Elizabeth Warren promoted some of her signature proposals at a town hall event Monday night — which, all told, could cost a combined $100 trillion, according to recent estimates.
Sen. Warren, D-Mass., discussed the policies — the Green New Deal, universal child care and slavery reparations — at a CNN town hall event in Jackson, Miss. The 2020 Democratic hopeful told the crowd that the Green New Deal represents a way forward for the country.
“That’s how we build a future. And I’ll add one little piece to it and say when you take a look at the Green New Deal, understand this is about building the infrastructure for the 21st century, for a sustainable world,” Warren said.
“We do these things together because you can’t start a little business and at the same time try to build the road out front of your house. … What’s happened in America is we have cut back on those infrastructure investments. Right now, we are spending about six-tenths of one percent on our infrastructure. China, by comparison, is spending about five percent of its GDP on infrastructure.”
The sweeping proposal put forward by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., could cost as much as $93 trillion, or approximately $600,000 per household, according to a January study co-authored by the former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The unprecedented plan doesn’t come cheap, American Action Forum president Douglas Holtz-Eakin and his co-authors wrote in the study.
"The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive," the study concluded. "Its further expansion of the federal government’s role in some of the most basic decisions of daily life, however, would likely have a more lasting and damaging impact than its enormous price tag."
At the same time, "the breadth of its proposals makes it daunting to assess the GND (Green New Deal) using the standard tools of policy analysis," the study stated, noting that "many of the policies proposed in the GND are redundant with other aspects in it, which also complicates a precise analysis, as the interactions are difficult to predict."
During her town hall, Warren also voiced support for reparations and said she would back the creation of a panel “to examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies.”
"I believe it’s time to start the national, full-blown conversation about reparations," Warren said on CNN, before adding: “ignoring the problem is not working.”
According to a study published by University of Connecticut researcher Thomas Craemer, the value of slave labor from 1776 to the end of the Civil War in 1865 ranged from range from $5.9 to $14.2 trillion in 2009 dollars.
Warren was asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper if she would support monetary compensation, to which she replied that she believes there are “a lot of ways” to structure potential reparations.
Reparations would involve the federal government’s acknowledgment of the ongoing legacy of slavery and discrimination and providing payment to those affected. Policy experts say it could cost several trillion dollars.
Scholars estimate that black families earn just over $57 for every $100 earned by white families, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.
The final costly proposal backed by Warren on Tuesday night was her universal child care proposal, which would reportedly cost $700 billion over 10 years.
Warren discussed the plan, as well as her early education proposal, and how it would be paid for on Monday night.
“We get a 2 percent tax on the 75,000 richest families in this country, we would have enough money to provide universal childcare, universal pre-k, universal pre-pre-k for every child in America and still have $2 trillion left over. Let’s make it happen.”
Fox News’ Gregg Re contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics
Are the Democrats facing their own Tea Party revolution?
Karl Rove, the former adviser to former President George W. Bush, says “yes.”
“A few freshman members in some of the safest seats in the country pursuing an ideologically ‘pure’ agenda that riles up the party’s base but could endanger the moderates who were essential to winning the majority,” Former Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., wrote Monday in Politico Magazine about how the new crop of Democratic lawmakers mirrored the Tea Party movement of 2010. “It’s all so familiar.”
The difference, according to Rove, is that the new crop of progressive lawmakers “already found a large number of so-called progressives over there,” referring to so-called “Democratic socialists” including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
“There’s a bigger problem for the Democrats, I think they face today, than I think the Republicans faced in 2011 when they took control of the House again,” Rove told “America’s Newsroom.”
Rove said the new crop of freshman lawmakers will make it harder for moderate Democrats to be honest about their platforms and dissociate from the far-left members of their party.
“My sense is, is that that it’s going to be hard for a lot of Democrats to be able to say, ‘well, I’m not [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], I’m not [Ilhan] Omar, I’m not [Rashida] Tlaib, I’m not Jerry Nadler, I’m not Elijah Cummings,” Rove told Sandra Smith. “I’m not all of these left-wing ideas. ‘Medicare for all,’ guaranteed job, guaranteed wage, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It’s going to be hard for them to take that balancing.”
Rove also said that while it appeared the injection of progressive ideology was pushing the party forward, the more moderate members elected to Congress gave the Democrats power in the House.
“For all that we pay attention to people like AOC and Congresswoman Omar and Congresswoman Tlaib and Maxine Waters and Al Green and Elijah Cummings and Jerry Nadler and a lot of the people pressing for more extreme views,” Rove said. “The people who put the Democrats back in power are basically people who are from centrist districts that were occupied by Republican members in the suburbs in places like Chicago and Philadelphia and New York and Atlanta and Dallas and Houston.”
Fox News’ Sandra Smith contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics
The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, voted for the resolution calling for any final report in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation to be made public, but told Fox News on Sunday it was unnecessary.
“It was a political stunt by the Democrats who felt that they could divide Republicans into voting no upon it because at the end of the day after I looked at it, when they dropped it … they said this is nothing but simply a first-year law student’s restatement of what the regular regulations say that Mr. (Attorney General William) Barr is going to have to do,” he said on “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo.
The House voted unanimously Thursday for the resolution, a symbolic action designed to urge Barr into releasing as much information as possible when the investigation is concluded.
The Democratic-backed resolution, which passed 420-0, comes as Mueller appears to be nearing an end to his investigation. Lawmakers in both parties have maintained there will have to be some sort of public resolution when the report is done — and privately hope that a report shows conclusions that are favorable to their own side.
Four Republicans voted present: Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.
The nonbinding House resolution calls for the public release of any report Mueller provides to Barr, with an exception for classified material. The resolution also calls for the full report to be released to Congress.
“We know and you know, as you said earlier, that there’s not going to be collusion here. This is where it is going to be … very hard for the Democrats. All this was. Don’t be fooled by this. This was simply a stunt because they thought they could divide Republicans to make us look bad as not being transparent,” Collins said Sunday. “I have no problem being transparent with what we see is coming forward, and it’s within the regulation to say that this was nothing more than a political stunt.”
He called the resolution an act of nothingness.
“This is the sad part we’re at right now, Maria,” he told Bartiromo. “They have no agenda, they have nothing that they can actually put on the floor, so they wasted an entire week of the American taxpayers’ dollar to actually put a report on the floor that said nothing, basically except the same thing the regulations say that Mr. Barr needs to do so.”
President Trump tweeted Saturday: “I told leadership to let all Republicans vote for transparency. Makes us all look good and doesn’t matter. Play along with the game!”
It’s unclear exactly what documentation will be produced at the end of the probe into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russia, and how much of that the Justice Department will allow people to see. Mueller is required to submit a report to Barr, and then Barr can decide how much of that is released publicly.
Barr said at his confirmation hearing in January that he took seriously the department regulations that said Mueller’s report should be confidential. Those regulations required only that the report explain decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions, which could be as simple as a bullet-point list or as lengthy as a report running hundreds of pages.
“I don’t know what, at the end of the day, what will be releasable. I don’t know what Bob Mueller is writing,” Barr said at the hearing.
Democrats said they were unsatisfied with Barr’s answers and wanted a stronger commitment to releasing the full report, along with interview transcripts and other underlying evidence.
Republicans have agreed — to a point. In making an argument for transparency, Republican leaders have pointed to Barr’s comments and the existing regulations, without explicitly pressing for the underlying evidence.
Collins concluded Sunday to Bartiromo: “We just call their bluff, and just say, fine we can vote for this, because this is actually what Bill Barr said he is going to do. Why are we wasting the American people’s time?”
Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., slammed those expressing thoughts and prayers for the victims of Friday’s mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand.
Reacting to remarks made by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Ocasio-Cortez took to Twitter and invoked other mass shootings that took place in houses of worship.
“At 1st I thought of saying, ‘Imagine being told your house of faith isn’t safe anymore.’ But I couldn’t say ‘imagine.’ Because of Charleston. Pittsburgh. Sutherland Springs,’” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.
The congresswoman was referencing the 2015 Charleston shooting at the Emmanuel A.M.E. Church that left nine dead, the 2017 Sutherland Springs shooting at the First Baptist Church that left 27 dead, and the 2018 Pittsburgh shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue that left 11 dead.
“What good are your thoughts & prayers when they don’t even keep the pews safe?” she asked.
That sparked plenty of backlash on social media.
Source: Fox News Politics
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told Fox News’ "Your World with Neil Cavuto" Wednesday that potential impeachment proceedings against President Trump would turn into "a huge distraction" from the party’s legislative agenda "without the probability of success."
"It does take our eye off the ball because an impeachment process is an extraordinarily all-consuming process, of the public’s attention and the Congress’ attention," Hoyer told Cavuto. "And we promised the American people that we would focus on them, on their jobs, on their healthcare, on the availability of affordable-quality health care, on climate change, reform issues."
Hoyer said he agreed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who told The Washington Post earlier this week that she opposed impeaching Trump in the absence of "compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" evidence, adding that the president was "just not worth it."
"We’re going to have an election in about 18 months," Hoyer said. "The American people elected somebody who I think ought not to be president of the United States. But they elected him, and a lot’s going to happen in the next, probably, few months. The Mueller report, actions by the Southern District of New York, House and Senate hearings – House hearings in particular, and we’ll see what develops there."
Pelosi’s statement ruffled feathers among some of the more vocal left-wing Democrats, who have vowed to push for Trump’s impeachment. Hoyer took a verbal shot at Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota on Monday, telling Fox News that "we’ve got 62 new [Democratic] members. Not three."
"It’s not that Speaker Pelosi and I want to see President Trump [be] the president of the United States, because we disagree with him and we think he’s doing things that are not good for the country," Hoyer said Wednesday, "but we have a responsibility to do things we do think are good for the country and we want to be about that."
Source: Fox News Politics
At first glance, you’d be hard-pressed to find two lawmakers more dissimilar than Ilhan Omar and Steve King.
Omar is a Somali immigrant and freshman Democratic congresswoman on the liberal end of the partisan spectrum. King is a long-tenured Republican congressman whose tough stances on issues like immigration have made him among the most conservative lawmakers in Washington.
And yet ever since Congress last week passed a resolution condemning bigotry in response to alleged anti-Semitic comments from Omar, it has been difficult to talk about one lawmaker without mentioning the other.
Both lawmakers ran into trouble with their own parties for incendiary comments. Yet as the dust settles on last week’s Omar controversy, Republicans maintain that the Minnesota congresswoman was treated with kid gloves by comparison – and continue to pressure Democrats to deal with Omar like they dealt with King.
“The Democrats have yet to take any action to remove her from her committee,” Rep. Liz Cheney, a Wyoming congresswoman and the third-ranking Republican in the House, said over the weekend, referring to Omar’s still-secure spot on the Foreign Affairs Committee. “I’m hopeful that they’ll be able to stand up and do the right thing.”
The parties’ handling of how to discipline the lawmakers is a study in contrasts.
For his part, King was stripped of committee assignments as he faced condemnation for saying, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” to the New York Times earlier this year.
Democratic leaders, however, have allowed Omar to remain on the Foreign Affairs Committee. And they overhauled a planned resolution on anti-Semitism following concern in the ranks that it would unfairly single out Omar, and instead passed a broad anti-bigotry resolution last week. This, following comments from Omar claiming Israel supporters seek "allegiance" to the Jewish state, which drew accusations that she was echoing the "dual-loyalties" smear.
“It is absolutely shameful that Nancy Pelosi and Leader [Steny] Hoyer and the Democratic leaders will not put her name in a resolution on the floor and condemn her remarks and remove her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Those people who won’t condemn it are enabling it,” Cheney said.
Despite Cheney’s comments, however, neither King nor Omar was named in the resolutions drafted in response to their comments.
Further Democrats argue that it took Republicans a long time to censure King for racially charged comments he’s made in the past.
“It took them 13 years to notice Steve King?” Pelosi said of the Republicans, adding that President Trump never condemned King for his comments. Trump has called Omar “terrible” and said she should resign from her post on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Other Democratic lawmakers – including several presidential candidates – came to Omar’s defense. They suggested that her comments could be seen simply as criticism of U.S. foreign policy and Israeli lobbying efforts.
"We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world — and that includes both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in a statement. "In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on policy. Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians.”
Unlike Omar, King — who has a history of controversy including ties to far-right European groups, exaggerated claims about immigrants and crime and an endorsement of a white nationalist politician in Canada — did not apologize for the comments that led to his reprimand. He has rejected claims that he is aligned with white nationalists.
“Omar’s apology, and the speed at which it was offered, is quite different from how Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) responded when he came under fire for his comments about race,” Eugene Scott, a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote. “King refused to apologize. Though he didn’t deny his quote in the Times, he painted the outrage against him as a political witch hunt.”
Some conservative commentators, however, argue that King’s comments were made over a long period of time, while Omar has only been in Congress since January and already has been the center of controversy on numerous occasions. They add that while GOP leaders may have taken their time condemning King, they eventually took a firm stance against him.
“They probably should have done something sooner and they probably regret not doing something sooner,” Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told Fox News.
Olsen added that if Democrats don’t take firm action against Omar, she will continue to court controversy and the party will end up in a similar situation as the Republicans with King.
“King got in trouble for a lot of scandals until it became something they couldn’t ignore,” he said. “And the same thing will probably happen with the Democrats and Omar.”
Source: Fox News Politics
And since she happens to be speaker of the House, that means it won’t happen for the foreseeable future, if ever.
There’s a reason that President Trump’s only nickname for Pelosi is "Nancy." She’s a shrewd politician, and she understands that an incendiary and ill-fated impeachment drive would mainly hurt the Democrats.
For the Dems to go down the impeachment road would utterly energize the Trump base and allow the president to accuse his partisan opponents of trying to overturn the election of 2016.
Impeachment proceedings would utterly dominate the next year, essentially wiping out the Democrats’ attempt to define an agenda or to actually pass legislation that would help the country. They would be defined as the anti-Trump party, given power in the House only to launch a crusade against the incumbent.
In the end, it would be virtually impossible for the Republican-controlled Senate to reach the two-thirds vote needed to evict Trump from the White House. And that denouement would come just as the primaries were getting under way, giving Pelosi’s party a chance to beat Trump through the usual electoral process.
The California congresswoman’s words, in a Washington Post Magazine interview, immediately changed the nature of the debate:
"I’m not for impeachment," she said. "This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it."
Pelosi is obviously right that impeachment is incredibly divisive. And she may be recalling that the Democrats picked up five seats after House Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in 1998 on a party-line vote. The only other modern impeachment effort — which drove Richard Nixon from office in 1974 — succeeded because several Republicans joined the Democrats when the Judiciary Committee voted on the Watergate-related articles. (Both efforts came during their second terms, when there was no other way to remove them.)
Pelosi’s dilemma is that some of her own caucus, especially the younger liberal members, as well as left-wing pundits are hot to trot on impeachment. Many Democratic voters also strongly favor the move. Even before Bob Mueller delivers his findings, she’s trying to find a way to defuse the movement without alienating a significant chunk of the party.
So she subtly disses the president — "he’s just not worth it" — while dismissing impeachment.
At another point in the Post Magazine interview, Pelosi calls Trump "ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity-wise unfit. No, I don’t think he’s fit to be president of the United States. And that’s up to us to make the contrast to show that this president — while he may be appealing to you on your insecurity and therefore your xenophobia, whether it’s globalization or immigrants — is fighting clean air for your children to breathe, clean water for them to drink, food safety, every good thing that we should be doing that people can’t do for themselves."
A nod to one side, a nod to the other side. He’s unfit for office, but impeachment isn’t worth it. He’s bad on immigration and the environment, but we have to make that case outside of the Constitution’s last-resort remedy.
The question for Trump’s critics, who despise his policies, his persona and his associates, some of whom have been convicted, the question remains: What exactly has Trump done that would qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors?
Adam Schiff, the House Intel chairman and cable-TV fixture, told reporters that Pelosi is "absolutely right." But House Budget Chairman John Yarmuth told CNN, "To me it’s not a question of ‘whether,’ it’s a question of ‘when,’ and probably right now is not the right time, but I think at some point it’s going to be inevitable."
The calculation could change once Mueller delivers his findings. But without evidence of Russian collusion that still hasn’t emerged, Pelosi knows that her party’s best bet for defeating Trump is in November of 2020.
Source: Fox News Politics
A former adviser to President Ronald Reagan said Tuesday he was appalled and enraged over an insinuation by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., that the popular two-term president was racist. And, he added, Reagan would have felt pretty much the same way.
“I was appalled and I was angry, and Reagan would have been angry, too,” Mark Weinberg said on “The Story with Martha MacCallum.”
Guest host Sandra Smith asked Weinberg why her comments had stirred up such a strong reaction.
“Because it isn’t true, It couldn’t be more untrue. And it took a lot to get Reagan angry — but this charge is one that would have made him so,” Weinberg said.
While appearing at the SXSW festival in Austin, Texas., freshman lawmaker Ocasio-Cortez spoke about Reagan and Reaganism, among other issues. She said he pitted the “white working class” against the “brown and black working class.”
“One perfect example, I think a perfect example of how special interests and the powerful have pitted white working-class Americans against brown and black working-class Americans in order to just screw over all working-class Americans … is Reaganism in the ’80s, when he started talking about welfare queens,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
"So you think about this image of welfare queens and what he was really trying to talk about was … this, like, really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were ‘sucks’ on our country.”
Many conservatives criticized the New York congresswoman for her comments, while some progressives applauded them.
Weinberg says Reagan was raised to look past color; he called Ocasio-Cortez’s comments “dishonest.”
“He was raised from being a little boy to treat people equally and not to look at people on the basis of color, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is wrong, is dishonest and is just not true,” Weinberg said about his former boss.
Fox News’ Martha MacCallum contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics
Outspoken Democratic Rep. Al Green is not letting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s newly announced opposition to impeachment proceedings hold him back.
Green, D-Texas, speaking with Fox News, said Tuesday that he still intends to bring articles of impeachment against President Trump to the House floor for a vote.
“Each member of the House has the prerogative to bring impeachment to a vote. I intend to bring impeachment to a vote, and I will do so because the president has been acknowledged by leaders and others that he is not fit to hold the office,” Green said. “He’s causing harm to society and as such, he should be impeached.”
On the first day of the new Congress this year, Green and Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., introduced articles of impeachment against the president. The pair also raised the issue in 2017 and 2018, to no avail.
“This is not about any individual. It’s about liberty and justice for all. It’s about maintaining our democracy. It’s not about Democrats, it’s about keeping the republic, and frankly, not about Republicans,” Green said Tuesday. “It’s about our country. I love my country.”
Green’s comments follow Pelosi making her most-public attempt yet to tamp down impeachment chatter.
“I’m not for impeachment,” Pelosi told The Washington Post Magazine in an interview published Monday. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”
She added: “And he’s just not worth it.”
Trump’s attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that Pelosi was “being realistic as to the political reaction” of impeachment.
“Maybe she doesn’t see any real evidence of anything wrongful,” Giuliani told Fox News on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, senior Democrats appeared to get in line with Pelosi on the issue — for the time being.
“We need to have as much information as possible … the American people are going to have to decide,” House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters Tuesday. “While we have impeachment authority, we have to be very cognizant of what the American people need.”
“The distraction would be major,” Hoyer said.
Even House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who is leading one of several Trump-focused investigations on Capitol Hill, sided with Pelosi, calling her “absolutely right” to hold back on impeachment proceedings.
“A bipartisan process would have to be extra clear and compelling,” Schiff told reporters. “I think the speaker is absolutely right. In its absence, an impeachment [process] becomes a partisan exercise doomed for failure. And I see little to be gained by putting the country through that kind of wrenching experience.”
But freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., who has repeatedly advocated impeachment, suggested she’d continue to speak her mind on the issue.
“Speaker Pelosi has always encouraged me to represent my district, never has told me to stop,” she told reporters. “Has never told me to do anything differently. Ever.”
Fox News’ John Roberts, Jared Halpern, and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics