-48, with two absent votes. Earlier today, at 12:25 Eastern March 23, 2017, the US Senate voted on S.J.Res 34, and will use the Congressional Review Act to strip away broadband privacy protections that kept Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telecoms from selling your internet history and app data usage to third parties. S.J.Res 34 was first introduced by 23 Republican Senators earlier this month and its blitz approval is a giant blow to privacy rights in the United States.
The resolution, which is now effectively half passed, will hand responsibility of broadband privacy regulation from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and disallow the FCC from making any rules protecting Internet privacy ever again.
The 50 Senators that voted for S.J.Res 34 are (thanks to happyxpenguin): Senator Roberts (R-KS) Senator Lee (R-UT) Senator Boozman (R-AR) Senator Blunt (R-MO) Senator Crapo (R-ID) Senator Scott (R-SC) Senator Cotton (R-AR) Senator Hatch (R-UT) Senator Capito (R-WV) Senator Alexander (R-TN) Senator Toomey (R-PA) Senator Perdue (R-GA) Senator Cochran (R-MS) Senator Inhofe (R-OK) Senator Ernst (R-IA) Senator Lankford (R-OK) Senator Collins (R-ME) Senator Sullivan (R-AK) Senator Thune (R-SD) Senator McCain (R-AZ) Senator Graham (R-SC) Senator Wicker (R-MS) Senator Grassley (R-IA) Senator Burr (R-NC) Senator Hoeven (R-ND) Senator Tillis (R-NC) Senator McConnell (R-KY) Senator Heller (R-NV) Senator Cruz (R-TX) Senator Daines (R-MT) Senator Portman (R-OH) Senator Murkowsky (R-AK) Senator Cassidy (R-LA) Senator Flake (R-AZ) Senator Johnson (R-WI) Senator Rubio (R-FL) Senator Corker (R-TN) Senator Risch (R-ID) Senator Gardner (R-CO) Senator Young (R-IN) Senator Barasso (R-WY) Senator Moran (R-KS) Senator Cornyn (R-TX) Senator Enzi (R-WY) Senator Kennedy (R-LA) Senator Shelby (R-AL) Senator Rounds (R-SD)
Absent: Senator Paul (R-KY) Senator Isakson (R-GA)
The FCC broadband privacy rules are closer to ending – allowing your private internet history to be sold
The Senators that voted for this have been lobbied by the telecoms and ISPs. Those in support of this stripping of privacy rights have even filed with the FCC attempting to claim that web history and app data usage information is not sensitive information. The EFF put it concisely: Senate Puts ISP Profits Over Your Privacy. Now, the only chance to maintain the hard earned FCC broadband privacy rules lies in defeating H.J.Res 86, the House version of this resolution, which will likely be voted on in the House of Representatives within the next month. It’s up to us to Save Broadband Privacy and make sure that we Don’t Let Congress Undermine Our Privacy.
Like this article? Get notified by email when there is a new article or signup to receive the latest news in the fight for Privacy via the Online Privacy News RSS Feed.
www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/03/us-senate-votes-50-48-away-broadband-privacy-rules-let-isps-telecoms-sell-internet-history/
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 10:23:58 GMT
Neil Gorsuch Has Web of Ties to Secretive Billionaire By CHARLIE SAVAGE and JULIE TURKEWITZMARCH 14, 2017
www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — The publicity-shy billionaire Philip F. Anschutz inherited an oil and gas firm and built it into an empire that has sprawled into telecommunications, railroads, real estate, resorts, sports teams, stadiums, movies and conservative publications like The Weekly Standard and The Washington Examiner.
Mr. Anschutz’s influence is especially felt in his home state of Colorado, where years ago Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a Denver native, the son of a well-known Colorado Republican and now President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, was drawn into his orbit.
As a lawyer at a Washington law firm in the early 2000s, Judge Gorsuch represented Mr. Anschutz, his companies and lower-ranking business executives as an outside counsel. In 2006, Mr. Anschutz successfully lobbied Colorado’s lone Republican senator and the Bush administration to nominate Judge Gorsuch to the federal appeals court. And since joining the court, Judge Gorsuch has been a semiregular speaker at the mogul’s annual dove-hunting retreats for the wealthy and politically prominent at his 60-square-mile Eagles Nest Ranch.
“They say a country’s prosperity depends on three things: sound money, private property and the rule of law,” Judge Gorsuch said at the 2010 retreat, according to his speaker notes from that year. “This crowd hardly needs to hear from me about the first two of the problems we face on those scores.”
With the Senate Judiciary Committee set to take up Judge Gorsuch’s nomination next week, Democrats have based much of their criticism of him on the argument that his judicial and economic philosophy unduly favors corporations and the wealthy. But his relationship with Mr. Anschutz, 77, whose fortune is estimated by Forbes to be $12.6 billion, has received scant attention.
The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, which developed the list of potential Supreme Court nominees from which Mr. Trump selected Judge Gorsuch, receive funding from Mr. Anschutz. But it is not clear how well the two know each other, in part because the mogul and those around him keep a low profile. When a reporter called Mr. Anschutz’s company and asked for a press officer, a woman who answered said, “We do not respond to media requests.” She hung up when asked her name.
But he has connections with others who work with the Colorado billionaire. For nearly a dozen years, Judge Gorsuch has been partners in a limited-liability company with two of Mr. Anschutz’s top lieutenants. Together, they own a 40-acre property on the Colorado River in the mountains northwest of Denver, where they built a vacation home together.
IT GETS WORSE www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html?_r=0
but this is what Republicans are all about. The Republican Party is a front operation for Billionaires and big corporations.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:08:31 GMT
Senate votes to repeal Labor Dept. municipal retirement plan ruleRead more at businessaboard.com/business-plan/senate-votes-to-repeal-labor-dept-municipal-retirement-plan-rule#SBvap8Qx7aHjIWfX.99 by admin | March 30, 2017 post from Business Plan. By Sarah N. Lynch and Lisa Lambert | WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON A divided U.S. Senate on Thursday sent a resolution to the president’s desk killing a Labor Department regulation aimed at lightening federal restrictions for new municipally sponsored retirement savings plans for lower-income workers.
The rule, championed by states such as California but opposed by the mutual fund industry, exempted local municipal retirement savings plans from strict pension protection laws.
Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, the resolution’s sponsor, said on Wednesday he expects the Senate to act in the near future to repeal a related rule affecting state retirement savings plans.
The resolution repealing the municipal retirement savings rule, approved by a 50-49 vote in the Senate and previously approved in the House of Representatives, marked the 12th time the Republican-controlled Congress has successfully killed an Obama-era regulation through the use of an obscure 1996 law known as the Congressional Review Act.
The law lets Congress fast-track the repeal of newly minted rules through a simple majority vote in the House and Senate, and a signature from the president. Once a rule is repealed, a “substantially similar” rule cannot be enacted in its place.
The Review Act sets a window of time where Congress can nullify regulation before it takes full effect. The Labor Department rule was finalized after the last day of May 2016, putting it into the window.
Using the resolutions, Republicans have sent rules spanning a variety of areas to the chopping block in hopes of loosening regulation they say constricts job and business growth.
Thursday’s resolution and its near-twin for state plans counter the trend by keeping in place regulations small businesses must follow if their employees enroll in the retirement programs.
Towards the end of President Barack Obama’s tenure, his Labor Department exempted both state and municipally run retirement savings plans from the landmark 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA – a law designed to protect workers’ savings that details compliance requirements.
Private-sector workers whose employers do not offer 401(k) or other retirement benefits, and who often have low incomes, are automatically enrolled in the plans in states such as California, Illinois and Oregon.
States say the exemption from ERISA lets employers pass workers’ money into plans without having to foot compliance costs.
They also say Wall Street wants to block the plans because they create competition.
But the Investment Company Institute, a mutual funds trade group, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce say the exemptions short-change workers from important federal pension protections that other workers receive.
“To be blunt, places like New York City shouldn’t just get a pass,” said Hatch during the Senate debate on the resolution, which started Wednesday.
(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)
Read more at businessaboard.com/business-plan/senate-votes-to-repeal-labor-dept-municipal-retirement-plan-rule#dtt1XDvtQygBwpfw.99
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:08:54 GMT
While not exact, the similarities between Trump, his words, actions and those of his followers and the NAZI movement led by Adolf Hitler in Germany or Josef Stalin in Russia are stunning. It isn't a stretch when we know (according to his ex-wife) Trump kept a book of Hitler's speeches on his bedside table. In his own crude way Trump assimilated the teachings of this movement without learning any of the lessons their failure has taught us. It also shows us there is a very ready, willing and able group ready to internalize that message. And this is the group, the mindset that lives on even today. It is the mindset that we are fighting. They have always been here lying in wait for the next leader or group of leaders to take them to the next step. And that group today is clearly identifiable by their actions, their institutions, their think tanks, their demonizing "others" who aren't them and their psychological projections of their own fears onto others. I dare say the group that allowed Trump to happen, the group that follows Trump and the Party that has allowed him to take root is worse than Trump himself. Trump will be gone in a matter of time. The group, the mindset that allowed his rise has entrenched itself in our system with tentacles spreading everywhere. I think "it" is worse than most realize.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:09:23 GMT
All in the (Crime) Family: Bush & Blackwater Like a cancer, private mercenary firm spreads influence in local communities. When the private military company Blackwater USA, a firm tied to the Bush family through marriage and to right-wing extremist and racist groups through politics and money, established its headquarters in Moyock, North Carolina in an former military reservation in the Great Dismal Swamp, just south of the Virginia border, practically no one noticed.
Blackwater was founded in 1997 by Erik Prince, a former US Navy SEAL and right-wing fundamentalist Christian from Michigan.
Prince’s father is Edgard Prince, who founded the Family Research Council with Gary Bauer.
Erik Prince’s sister is Betty DeVos, who is married to Dick DeVos, the son of Amway co-founder and Mormon bigwig Richard DeVos.
The General Counsel for Erik Prince’s Blackwater parent company, the Prince Group, is Joseph Schmitz, the Pentagon’s former Inspector General.
Schmitz’s brother, John Schmitz, Jr. deputy counsel to George H. W. Bush and who is married to the sister of Columba Bush, Jeb Bush’s wife.
The father of John and Joseph was extreme right-wing Republican Congressman John Schmitz, Sr.
Their sister is Mary Kay Letourneau, a former Washington State schoolteacher jailed for having sex with a thirteen year old American Samoan student who she later married.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau
Safely ensconced in North Carolina and flush with money as a result of Pentagon contracts ensured by Joseph Schmitz and the Bush family, Blackwater began to expand nationally. Using stealth and guile, the company targeted small communities in order to establish regional military training centers.
www.oregontruthalliance.org/?q=node/344
Bush Section has more related reports
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:11:32 GMT
www.salon.com/2015/05/05/the_ludicrous_myth_of_republican_fiscal_responsibility_a_history_lesson_for_the_modern_gop/The ludicrous myth of Republican fiscal responsibility: A history lesson for the modern GOPTuesday, May 5, 2015 Conor Lynch The GOP loves to insist that Democrats have caused a fiscal crisis. But the real story looks far different
Over the past three decades, the Republican party has followed a familiar strategy — get elected to executive office by preaching fiscal responsibility, make a complete mess of things fiscally, and then, when a Democrat comes in to clean up the mess, blame them endlessly for not fixing it fast enough. We see this currently, with the insipid Republican candidates blaming President Obama for our current debt level, despite the fact that Republican policies, like cutting taxes for the wealthy and putting two wars on the credit card made it all possible.
It is a kind of reasoning that Mitch McConnell presented when Obama first entered office, saying, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Not to help revamp the middle class or get the economy back on track or end disastrous wars, but to make Obama a one-term president. Here lies the reasoning of the Republican party. Their sole goal is to attack and defeat the Democratic president, and to do this, they complain about issues like inequality or the deficit, and then hijack any proposals that the president advances to address them.
Since the first day Obama stepped into the Oval Office, the federal debt has not only become a catastrophic issue for Republicans, but also one entirely attributed to Obama and the Democrats. This is a major change in heart from a decade earlier, when Republican Vice President Dick Cheney said to Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Indeed, Ted Cruz’s hero Ronald Reagan was the original deficit master.
When Reagan took office, he advocated fiscal responsibility, as his disciples do today. But his presidency was anything but responsible when it came to fiscal policies. The size of America’s debt when he entered office was $1 trillion, and by the end of his two terms, it had grown by 190 percent, to $2.9 trillion, nearly tripling under his leadership. By the the end of twelve years of Reagan-Bush administration, the debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion. Reagan’s policies were ideological in the beginning, and pragmatic towards the end. In his first year in office, he signed major tax cuts into law that were supposed to reduce revenue by $749 billion over five years. This was the “starve the beast” tactic, which the Reagan administration quickly realized was impractical, and the following year signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which was the largest tax increase in American history. For the remaining of his presidency, Reagan backtracked from that initial tax cut, increasing income taxes as well as gasoline and social security taxes, which he would use to fund his runaway spending.
While Reagan’s criticism of Jimmy Carters’ deficit spending helped land him in the office, by the end of his run, spending had only increased in share of national income. Indeed, both Ford and Carter were better at cutting government spending — their presidential terms combined for a 1.4 percent increase of national income, while Reagan’s spending grew 3 percent.
Rather than going the responsible “tax and spend” route, Reagan decided to “borrow and spend.” Reagan achieved this with the help of Alan Greenspan, who he appointed as the Chairman of the National Commission on Social Security Reform. He enacted a tax increase for the regressive social security payroll tax, and then, as the first surpluses arrived, rather than saving and investing it for working America’s future, they spent it all. It was used to replace all of the lost revenue from Reagan’s early tax cuts for the wealthy. Or in other words, it was the ultimate redistribution of wealth, stolen from the working class and handed to the top one percent. Today, the largest holder of America’s debt is not China, as mostRepublican’s imply, but the social security trust fund, or the American working class.
So, Reagan and Bush Sr. quadrupled America’s debt, following a decade of fiscal irresponsibility and regressive tax increases that ultimately defrauded America’s working class. And then, of course, Democrat Bill Clinton came into office to clean up the mess. In his first years, Clinton enacted tax increases for the wealthy, and the effective total federal tax rates rose significantly for the one percent. When Clinton signed these increases into law, Conservatives warned it would destroy jobs and stifle economic growth — but the opposite happened, the economy flourished.
Of course the internet boom contributed to the great economic growth and an increase in tax revenue, which helped Clinton balance the budget and run a surplus in his final years in office. But the reality is that Clinton rose taxes to match spending, rather than cutting taxes while increasing spending, as did Reagan. Clinton was fiscally responsible, and he left George W. Bush with a budged surplus of $86 billion.
And what did the Republican do with this wonderful gift? He did the usual — cut taxes for the wealthy, and rapidly increased spending by starting two extremely expensive wars. Bush’s fiscally irresponsible policies raised the debt by over $5 trillion. This, along with his administrations lack of Wall Street oversight, helped fuel the financial crisis that he would pass down to President Obama.
When Obama took office, we were in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and he inherited a $642 billion deficit, versus Clinton’s $86 billion surplus. Because of the recession, the government tax revenues dropped significantly, before he even entered office, while spending increased with financial bailouts; a perfect recipe for major deficits. Now, there is no doubt, Obama could have pushed for certain policies that would have lowered the deficit faster, like ending the Bush tax cuts rather than extending, but when compared to previous Republican presidents, Obama is shaping up to be on the side of fiscal responsibility. Today, the federal deficit has returned to pre-recession levels, at $483 billion, compared to the $642 billion he inherited from Bush.
But still, Republicans will say that Obama has added more nominal debt than any of his predecessors — which is true. But it is the wrong way to measure it, especially because each president inherits a debt, deficit, and economy from the previous one. In this case, Obama inherited the worst of the worst, and much of the debt that piled on during his term was from his predecessors policies. The other significant problem with this measurement is that it does not account for growth rate. In Obama’s first six years, the debt increased by about 70 percent, compared to a 130 percent increase in Ronald Reagan’s first six years. It grew even faster under wartime presidents F.D.R. and Woodrow Wilson.
When it comes down to it, history will show Obama as a fiscally responsible president, just as it shows Republicans as fiscally irresponsible. But for today, we will continue to hear constant hyperbole about Obama’s debt and how it is somehow his own creation. But it is not his creation, and neither is income inequality, which Republicans have now decided to blame on Obama as well. This is what they do; create a filthy mess, leave a mop for Democrats to clean it with, and then scream and bicker at them as they stand over it, cleaning. This myth of Republican fiscal responsibility will be pushed hard in the coming year, but reality tells a much different story.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:12:05 GMT
The author paints an accurate picture that Republicans refuse to hear. The USA went from a creditor nation all the way up until 1980 and as soon as Reagan and his Libertarian masters took over we became a debtor nation. Clinton bought into that philosophy which is why he was called the best Republican president ever. Obama bought into it to a lesser degree but he had his hands full by the mess handed to him that even if he didn't buy into it he did as much as he was able to stabilize things. Unless she was giving us lip service Hillary was poised to change things and more than a few times said trickle down did not work. And here we are again with another trickle downer with Trump. He is supposed to release his tax plan for America. What do you want to bet the very wealthy are going to get major tax cuts once again? And if he starts more "off budget" wars as Republicans love to do we can all expect another huge economic crash worst than the last one. It will take what is left of my life to get past that one. And as that article states Republicans will try to blame it on the Democrats.
The Democrats need to clean house too. Time to get rid of the right leaning Blue Dogs and the middle of the roaders who just cannot let go of the old system as it existed under Clinton. No more superdelegates either. I am not seeing any moves in that direction and time is running out. Dems are not happy with their party. We need big time change or else.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:12:34 GMT
This is typical of conservative and Republican leadership:
GOP Rep Tells Mom Her Son On Medicaid Should Just Get A Better Job If He Wants Health Care
Rep. Warren Davidson also compared health insurance to a cell phone.
www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop-congressman-mom-son-medicaid-obamacare-repeal_us_58fbd993e4b00fa7de14d627
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) told the mother of a service industry worker who has benefitted from the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion that her son should get a better job if he wants decent insurance when Obamacare is repealed.
The woman, a constituent of Davidson’s in former House Speaker John Boehner’s old district, explained to Davidson at a town hall in Enon, Ohio on Tuesday night first covered by ShareBlue that her grown son lacked health insurance for four years, because his job in the service industry did not provide it. He received coverage through Medicaid when Obamacare expanded the program by offering to pick up almost all of the costs for states that lowered their eligibility thresholds.
She is now worried about President Donald Trump’s plan to rollback the landmark law’s Medicaid expansion, fearing it will leave her son with the bare-bones catastrophic health insurance, which, she said, is “basically no insurance at all.”
“Can you explain why my son and millions of others in his situation are not deserving of affordable, decent health care that has essential benefits so that he can stay healthy and continue working?” she asked.
Her son’s best route to getting decent insurance without Medicaid is to find work in an industry where employers provide it, according to Davidson.
“OK, I don’t know anything about your son, but as you described him, his skills are focused in an industry that doesn’t have the kind of options that you want him to have for health care. So, I don’t believe that these taxpayers here are entitled to give that to him. I believe he’s got the opportunity to go earn those health benefits,” he responded, eliciting boos from the crowd.
You can watch their full exchange at the 37-minute mark in the video above.
The woman’s reference to “essential benefits” alludes to the fact that House Republican leaders at one point tried to win over hardline conservatives by removing federal regulations requiring insurance plans to cover 10 basic benefits, including trips to the emergency room, as well as maternity and newborn care. In lieu of these benefits, low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic plans could cover even fewer procedures than they do now.
But Davidson implied that finding a better plan was as simple as shopping for a higher-quality consumer product like a cellphone.
“If he doesn’t want a catastrophic care plan, don’t buy a catastrophic care plan. If you don’t want a flip-phone, don’t buy a flip-phone,” Davidson said, eliciting loud groans from the audience.
“I’m sorry, health care is much different than a cell phone and I’m tired of people using cell phone analogies with health care,” the woman responded, before walking away from the microphone.
But as Davidson’s constituent noted at the town hall ― and many observers pointed out when Chaffetz said it ― buying health insurance is completely different than shopping for everyday consumer products.
Consumers do not have the same power to command lower prices for health care, since it is not a product they can choose to not have. People also often lack the information and resources to choose a health care provider based on its cost value.
Those are just a couple reasons why health insurance is wildly more expensive than paying for a phone bill ― and obtaining coverage would remain perilously out of reach for millions of Americans without help from the government.
That’s a big deal, because unlike phones, Americans’ lives would be at risk if they did not have health care.
Although President Trump and House Republicans have already failed to negotiate an Obamacare replacement bill at least twice, the White House is dead-set on trying again as part of negotiations to continue funding the government. The latest idea floated by budget director Mick Mulvaney would involve trading Democrats a dollar in Obamacare funding for every dollar they approve for construction of the wall.
[H/T ShareBlue]
|
|