#2022 lets take back congress

[eraserdude6226]

And Ohio?

And West Virginia?

And Kentucky?

It's time to show Brandon and the whole of the left what we think about their green agenda!!!

[potofsoup]

Happy July 4th, everyone, and good luck to the UK voters out there!

Wow it's Year 11 of doing these!! Here's the AO3 link to the past 10 years, and here's the tumblr link.

Reminder that this is a long game -- some of the judges making decisions were appointed back in the 80s. Many of the cases that were decided this round were from Trump's term. So it's going to take long-term, consistent voting over a decade to start tipping things in the other direction. (Which I talked about in 2018 re: Trump shenanigans and 2022 re: Dobbs).

A lot has been done by the Biden administration (I'm assuming most folks have seen this post by boreal-sea with their very helpful sources), and much of that will be overturned by Trump, especially if he gets the Senate, and especially now that he would have a blank check for anything "official". So let's make sure that doesn't happen.

And even if Trump does get elected, your decisions down-ballot might effect control of the House or Senate, or might make it easier to vote next time, plus the whole plethora of state and local issues. It's Republican state attorney generals who are challenging climate regulations, for example.

Plus, when you really get down to it, only one of the candidates plans on pardoning himself and all his friends if he wins, and attacking the government if he loses. Maybe that guy shouldn't be the President.

If you're new to voting, remember to check voter registration deadlines! I'm a permanent vote-by-mail voter and it's so nice. :)

Transcript under the readmore

Page 1: Sam and Bucky meet up with Steve for a picnic. Steve: Thought you guys were still in Sudan? Bucky: I’m forcing Sam to take a break.

Sam collapses onto the picnic blanket. Sam: Oof, it just never stops, does it? Steve: Nope.

Bucky hands Sam an orange popsicle. Bucky: Eat and relax for a bit, Sam. Sam: Thanks.

Page 2: Bucky asks Steve: How are things state-side? Steve responds: HORRIBLE. Bucky: I thought you’ve been tentatively hopeful about what Biden has been able to achieve? Steve: I was! Student loans, child care, climate regulations, infrastructure, labor, trans rights … he’s quietly done a lot through regulatory improvements and congress bills. But now all people will talk about is how he’s OLD. And then there’s the Supreme Court’s decisions … Chevron and immunity… Steve puts his head in his hands, while Sam and Bucky look on with some concern.

Page 3: Bucky hands Steve a blue/raspberry popsicle: Steve, take a deep breath, and a popsicle. Sam: Sounds like we missed a lot. What’s going on? How bad is it? Steve: Pretty bad. The Supreme Court has made some decisions that give the Court and the President A LOT of discretionary power. Sam: Yikes, that doesn’t sound good. Steve: Well, the Chevron thing means that judges with life-term appointments can override policies made by government agencies. And now it’ll be harder to hold a President accountable because he will have immunity for any “official” actions.

Page 4: Sam: So if the President tries to, say, overturn a democratic election result, he’ll be allowed to as long as it’s in his job description? Steve: I don’t think threatening state electors is “official” business, but that will be decided by federal judges. Who get their jobs by approval from both the President and the Senate. Bucky: Yeesh. No wonder you’re stressed. Any good news? Steve: Well, thanks the Biden and the razor-thin Senate majority, the newer bills don’t rely on the Chevron deference. Still not great but not catastrophic. Sam, squirting ketchup on his hot dog: So what I’m hearing is that it’s now more important than ever to have a President and a Senate who you can trust to appoint fair judges, pass bills, and not commit crimes.

Page 5: Steve: Plus all of the state level offices, now that more and more deciding power has been thrown back to the states — abortion, LGBTQ rights, voting access… Bucky: Hey, at least this is a big election year so we can actually do something! Steve, with his arms crossed, looking surly: Except that all people want to talk about is how Biden is “too old” and “not doing enough,” as if that is on par with Trump’s desire to dismantle basic rights! As if the candidate who doesn’t embody ALL their ideals is not worth voting for! Bucky interrupts with a smart and a loud “PFFT.”

Page 6: Bucky: Um, Steve. YOU were like that in 1940. Sam, nudging Bucky: “Oh, this I gotta hear. Spill, Barnes.” In sepia, Steve is pacing around their apartment while Bucky is sitting and reading a newspaper. Steve: I can’t believe he’s running for a 3rd term! we need a fresh candidate to vote for! This is hardly a choice at all! AND he refuses to engage in Europe! All of Europe under fascist control and we’re just twiddling our thumbs? He’s letting millions die through his inaction! Bucky: Most people don’t want another war, Steve. If he came out for it, he would lose. Steve, indignant: But Buck, it’s your Polish relative who are in danger! Bucky, closing his newspaper and looking at Steve: Yeah, and between FDR and Willkes, I trust FDR to help if he could.

Page 7: Steve, in sepia, looking away: Should he be encouraged to do more? Maybe I should vote for Browder. The Communists have historically be Anti-Fascist.

Sam interrupts off-screen: Waitaminute! STEVE was going to PROTEST-VOTE? Steve: We were in a Blue State, Sam! Sam: But what about the down ballot races?! Steve: RELAX, I did my due diligence down-ballot. I wanted a senate that’s more progressive than the President.Voted LaGuardia for Mayor, too. Steve hesitates: Then, when I got to the President… I realized that the Best case scenario would be that my vote did nothing, versus if it actually spoiled the election. And when I asked myself who I could trust to work with my Senator… well, FDR had a good record with Labor. (sepia shot of young Steve voting) Bucky interrupts: Hold on, Steve.

Page 8: Bucky, eating a cookie, arching an eyebrow: You didn’t vote for Browder? Why didn’t you tell me? Steve: And have you say “I told you so” for the next century? Bucky: Heh.

Steve, with hand on his chin: What’s weird was that, despite everything, I still felt HORRIBLE when I ticked that box. Sam: Sounds like you built up the meaning of that vote far too much in your head. Logically, we know that a single box can’t represent all of the complexity of a whole system, but the desperately WANT it to. Just look at how people have built up so much around the term “Zionis” that it’s made productive conversations difficult.

Page 9: Sam and Steve speak in the background while Bucky reaches into the cooler and pulls out a box. Steve: Sigh. And that’s something that goes beyond the election. Sam: Which is why we need to vote, AND do other things. Bucky, looking at Steve and Sam: Like how Steve works to push organizations on the local level? Or like all the work you do as Captain America? Sam: Exactly. Vote AND.

Sam looks at Bucky fondly: Like how you vote AND make me and Steve take breaks. Bucky, looking stern because he can’t handle compliments: Shush, Sam.

Bucky holds up a cake that has the number “107” on it: It’s time for cake. Happy Birthday, Steve.

[zvaigzdelasas]

Haiti’s deepening crisis — armed groups launching an assault on the government, and the de facto prime minister on indefinite layover in the San Juan, Puerto Rico airport — is a predictable consequence of 14 years of U.S. support for undemocratic regimes connected to Haiti’s PHTK party as it has dismantled Haiti’s democracy.

Haiti has a chance at reversing this descent and returning to a more stable, democratic path, but only if the Biden administration will let it.

Prime Minister Ariel Henry was stranded in San Juan Tuesday on his way back from Kenya, where he had signed an agreement for Kenyan police to come bolster his repressive, corrupt and unpopular regime. The armed groups, including many that had collaborated with Henry’s regime, took advantage of his absence to attack government infrastructure, and free 5,000 prisoners, many of them members of armed groups. Henry had planned to fly to the neighboring Dominican Republic and take a helicopter ride back to Haiti’s National Palace under the cover of darkness. But Dominican authorities refused entry to the prime minister’s chartered plane, which re-routed to San Juan.

Prime Minister Henry has not yet resigned, and the State Department denied reports that it demanded his resignation. But Henry has clearly lost the support of the United States, which for two years had allowed him to resist Haitians demands for fair elections. Absent Washington’s support, Henry has little chance of regaining power.

This dire situation is not only predictable, it was predicted. Haitian-American officials, Haitian civil society, members of the U.S. Congress, and other experts had been warning for years that the U.S. propping up Henry would lead to increasing tragedy for Haitians. The United States, which installed Henry in power in the first place, ignored these pleas and stood resolutely by its friend. With U.S. support, Henry’s unconstitutional term as prime minister exceeded any other prime minister’s term under Haiti’s 1987 Constitution. Levels of gang violence, kidnapping, hunger, and misery also reached unprecedented levels.

The United States is still insisting on getting Kenyan troops to Haiti. The State Department has persistently — if so far unsuccessfully — tried to deploy non-American boots onto Haitian ground since Henry requested them in October 2022. The mission’s deployment initially stalled because it was widely rejected as a bad idea that will primarily serve to prop up the repressive regime that generated the crisis. Haitian civil society [groups] repeatedly insisted that the first step towards security must be a transitional government with the legitimacy to organize elections and determine how the international community can best help Haiti.

Concerns that the intervention would serve only to reinforce an unpopular regime led the countries that the Biden administration first tapped to lead the mission, including Canada, Haiti’s Caribbean neighbors, and Brazil, to pass. The U.N. itself concluded that the mission would require too much “robust use of force” to be appropriate for a peacekeeping mission. So, the Security Council took the unusual step of authorizing the mission, but on the condition that it not actually be a U.N. mission that the organization would have to take responsibility for. The Biden administration, likely concerned about election-year cell phone videos of troops shooting indiscriminately in crowded neighborhoods — as the last foreign intervention did — declined to send U.S. troops for the mission (but is considering deploying a small Marine contingent to Haiti in early March).

Last August Kenya — which did not even have diplomatic relations with Haiti but did need the hundreds of millions of dollars that the United States offered — agreed to lead the mission. The exploratory delegation Kenya sent to evaluate conditions in Haiti quickly realized how deadly the planned mission would be for Haitians and Kenyans alike, and proposed to limit its scope to protecting public infrastructure.

The United States was not open to renegotiating the deal, and Kenya withdrew its proposed limits. But Kenya’s High Court temporarily blocked the deployment as unconstitutional. Ariel Henry’s visit to Kenya was for the signature of an accord that Kenya’s President William Ruto hoped would overcome the court’s objections. Kenyan lawyers insist that the agreement itself is illegal, and are continuing their challenge. In the meantime, Kenyan officers who had volunteered for the mission are changing their minds. Another obstacle appeared on March 7, when the White House conceded that the mission cannot be deployed without congressional approval of funding.

The State Department’s insistence that the Kenyan deployment must nevertheless happen raises fears that the United States will also continue its policy of installing and propping up undemocratic regimes in Haiti. Finance Minister Patrick Boisvert, who Henry tapped as interim prime minister when he left for Kenya, increased concerns of authoritarian governance on March 6 when he declared a three-day curfew and state of emergency throughout the Port-au-Prince region in an edict that did not even mention the legal basis for his authority. The next day Boisvert raised more fears by extending the emergency measures for a month and adding in a ban on all protests.

The State Department’s rescinding its support for Henry might have been promising had the gangs not already made his ouster inevitable. State’s claim that it now supports “an empowered and inclusive governance structure” that will “pave the way for free and fair elections” might have been promising if it had not added the condition that the new government must “move with urgency to help the country prepare for a multinational security support mission.”

A legitimate, broadly supported, sovereign transitional Haitian government might request foreign police assistance. But a government allowed to form only if it accepts a U.S.-imposed occupation force originally designed to prop up a hated, repressive government is not sovereign. It may not be legitimate or broadly-supported either.

The United States tasked CARICOM, the federation of Haiti’s Caribbean neighbors, to forge a civil society consensus. CARICOM has enjoyed credibility in Haiti in the past, but over the past few months it has faced criticism for trying to strong-arm civil society into an agreement that maintained Henry’s power. Not surprisingly, CARICOM-led talks on March 6 and 7 failed.

When allowed, Haitians have a history of coming together to make their way out of a crisis. Haiti became a country in 1804 by defeating Napoleon, with almost no outside help. In 1986, when the U.S. finally withdrew its support from Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, Haitians eventually wrested power from the military and held fair elections. In 2006, they voted their way out of the crisis created by the U.S. kidnapping of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide two years before. In August 2021, shortly after the killing of Haiti’s last president, Jovenel Moïse, a broad-based group presented the Montana Accord that would have created a transitional government leading to elections in two years. The U.S. vetoed the accord, citing, among other reasons, that the two-year time frame was too long. That was 30 months ago, and there are no elections in sight.No amount of submission to U.S. demands by Prime Minister Henry and his predecessors can justify the absolute horror that our support has allowed them to inflict on the Haitian people. It is time for the United States to let Haitians come together and make their way out of the current crisis. Civil society [groups] [see] an opportunity for democracy in the crisis, and people all over Haiti have been meeting, discussing and negotiating to develop platforms for a broad-based, legitimate transitional government that can hold fair elections. It is expected that soon — maybe within weeks — one of these platforms will rise to the top, and civil society will coalesce around it. The United States needs to let that process happen without interference or conditions.

8 Mar 24

[enigma2meagain]

“Stop Internet Censorship” Master List

The following is a master list for all of the major Internet Censorship and Surveillance Bills between 2022 to 2023, with the most major bills that are currently active posted below. They will each link to the Tumblr posts that I have made in the past related to them, with all of the relevant information associated.

This was made because I feel people need to get a sense for just how interconnected they really are, how much Congress and third parties are trying to desperately gain full control and access to our information and silencing anything they don’t want to see and hear, and having a centralized hub of information for them will make it easier for people to find them.

The Major Bills:

EARN IT Act: 2022 version of EARN IT Act

                      2023 version of EARN IT Act (No text yet, but it’s pretending to be about preventing child abuse online this time)

     Enigma2Me Post on EARN IT Act

     fullhalalalchemist Post on EARN IT

     Condemnation of the EARN IT Act 2020 Coalition Letter

     STOP EARN IT Act LINKTREE

     Engadget: EARN IT Act reintroduced for the Third Time

------

Kids Online Safety Act: Current Draft of 2023 KOSA bill

     Enigma2Me Post on Kids Online Safety Act

     STOP KOSA LinkTree

------

RESTRICT Act: Read Bill Here.

       Enigma2Me Post On RESTRICT Act

      LoganGalbraith’s Post on RESTRICT Act

       Truthout Article 4/02/2023: Restrict Act Critics Call the Far-Reaching “TikTok Ban” Bill a “Patriot Act 2.0”  

------

STOP CSAM Act:

      Electronic Frontier Foundation: Take Action on STOP CSAM/EARN IT

      TechDirt Post Against STOP CSAM Act

------

So if you’ve seen the above, you’re probably asking: What can we do about it?

1) Spread the Word online!

Twitter Hashtags

For Earn It: #EARNITAct, #STOPTheEARNITAct, #NoEarnItAct

For KOSA: #KOSA, #KidsOnlineSafetyAct, STOPKOSA

For RESTRICTAct: #RESTRICTAct, #STOPRESTRICTAct

2) PLEASE call your Senators.

Find your 2 senators numbers here. Fax them, email them. Tell them they MUST oppose this bill. Calmly make it clear to them that if they support this bill, then you will vote for someone else who doesn’t go along with this blatant act of authoritarian intent.

3) CONTACT any major human rights and cybersecurity related organizations and let them know about this bill. Get this out to any local news groups that you can.

The following Google Doc contains a list of every major organization we could think of to contact, and will be updated as we find more allies in the fight against censorship and surveillance.

ANTI-CENSORSHIP MASTER LIST

Also Contact the organizations on these 2020 letters to get them to publicly speak out against the EARN IT Act like they did back then.

But for those who want to have official organizations to work with (and who usually have petitions except TechDirt), the following usually are up to date on info:

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Fight For the Future

Techdirt

[odinsblog]

Donald Trump took the stage in Greensboro, N.C. last Saturday calling for rounding up millions of Latinos across America and putting them in mass detention camps as part of “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” Unfortunately, this kind of rhetoric has become so common among the MAGA Republican playlist that it’s tempting to see it as a joke. But that wasn’t just somebody’s racist grandfather running off at the mouth or a standup comedian with bad taste playing to the crowd. My parents and grandparents would have called it a dog whistle, but my generation should know it’s a bullhorn. But whatever you call it, it was calculated, drafted, tested and approved as part of the far-right Project 2025 plan to turn back the clock on civil rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights and democracy itself. It was the white Christian nationalist agenda on full public display in all its un-American glory and we can’t afford to take it lightly.

Now, if you haven’t heard about Project 2025, don’t feel bad. Most people haven’t. Founded in 2022 by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, it’s an organization led by Trump insiders preparing for one nation under Trump if the twice impeached and four times indicted former president wins the November election and to call them dangerous is an understatement.

What do you think about overhauling federal law enforcement so that the Department of Justice and the FBI, designed to be independent and insulated from political influence, were controlled directly by a newly elected and emboldened President Trump so he could protect his minions from investigation, arrest and prosecution no matter how many laws they broke? Project 2025 loves the idea.

Want to bypass the Senate confirmation process and stop notifying Congress when we sell weapons to foreign governments? Project 2025 does. What about terminating every diversity, equity and inclusion program in the federal government? Project 2025 says right on. What do you think about invoking martial law, using the military as local law enforcement and locking up Trump opponents? Project 2025 calls that progress.

But how do they plan on doing all this? After all, the federal government is more than just one person in the Oval Office. Trump already learned that lesson when federal employees and even some of his own appointees refused to break the law just because he said so.

But Project 2025 has a solution to that roadblock. They call it Schedule F and it’s a plan to fire as many as 50,000 federal employees and replace them with dyed-in-the-wool MAGA fanatics who swear their loyalty not to America or the Constitution but to Donald J. Trump. They’re not even trying to keep it a secret. But why would they?

You see, Project 2025 isn’t confused about who they are. They’re the MAGA Manifesto committed to the unapologetic vision of right-wing nationalism and they don’t care who knows it. Let’s be honest, these guys are attacking President Biden for pushing “racial equity in every area of our national life, including in employment.” Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Are we supposed to think our president should not be fighting for equality and justice?

That’s what Project 2025 says. But that shouldn’t surprise us. After all, they don’t think folks who look like me are real Americans. Neither does Trump.

But they’re not clowns. They’re highly trained, well-funded political operatives dedicated to winning in November and remaking America in their white nationalist image. They’ve spent the past two years putting together a plan to do just that setting the highest stakes imaginable for this election.

(continue reading)

[kp777]

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

June 26, 2024

Jamaal and our movement were such a threat to right-wing power, to GOP megadonors, and to AIPAC's influence in Congress that they had to spend $15 million to defeat us," said one progressive organizer.

Progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman lost his reelection bid in New York's 16th Congressional District on Tuesday to an establishment-backed county official whose campaign was propelled by nearly $15 million in spending by AIPAC's Republican-funded super PAC.

The United Democracy Project's (UDP) spending made the Democratic primary contest the most expensive House race in U.S. history. According to a Sludgeanalysis of independent election expenditures dating back to 2001, UDP's $14.5 million onslaught to oust Bowman was "more than any other group besides those affiliated with a political party has ever spent on a House election."

The investment paid off, with Westchester County Executive George Latimer leading Bowman by a margin of 58% to 42% with close to 90% of the vote counted in the 16th District, which was redrawn ahead of the 2022 midterms to include more of suburban Westchester County and less of the Bronx.

Bowman, a former Bronx middle school principal who won his House seat in 2020 by defeating AIPAC favorite Eliot Engel, said in his concession speech late Tuesday that "we should be outraged when a super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn't true."

"When we say 'Free Palestine,' it is not antisemitic," said Bowman, one of the House's most vocal critics of Israel's assault on Gaza. A majority of Democratic voters in the U.S. believe Israel is committing genocide in the Palestinian enclave, according to a recent survey.

"I would like to make a public apology for sometimes using foul language," he added, referring to remarks he made during a rally over the weekend. "But we should not be well-adjusted to a sick society."

"If you stand by while far-right groups try to buy elections, you further alienate and disillusion the young voters and voters of color you need to reelect Joe Biden this November."

Alexandra Rojas of Justice Democrats, the progressive group that recruited Bowman for the 2020 contest against Engel, said late Tuesday that "Jamaal and our movement were such a threat to right-wing power, to GOP megadonors, and to AIPAC's influence in Congress that they had to spend $15 million to defeat us."

"This demonstrates the power of our people-funded movement, the strength that any single progressive with the moral clarity to stand up to far-right interests has, and just how on defense AIPAC really is," said Rojas. "AIPAC knows the future is not on their side, so they have no choice but to overwhelm, confuse, and depress voters with a flood of dark money to generate support for their candidates. That's exactly why they pledged to spend an unprecedented $100 million to unseat the Squad this year."

Rojas said her organization is now turning its attention to Rep. Cori Bush's (D-Mo.) August 6 primary against St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell, whose campaign is backed by AIPAC and Republican donors—including a billionaire CEO from St. Louis.

"We cannot give in to hopelessness or cynicism—we must fight back, NOW," said Rojas. "Let's come together in this difficult moment and do what it takes to stop AIPAC from unseating another one of our progressive champions this summer."

While Bowman fell to Latimer, another Squad member—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—cruised to victory in her primary, winning more than 80% of the vote against investment banker Marty Dolan. AIPAC's super PAC did not spend in the race, according to available disclosures.

"Wall Street came for us again, and the people prevailed," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter following her victory. "Thank you to the Bronx and Queens for choosing me to be your congresswoman."

Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), another Squad member, also fended off a primary challenge earlier this year, overcoming a torrent of right-wing dark money. AIPAC sat out this year's race after failing to defeat Lee in 2022.

But Emgage, a PAC that works to turn out Muslim American voters, said Tuesday that Bowman's defeat at the hands of a candidate loaded with UDP cash "sets a dangerous precedent for groups like AIPAC to influence local elections and crush people-led politics."

"It should sound the alarm for Democrats and Americans across the country who believe in collective organizing to advance positive change for communities that are often sidelined in American politics," the group said. Axiosreported Wednesday that some House Democrats are quietly "grumbling" about AIPAC's massive spending to defeat Bowman.

"The number is gross... I don't like it," one unnamed Democratic lawmaker told the outlet.

Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, echoed Emgage's message, saying in a statement that "Democrats should see this race as a massive warning for November."

"If you stand by while far-right groups try to buy elections, you further alienate and disillusion the young voters and voters of color you need to reelect Joe Biden this November," said Shiney-Ajay. "Here's my warning to Democratic leadership: reject AIPAC, or risk losing your own base."

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan Cohn at HuffPost:

“Folks, he’s coming for your health care, and we’re not going to let that happen.” Those are the closing words of a new 30-second ad from the Biden campaign, focusing on the Affordable Care Act and the possibility of repeal if Donald Trump becomes president again. The ad buy is significant: $14 million to run the spot in a half dozen swing states, as my colleague S.V. Dáte reported. And it’s not difficult to understand why.

Trump’s attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017 was highly unpopular. The backlash was almost certainly a big reason Republicans managed to lose both houses of Congress and the presidency over the next two elections. Reminding voters of this history can only help Biden and the Democrats, especially amid polls that show the 2010 health care law to be more popular than ever. And the threat to the law is real. Trump spent his entire presidency trying to tear down the program; when legislation failed, he tried to undermine the law by ― among other things ― taking away funds for advertising and promotion. Last fall, he returned to the subject in a Truth Social post, declaring, “The cost of Obamacare is out of control, plus, it’s not good Healthcare. I’m seriously looking at alternatives.”

Trump followed up with what was supposed to be a clarification, stating, “I don’t want to terminate Obamacare, I want to REPLACE IT with MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE. Obamacare Sucks!!!” But of course, that was just another version of the promises he made before taking office last time ― you may remember vows like “I’m going to take care of everybody” or “We’re going to have insurance for everybody.” He then proceeded to push bills that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would have added more than 20 million Americans to the ranks of the uninsured.

[...] Democratic leaders vowed to address that issue by increasing the subsidies, effectively realizing their original vision for the law. And they did precisely that in 2021. The American Rescue Plan, which Democrats passed and Biden signed, boosted the Affordable Care Act’s financial assistance so that nobody has to pay more than 8.5% of household income on a standard plan.

It was a temporary measure tied to the pandemic, but in 2022, they extended the subsidies through 2025. The impact has been substantial. Roughly 15 million Americans are saving an average of about $800 a year on their insurance, according to calculations by the Department of Health and Human Services. And like all averages, that covers a range of people. The savings amount to only a pittance for some, but it’s literally thousands of dollars a year for others. The enhanced subsidies have also had more subtle effects. Some insurers still sell “non-compliant” plans that resemble the old policies. These plans can be sold more cheaply because they have big coverage gaps that can leave beneficiaries exposed to punishing, catastrophic medical bills. (Loopholes in the law allow this.) However, fewer people are now buying those policies, opting for the more comprehensive plans available than the Affordable Care Act, according to a study from the non-partisan health research organization KFF. That’s because, with the extra subsidies, the more comprehensive plans don’t cost as much as they did before.

[...]

A Familiar Debate, An Uncertain Political Future

The new Biden ad says he wants to make the assistance permanent, consistent with a proposal in his latest budget. That wouldn’t be cheap. CBO pegged the cost at about $25 million a year back in 2022. It’d probably require more money more now. The inability to find enough offsetting cuts or revenue to cover that cost is one reason Biden and the Democrats didn’t make the bigger subsidies permanent last time. That could happen again. But it’s safe to assume that, at the very least, Biden and the Democrats would approve another temporary extension if they are in office and have enough leverage in Congress after 2024. If Democrats don’t have that kind of power come next year, the fate of these increased subsidies will be in the hands of Trump and the Republicans. And while they haven’t had much to say about the issue, it’s hard to imagine they’d be enthusiastic about extending the subsidies given their traditional hostility to government spending on social welfare, to say nothing of their animus towards Obamacare. Conservative intellectuals are already laying the groundwork. Brian Blase, the former Trump administration official now president of the conservative-leaning Paragon Health Institute, has assailed the extra subsidies as regressive because they have made higher-income Americans eligible for assistance.

If Donald Trump wins in 2024, then there could be big consequences for Obamacare… and it won’t be pretty.

[beguines]

On Tuesday, the AFL-CIO hosted its second annual "State of the Unions" Labor Day event. According to Liz Shuler, President of the AFL-CIO, unions are "on the rise," "battle-tested," and "building organizing capacity" like never before. Maybe, but what do the data really tell us about the health and vibrancy of organized labor in 2024 and its nascent efforts to reverse forty years of decline? Let's look at four key metrics: organizing new workers, collective bargaining and strikes, union finances, and labor democracy and governance.

1. "We're organizing like never before!"

"We're organizing like never before!" That's what the AFL-CIO says, but is it accurate? While data is not readily available for public sector workers, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) tracks the number of workers involved in union elections in the private sector. In 2023, approximately 93,000 workers participated in an election for union representation, up from 63,000 workers in 2022. And 2024 is on pace for approximately 107,000 workers voting on union representation.

The increase in union representation elections is encouraging, but if you step back and look at the number of elections in relation to total employment, the challenge becomes clearer. In 2023, the 93,000 workers participating in union elections represented just 0.09% of the 108.4 million production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector. In 2024, the percentage is projected to be about 0.10% of all workers. In other words, only one-tenth of one percent of eligible U.S. workers in the private sector are getting the opportunity to vote for a union. This pace of organizing is not enough to keep up with employment growth, let alone meaningfully increase union density in the private sector (i.e. the percentage of all workers represented by a union).

Looking at the historical data, it's harder to support the contention that labor is "organizing like never before." The 2023-2024 election rate of 0.09-0.10% is just a smidge higher than the 2010 decade and significantly lags the average election rate of 0.17% in the 2000 decade.

But imagine if labor put on its seventies bell-bottom jeans and started organizing one percent of eligible workers as unions did in the 1970s, not the current one-tenth of one-percent rate. Instead of 107,000 workers voting for a union in 2024, the number would be more like 1.1 million workers.

Why isn’t this happening, given the upsurge in worker interest in unions? It isn't a funding issue, as labor has over $35 billion in net assets (see below). My take is that the existing labor leadership — many of whom have never committed to a robust organizing program to begin with — continue to believe that organizing is futile unless labor law is reformed. This entrenched belief is held even though unions are winning three-quarters of union elections under Biden's revamped NLRB.

Secondarily, unions are justifiably worried about obtaining first contracts for newly organized workers (exhibit A: Starbucks) and concerned that the NLRB is too underfunded to process higher levels of worker petitions for elections. On the last point, the NLRB budget is currently about $300 million, but the agency says "we really need over $400 million." The irony is labor has plenty of cash—$35 billion in net assets—to bridge the budget shortfall until Congress can pass appropriate funding.

According to the latest Gallup poll, approval of unions is at the highest level since the 1960s, yet only one-tenth of one percent of workers in the private sector got the chance to vote for a union. Labor should translate the popular support into action by pledging to give one million workers an opportunity to vote on union representation in 2025.

2. Strike Wave or Strike Blip?

Through June 2024, total compensation for union workers is up 6% year over year, while non-union workers have only seen a 3.6% increase over the same period. That's the good news.

The disappointing news is the strike "wave" of 2023 appears to be a blip rather than an emerging trend. In 2023, approximately 459,000 workers went on strike, including 50,000 UAW members at the Big 3 automakers and 160,000 SAG-AFTRA members employed by the entertainment industry. Through late August 2024, approximately 106,000 workers have been on strike, significantly lagging the 2023 total strike numbers. While additional union contracts are expiring in the fall—most notably the Machinists and Boeing—it is likely that 2024 will fall short of the 2023 strike numbers.

Looking at strikes as a percentage of the non-farm workforce, the Red for Ed strikes of 2018-2019 and the 2023 strikes were the largest strikes dating back to 2000, representing about one-third of one percent of the total workforce. However, as with the organizing data, the 1970s were marked by a vastly higher proportion of workers on strike as a percentage of the workforce, reaching nearly two percent of all employees. If two percent of workers went on strike today, roughly 3.1 million would be picketing. Attending all of those picket lines would surely be a travel nightmare for the presidential candidates and faux populists rushing to attend.

3. Union Finances: "Up-Up and Away"

While the organizing and strike data are not breaking historical records, union finances are another story. As I've written here, here, and here, organized labor continues to amass a staggering cache of cash and investments. Net assets (assets minus liabilities) grew $2.6 billion in 2023, from $32.7 billion in 2022 to $35.3 billion in 2023. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Affairs, union dues are up $871 million as of June 2024, likely continuing the trend of asset growth in 2024.

While labor's net assets have risen 225% since 2010, membership has declined by 1.8 million workers. I call this state of affairs Finance Unionism, where unions spend less on organizing and strikes than they bring in membership dues and investment income, investing the surplus in the financial markets.

No union has contested this data, and to my knowledge, no union has gone on record to explain the rationale for stockpiling assets rather than investing in organizing and strikes. Is any enterprising labor reporter in the house willing to ask the question (besides Hamilton Nolan)?

Union Democracy and Governance in 2024

Who makes the critical strategic decisions for organized labor? Who decides whether to invest union assets in the financial markets rather than organizing and strike activity? That would be the elected labor leadership. While the election of union leaders is formally democratic, the practice of union democracy is far from ideal.

As I've written here and here, the vast majority of top union officers are not directly elected by the members, and very few leaders face contested or competitive elections. In my view, the lack of substantive debate and member participation is a failure of democratic governance (for an alternative view, see this editorial). The 2024 conventions at some of the largest unions in the U.S. confirm this trend:

SEIU, 1,845,500 members: Mary Kay Henry stepped down in 2024 after serving fourteen years as president. April Verrett won the top position with 99.4% of the delegate vote. Many of the delegates to the convention were superdelegates — i.e., elected local officers who automatically became delegates without a membership vote.

American Federation of Teachers (AFT), 1,732,808 members. Randi Weingarten, the AFT President since 2008, was reelected to another term without any public opposition. Besides Douglas McCarron of the Carpenters (who has served for thirty years), Weingarten is the longest-tenured labor leader in the U.S.

AFSCME, 1,248,681 members: Lee Saunders, elected President in 2012, was reelected by the delegates by acclamation (i.e., no challenger) to another four-year term. By the end of his term, Saunders will have served for 16 years.

AFGE, 313,108 members: Everett Kelley, President of the union since 2020, faced a contested election at the convention, winning with 59% of the delegate vote.

UNITE HERE, 264,334 members: Taking over for President D. Taylor (my old boss), Gwen Mills was elected by delegates in an uncontested election.

Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA), 45,500 members: Despite President Sara Nelson's endorsement of a resolution calling for direct elections of officers, the CWA-AFA Board of Directors voted against the constitutional change.

Of the large unions with a convention in 2024, only AFGE had a competitive election. The remaining unions—representing 5.1 million members and over a third of all union members—had no contested or competitive elections for the top leadership posts.

Labor Law Reform Version 4.0

With the relatively low organizing numbers and waning strike wave, what is the strategy of organized labor to reverse the decades-long decline? You won't find any coherent plan outlined by the AFL-CIO, but it is the same strategy pursued for decades: reform labor law. It was the strategy of the 1990s (the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act), the strategy of 2008 (the Employee Free Choice Act), the strategy of 2020 (the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act), and it is the strategy of 2024.

Of course, labor law reform is vitally important, and it should be labor's top legislative priority. But if Kamala Harris wins the Presidency, and if Democrats control Congress, Harris will have to overcome a certain filibuster in the Senate and wavering support from "moderate" Democrats facing unified opposition from employers. This is the traditional graveyard for labor law reform, but hopefully, a labor movement riding on a crest of popularity can transform the vibes into a legislative accomplishment.

The problem, however, is that labor's legislative strategy has an expiration date. As long as labor's share of the workforce continues to decline (5.8 million members lost since 1980 and counting), its political power also decreases. In 1980, one out of four voters was from a union household. In 2020, union households represented only 15.8% of voters.

Yes, organized labor should go all in for labor law reform, using every ounce of political capital to pass the legislation. To win, it will require subsuming the parochial political agendas of the sixty different unions to this one demand. But if the Democratic Party balks at reform as it has in the past, or if Trump wins a second term, then labor will need a backup plan. Ultimately, changing the political dynamic and forcing a new compromise between labor and capital will require unions to draw on their most potent source of power: workers withholding their labor and disrupting production and the economy.

[accio-victuuri]

On birthday woes : why zz/wyb decided to stay quiet on their special day 🎂🎁

I’ve been wanting to put all my thoughts regarding this whole topic in one place as I try to make sense of it. also if anyone wants to know what I think, then feel free to read along. please don’t take my word for it. this is just my brain dump.

I feel let down tbh, that both of them are not celebrating their birthdays like the previous years. If you think about it, it shouldn’t be a big deal. I guess most people even antis & passerby will be fine with them being all over weibo on the day of their birthday. No matter what is going on in the country. It’s not exactly classified as “entertainment”, tho they are part of that circle. It’s a personal celebration and fans who support them will want to give their greetings. but that’s just me talking. selfish me who was so spoiled for the past years ( bring 2020 celebration back! ). I know they have a good reason to do so and I wouldn’t be such a fan if these two weren’t so self aware and responsible. now let me write about the possible reasons and a bit of cpn.

• Political Timing ⏱

Yibo’s birthday week fell on Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan ( August 2 ) and the whole political nightmare that created. Tensions were high and people were talking about possible retaliation from China’s side. Add the hyper nationalists who were posting “crying” ( I don’t know how else to call it ) videos on Douyin because Pelosi landed in Taiwan, despite XJP’s regime making them believe that they will shoot down any United States plane that will try and make an independent visit to Taiwan.

All over weibo, you saw people and celebrities sharing the One China ( policy ) post — showing their support to their country. Posts about China’s military, hinting that they are ready for whatever happens. Finally, the morning of Bobo’s birthday, China released their sanctions to the US for what happened. So overall, it wasn’t a good look to be plastering Yibo’s place all over all Weibo. Or in major cities like Beijing or Shanghai for that matter. Tho as i said earlier, a simple personal birthday post or selfie from him wouldn’t hurt— I guess it was just an executive decision to stay quiet.

GG’s day on the other hand, comes right after the National Day Holiday. Also weeks before the National Congress that @rainbowsky mentioned here and if you don’t know the importance of this then let me direct you to @potteresque-ire explanation here. While I do understand how extra careful GG and his team are, also sensitive to current events, I feel like they could still get away with posting a personal photo. It’s also worth mentioning that there are other big-name celebrities who posted birthday content weeks/ days before GG ( Yangmi and WJK for example ). Even someone who posted on the same day as GG ( TJC ).

• Qinglang call & personal decisions

The literal meaning of QingLang (清朗) is “cleansed and uncontaminated.” Originally, the program was presented as aimed at the “control of chaos” (乱象治理的通) in the cyberspace. It was explained that the “chaos” was mostly created by the fan groups of celebrities, where “fanaticism” was on display and inappropriate comments were published on a variety of items.

To those who are not familiar with this, it’s a campaign started back in May 2021 regarding responsible online behavior. You might also remember the boys’ studios mentioning this when they share posts related to fan behavior. particularly with Yibo last year, his studio posted about adhering to rules set by the campaign.

It is important to point out that these rules are not only aimed at celebrities but to big network platforms & companies as well. and as detailed below:

The 4 major points of Qinglang 2022:

• Companies “deepen their understanding’ of the QingLang campaign. They should “effectively improve the political position” and “fight a tough, protracted and overall battle” to make sure that all that is posted expresses loyalty to “the CCP and the Country.”

• The companies should assume and assign responsibility. If something disloyal to the CCP and the Country is posted, the Party wants to know who was responsible for it. “Each responsibility should be assigned to specific positions and personnel to ensure that all stages of work are carried out without compromise.”

• Once the responsible personnel has been clearly identified, it should “control key sections such as topics, groups, and circles.” Further “chaos” will not be tolerated, meaning that posts should be “cleaned up” and if necessary edited or cancelled immediately.

• The companies should “strengthen security. It is necessary to continuously improve the community rules,” and also “improve the political commitment” of company executives. There should be CCP cells in each company office. The Internet companies should acknowledge “the political leading role of Party organizations,” and cooperate in case of “special operations”.

It’s all in the glory of the CCP and gives the impression that everything not aligned to CCP’s ideals is considered chaos. No surprise there.

I actually thought Yibo’s move was something Yuehua recommended and their artists are doing. Since they are, after all, a company that should adhere to the same Qinglang call for suppressing fan behavior. But No. I saw his other label mates posting on their birthday this year ( 2022 ) ( for example Hangeng ).

Which leads me to the conclusion of it’s a mix of this campaign and a personal decision. Let’s face it, these rules were created for fandoms like what ZZ/WYB have. Their solo fandoms are known to be really extravagant when it comes to their birthday ( among other things ) + they have a strong CP following too. Also add the brands they endorse on the mix — they can sponsor birthday events and release special edition bday products. It’s this whole “excessiveness” that the boys and their own studios are ( what I think ) avoiding to happen. It’s a small price to pay for two people who are notoriously private and have always been humble about their fame. The public’s view on celebrities have not been good for the past years — amidst the scandals that happened — it is a conscious choice to not flaunt anything lavish.

Having a quiet and simple birthday isn’t so bad, compared to possible “trouble” they can get into if the celebrations and fan activities are misunderstood.

I’m wondering if the personal part of this decision was discussed between the two of them. It’s not even CPN, even if you don’t think they’re dating, as close friends — they can ask each other. They have celebrity friends i’m sure or even “seniors” to consult but no one in that circle knows what it’s like to be in the position they’re in than each other. Plus they’ve aways had this “understanding” between them from when they met in CQL shoot and beyond. I’m thinking about them sitting down and seriously looking at what they can actively do to be less of a “celebrity” and the first thing that came to mind is give up the whole birthday extravagance. They may have different career paths now but their values are still the same — those of us who pay attention can clearly see that. This is why they work so well together.

I am not privy to what other c-ent celebrities are like but there is a reason why both of them have the fan following they have. They are good people. They ( mostly ) inspire their fans to be better. ZZ/WYB have always tried to set a good example, and oftentimes at the expense of their comfort. It’s so easy to repost propaganda content. It’s easy to attend state approved events. It’s easy to film VCRs/films/dramas to lend “support” to whatever projects the state is pushing. What’s hard is to look into yourself and see what you can let go from all the excess. I am comforted by the knowledge that they can still celebrate their birthday quietly, and that’s how they want it to be. What’s important is they had a good day.

I think the best birthday gift we can give zz/wyb is to have fun on their day. Go out and spend time outside. Have a day to ourselves and not be online.

-END.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 9, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 10, 2024

Last night, 163 Democratic representatives joined 196 Republicans to stop far-right Republicans from removing House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene led the effort to remove Johnson, but her motion received only 43 votes: 32 Democrats and 11 Republicans. Twenty-eight representatives either did not vote or voted present. 

Greene promptly excoriated the “uniparty,” saying that “the Democrats now control Speaker Johnson. That was something that everybody’s suspected all along. They just voted to save him.” 

But the majority of the House Republican conference appears to be tired of the chaos in their ranks that has made this Congress one of the least productive in American history. Jordain Carney and Olivia Beavers of Politico reported today that House Republicans who are not aligned with Greene and her cohort want to change House rules to create punishments for the extremists who keep stopping House business by, for example, voting against letting bills come to the floor of the House. 

Greene and Thomas Massie (R-KY), her main ally in trying to oust Johnson, urged their colleagues to bring it on. Massie said that anyone trying to stop them was going to “take an ass-whooping from their base.” 

Since the 1990s, right-wing media hosts have directed the Republican base, telling them what to think and urging them to put pressure on Republican lawmakers to do what the media hosts wanted. Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh was so influential in the 1990s that when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 1995 for the first time since 1954, they made him an honorary member of their incoming congressional freshman class. And what Limbaugh did for radio, Fox News Channel hosts like Bill O’Reilly did for television. 

But Limbaugh died in February 2021, and after the Fox News Channel (FNC) had to pay a $787 million settlement to Dominion Voting Systems for the lies the network’s hosts told about the company’s voting machines in the 2020 election, it let go of main host Tucker Carlson. There are indications that FNC founder and former chair Rupert Murdoch hoped to center Republican messaging around young activist Charlie Kirk, but Kirk has slid into MAGA extremism, too. 

The Republican extremists no longer have a centralized messaging center. Instead, as CNN’s Oliver Darcy noted today, Murdoch’s outlets themselves—the Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post—stood behind Johnson. 

Yesterday, FreedomWorks, the right-wing organization that was backed by the Koch family at its start in 2004 and that was behind the Tea Party movement, abruptly shut down. FreedomWorks attacked Democratic measures for business regulation and social welfare because it embraced libertarian principles. Its revenue had dropped by half since 2022, its president, Adam Brandon, told Luke Mullins of Politico. But in the end, what did the organization in was the party’s split over Trump.

That split was crystal clear in Tuesday’s Republican primary election in Indiana. Trump won that election, but with only 78.3% of the vote. Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who suspended her campaign in early March and has not campaigned since, won 21.7%. 

Before the Indiana primary, on May 2 political statistician Tom Bonier debunked the idea that Haley’s support came from Democratic-leaning voters flooding the primary vote to hurt Trump. Crunching the numbers in North Carolina showed that Haley voters there “were not substantially younger than the GOP voters (41% over 65 vs 45% among reg[istered Republicans]). They were overwhelmingly white (94% of Ind[ependent]s vs 97% of [Republicans]), and were actually more likely to be men (51% of Ind[ependent Republican] primary voters vs 50% of [Republicans]).” In short, he wrote, “[e]very indicator suggests these Independents voting in [Republican] primaries are more likely [Republican] voters. They just don't like Trump.” 

Political commentator Chris Cillizza today called attention to the numbers that landed before Tuesday. On March 12, Haley won 13.2% of the vote in Georgia (or 78,000 votes). On March 19 she won 17.8% of the vote in Arizona (111,000 votes), 3.9% of the vote in Florida (155,000 votes), and 14.4% of the vote in Ohio (161,000 votes). On April 2 she won 12.8% of the votes in Wisconsin (77,000 votes). And on April 23, Haley won 16.6% of the votes in Pennsylvania (158,000 votes). 

If Biden picks up even one in five of these votes, Cillizza noted, “it matters bigly.”

Three high-level Republicans this week told media they would not vote for Trump, helping to pave an off-ramp for other Republicans. Former House speaker Paul Ryan told Yahoo Finance that he would write in another Republican rather than vote for Trump. “Character is too important to me,” he said.

Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, also cited character when she said she would not vote for Trump. “I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I would absolutely consider voting for Joe Biden this upcoming November because he will not seek to destroy our nation [or] our Constitution, and he has the statesman character that we need in an elected official.”

Georgia’s former lieutenant governor Geoff Duncan went further on Monday night, endorsing Biden, whom he had called in an op-ed a “decent person I disagree with on policy,” over Trump, whom he described as “a criminal defendant without a moral compass.” “Sometimes the best way to learn your lesson is to get beat, and Donald Trump needs to get beat. We need to move on as a party. We need to move on as a country,” he said.

Meanwhile, as Khaya Himmelman noted in Talking Points Memo, MAGA Republicans are already blaming a potential loss in 2024 on illegal voters. On Wednesday, Speaker Johnson and other Trump Republicans held a press conference to promote their new bill to make it illegal for people who are not U.S. citizens to vote in federal elections.

This is a political stunt: It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and there is no evidence that this is happening. In 2017, Trump created a commission to root out the illegal voting he claimed had affected the 2016 election; less than a year later, he disbanded it when it could find no evidence of his claims. Johnson admitted there was no evidence of voting by undocumented immigrants when he told reporters: "We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But it's not been something that is easily provable. We don't have that number." 

Pulitzer Prize–winning author T.J. Stiles retorted: “People terrified of contact with government because they don’t want their lives destroyed by deportation don’t register to vote illegally and then vote illegally for the reward of having a tiny tiny influence on federal electoral outcomes.”

For his part, Trump appears to have tried a more direct approach to reelection. According to Josh Dawsey and Maxine Joselow of the Washington Post, last month at Mar-a-Lago, Trump told about two dozen top oil executives that if they gave him $1 billion to get reelected, he would immediately reverse the environmental regulations the Biden-Harris administration has put into place and stop any new ones. A $1 billion gift would be a “deal,” according to Trump, because the tax cuts he plans to enact and the regulatory cuts would be worth far more than that. Since then, Ben Lefebvre wrote yesterday in Politico, oil executives have been drawing up executive orders that Trump can sign as soon as he takes office. 

Yesterday, in an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett, President Biden said the U.S. would continue to supply defensive weapons to support the Iron Dome over Israel, but it would not send offensive weapons to Israel if it went forward with its controversial invasion of the city of Rafah in southern Gaza, where more than a million Palestinians have taken shelter from Israeli strikes. The administration has publicly opposed that invasion since Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced it. “If they go into Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah,” Biden said. “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers.”

Trump and other Republicans promptly accused President Joe Biden of “taking the side of these terrorists, just like he has sided with the Radical Mobs taking over our college campuses.”

“We’re not walking away from Israel’s security,” Biden told Burnett.  “We’re walking away from Israel’s ability to wage war in those areas.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[ms-cellanies]

The text of an email I received from Bernie Sanders about the Senate refusing to vote in favor of paid leave for the railroad workers.

Yesterday was a day of both victory and defeat on the floor of the Senate as we addressed the looming crisis in the rail industry. The good news is that we took on the incredible greed of the railroad corporations and managed to get every Democrat (except Joe Manchin) and six Republicans to vote to secure paid sick leave for rail workers. The bad news is that, because of the absurd rules of the Senate, despite having a majority of senators we needed 60 votes to pass the amendment. (The House had passed it the day before.) With the failure of the Senate to pass my amendment on paid sick leave, I voted against final passage of the bill.

Let me be clear. This struggle for justice for rail workers is not over.

At a time of record-breaking profits for the rail industry, it is disgraceful that workers there do not have one single day of paid sick leave. As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I will do everything I can to make sure that rail workers in America are treated with dignity and respect. They deserve that benefit as does every worker in our country.

But right now, I'd like to share with you what is going on in the railway industry today, and why Congress got involved in this labor-management conflict under the Railway Labor Act.

The American people are increasingly disgusted by the outrageous level of corporate greed they are seeing. While working families are struggling to keep their heads above water, we are seeing unprecedented income and wealth inequality and soaring corporate profits. While the rich get richer everyone else struggles. There is no better example of that greed and that reality than what is occurring in the railway industry.

The rail industry has seen huge, record-breaking profits in recent years. In the first three quarters of this year, the rail industry made $21 billion in profits. Further, the profits are so high that the industry spent $25 billion this year not to improve rail safety or address the supply chain crisis. No. They spent $25 billion to buy back its own stocks and hand out huge dividends to its wealthy stockholders.

Since 2010 the rail industry has spent over $183 billion on stock buybacks and dividends. On top of all of that, the CEOs of many of these railway companies are enjoying huge compensation packages. While workers struggle, last year the CEO of CSX made over $20 million in total compensation. The CEOs of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern made over $14 million each.

In other words, in the railway industry corporate profits are soaring and CEOs have never had it so good. But, in the midst of all of that, what is going on for the workers?

Right now, if you are a rail worker – and this is a job that is hard and dangerous – you are entitled to a grand total of zero sick days. Let me repeat that. You are entitled to ZERO sick days if you work in the freight rail industry.

What this means is that if you get sick, or if your child or your spouse gets sick and you need to take time off of work, not only will you not get paid, you will get reprimanded and could get fired.

What the freight rail industry is saying to its workers is that it doesn't matter if you have COVID, or if you're lying in a hospital bed because of an emergency. If you do not come into work no matter what the reason, the rail industry wants the right to punish you or even fire you.

It is hard to believe these conditions still exist in America in the year 2022.

At a time when the railroads made over $21 billion in profits so far this year it turns out that guaranteeing 7 paid sick days to workers would cost the industry $321 million a year. That is less than 2 percent of their overall annual profits. This is what greed is all about.

The United States, sadly, is the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee paid sick days. Pathetic. In a modern civilized society, it should be a no- brainer that if you or your family gets sick, you should have paid sick leave. End of discussion.

As Congress ends this session, it is clear that we have an enormous amount of work in front of us next year. Not only do we have to address the situation in the rail industry, not only do we have to guarantee paid sick leave to all Americans, we must move forward to create an economy that works for all, and not just the few. It is not acceptable that 60 percent of American workers live paycheck to paycheck, that 85 million are uninsured or underinsured, that parents cannot afford childcare, that young people cannot attend college because of the cost and that almost 600,000 of our people are homeless. It is clearly imperative that we address the existential threat of climate change.

Bottom line. There is an enormous amount of work to be done. Let’s do it together.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

[eraserdude6226]

Ask her about the "success" of school for girls which was to be just a collection point of young African girls for Epstein Island??

Inquiring minds want to know!!!

[headingalaxys-spicy]

Hello there! May I have Germany, England, and France with S/O who can be intimidating like Jade West (when Angered, they can be really violent and sadistic) but deep down they are actually caring and kind). They are being tough is actually a facade to protect themselves from as*holes.

Reader is going to be a nation in this, since I feel it makes the most sense for the scenario given.

Edits Made: 12 Dec 2022 spotted redundancies.

Also I’ve never watched Victorious so I’m sorry if the character traits you’re looking for may be off or absent. I really tried for a badass who takes shit from no one but has a heart of gold. But, I did read a Wikipedia page and watched one video to help me out with writing this. So yeah, enjoy lol.

TW: it’s a slight gore and blood is mentioned and there is cursing.

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Arthur is a global superpower and that means he has had to become a gentleman who

can play rough when you have other opponents, pee-ons, and pawns all the while putting on a show of chivalry.

Originally you were a pawn of his that he intended on using during the midst of rising tensions between you and America on the brink of another proxy-war that would drag you and a few other smaller nations into their conflict.

You’re a medium sized nation with a major hand in the diamond business. Your nation is world famous for some of its creations such as designing and providing the crowning jewels for the Royal family for a few centuries. Along with the other royalty, dignitaries, diplomats, and celebrities. You really knew how to dazzle the upper echelons of society. Which is why to England you were a pawn considering you filled in orders for a lot of America’s top 1%. Which meant people in power would be angry if suddenly the main supplier of 60% of all the world's finest gems was annexed by the U.K. a ruthless negotiator that always managed to steal the finest trade deals for his own benefit.

Your other fortes involved innovative energy technology. Which is a growing industry worldwide and makes you and your nation much more of a valued commodity. That America and England WILL fight over to dominate you. Which is why England used his influence: social media campaigns boasting about the great diplomatic relations he has with you. It gets to a point where he is broadcasting almost daily about the special relationship that he has with you to a point where America notices and tries to pay back in kind.

“(Country name) has been invited to the Senate and Congress to discuss some legislation ….” England overheard America’s boss blather on and on about connecting ties and possibly working on some projects in the future. He sat in his study and gritted his teeth and he turned the television off and threw the remote to the other side of the room.

“Bloody bastard. He really needs to learn when not to mess around with other people’s things.” He reached for his phone and he didn't want to let you slip away. Two rings pierced his eardrum before you answered on the other end.

“Y/N it’s Arthur, I wanted to inquire about….” For some reason he hesitates to speak out the words that he actually wants to say. You break the train of thought he had going where it was trying to speed for honesty and stop at the heart of the situation.

“The bullshit show that America is putting on? I’m not amused and I’m going to be ignoring him. Because that’s what I know what's on your mind.” Ice filled your vocal cords. You didn’t need multiple superpowers meddling in your domestic affairs trying to dominate.

“How did you-” Trying to get coal back in to fire up the engines once again. But he moved too slow to deter you from continuing.

“The two of you are aggressive superpowers. Of course. Anyways I’m busy. I have a four eyed moron to keep at bay and prevent him from dragging me to his country for ‘negotiations’ and ‘offerings’. And just so you know now: I don’t want yours either.” Without another word you promptly hang up the phone not really giving Arthur a chance to even state his concerns. You knew he would be a pain in your side too if you didn’t distance yourself.

Arthur swallows his pride. He was actually going to be vulnerable in order to get what he wanted this time.

“Bloody hell.”

After two weeks of sleepless nights on England's end on how he can vocalize his feelings without having to use his power. Which he is accustomed to doing and it came naturally for him. That was a tactic he knew worked well. However he knew that would get him shot and leave your home with a few broken bones. At 3am on a Friday he decided to write it out, pick up some doves, and take a small private jet to (Country Name).

When he arrived in your land and laid down his heart and put up his hands when he was greeted by you with a pistol along with your guards.

“You’ve got 10 seconds to explain yourself when I explicitly told you I wanted nothing to do with you.” Your index finger is itching to pull the trigger to send a resounding message that you don’t fuck with (country name) and come out unscathed.

“Y/N please, love , listen. This isn’t about some petty proxy war between America and I…”

Your eyebrow raises with your finger lightly tugging down on the trigger.

“I love you actually.”

🇫🇷 France 🇫🇷

As an international fashion icon France was never really on your radar. You regarded him as nothing more than an acquaintance that was flashy. He sometimes wanted to be ‘friends’ with and/or mentor you as a fellow flourishing country. You simply brushed him off in the past and shot him a dirty look whenever he approached you. You were not amused by his antics.

However, France does not surrender when it comes to romance and he was determined to not let you become an exception to that. He didn’t. But it did mean that he’s been slapped, tripped down the stairs, nearly getting caught in the crosshairs of your flame thrower, and on Halloween you nearly decapitated him before he got a little too fresh with you.

“Your determination is really beginning to annoy me. Do you have a death wish of sorts? Because I’d be happy to oblige with your immediate execution.” You were currently wielding a battle ax that was polished and sharpened. It’s cool metal being graced by the bright sun rays piercing Francis’ precious baby blues.

‘Damn she really is ruthless.’

“Y/N listen. I know that… you have this whole stubborn facade going on for you but, I’m not trying to harm you or play with you, toy with your feelings or any of that….” His voice trails off into the frigid air that surrounds you. He drew in slow concentrated breaths and was trying not to choke on his words. That was a difficult task when your icy gaze pelted him with icicles. Your sustained silence allowed him to continue with a quaking voice. You were interested in what pathetic pleas he’ll hit you with.

“I just want to be nothing but good to you. Admire you. And have you in my arms each day when the sun fades.”

Stars, roses, and hearts were the only things you could concentrate on as it was the only things that filled your vision as you concentrated on the French man that was pouring his heart out to you. Thornless scarlet roses sprouted from his hands and a soft golden glow came from his heart. God was on Francis’ side this time. Time seemed to be frozen as a gold arrow was given to him with a sharp heart tip.

*God appears out of the deep blue hues of the sky with an elegant angelic bow that looks as if it was made from pure white feathers.*

“Take this my child. You’ll need to get through the thorny barricade that is her way of guarding her heart.”

Francis wipes a few tears from his eyes as he looks at you and your guards frozen in place. You looked like a terrifying goddess that he’d be a devoted follower of.

“Thanks, God.” He stands to his feet with pure determination and readies himself with the bow and arrow aimed directly at your heart. He sucks in a sharp breath and holds it to steady his aim. The twang of the arrow launching itself from the bow filled his eardrums. As it did so the bow poofed into a flurry of pearly iridescent feathers that swirled around him.

When Francis looked in your direction again your eyes had a far softer expression than the vicious scowl that you were wearing before. A light smile graced your lips instead as your eyes made contact with those azure irises.

‘Ah that smile of hers. I feel so many butterflies everytime.’

“I’m sorry Francis. What were we trying to discuss? I’ve lost my train of thought.”

Your life together is relatively peaceful for being nations. Ever since France started dating you he has been less inclined to fight Britain. Not just in wars, but even politically. He doesn’t even bother to try and clap back when Britain begins spouting nonsense about him on Social Media. He ignores it all because his moon was all that he needed.

However if anyone dare to be a dickhead to Francis, they’re in for a real bad time.

If France ever comes home to you and passively talks about someone being a bigot, or threatens him oh …. I’d be praying to God.

“I’m sorry that happened to you honey. How can I make it better?” As you place a kiss on his forehead after you swept some of his luscious locks from his face.

“Nothing my love. I just hate their behavior, that's all. No need to break some nation's neck, or castrate, or any of the mischievous things you do.” A massive cocky smirk spreads wide and long on the Frenchman's face as he pulls you closer to him by grabbing your waist as he looks up at you. A deliciously vexatious grin is on your face as he sees the fire alight in your eyes. Someone goin die tonight.

“Okay.” Confirming you heard him but you weren’t going to listen. There was hell to pay.

You’re extremely protective of Francis. You burn those with callous words with aerosol and flames. To those who lay their hands on him in a brutal way, you end their bloodline. If it’s a nation that wants to be in a war you join in with him and become his sole support.

🇩🇪 Germany 🇩🇪

As Germany was sitting on the bench press his attention wandered over to you lifting weights. You were doing weighted squats. You were fully immersed in the moment and you made your muscles work in unison. You concentrated on making sure your moments were precise so that you would have well defined muscles. You enjoyed the heat of battle on occasion but you did also love your peace and the ability to work on other more productive things than war.

Ludwig’ s mind meandered to how he actually managed to convince you to not continue with your plans to torment him and force him to reincarnate painfully.

“I’ve told you a dozen times: DON’T. CROSS. ONTO. MY. BORDERS. I’m classified as a reclusive nation for A REASON. And I’m stunned that out of all the nations YOU don’t get that.” You were barring your fangs and your voice was raised. You hated this man for invading (country name). You thought he of all people would have enough common sense not to bug you. I mean rules and regulations are his thing. But here he is in the forest caught in a bear trap that was hidden well.

“Ja. Ja. I know zhat. Ho-” You lean down over him making sure that your face aligned up with his. It was intimidating to the German and he wondered why in hell he decided to follow his bashful heart and didn’t follow his grounded mind.

“Then if you do…..WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE?” Ludwig flenched. He wasn’t used to being dominated by another nation. What made it worse is that his emotions were trying to figure out why sparks had hit his heart, his stomach felt airy, and his neither region felt stiff and was expanding. His brain wasn’t really able to come up with a plan that was feasible.

‘So this is what it feels like to be the unter Hund. I might have some apologizing to Italy to do once I reincarnate.’

“I… just.. Verdammit. …. Look I….” Ludwig was tripping over his words as he did his best to evade your piercing gaze that made all of the side effects of his emotions worse. He began to squirm a little and you stabbed your spear in the middle of his abdomen. You took pleasure in his pained grunt he let out.

‘Oh so he’s used to or has been trained to tolerate intense pain. Interesting. I wonder how much farther I can push this. However, Germany can’t be that stupid. Can he?’

Sucking in a sharp breath so he could force out his words.

“Okay…” Ludwig coughs up a little blood. “I deserved that. I should have at the very least sent jou a notice. But, I didn't, I'm sorry.” You didn’t respond, you simply stood over him expectantly. More coaxing with pain was no longer necessary. Crimson continued to spill from his mouth in massive gobs. “I ….” Trying to maintain himself from passing out. However that wasn’t an option. His vision became unfocused. Your pristine face no longer had a scowl but one of concern. Ludwig promptly passes out.

You let out a long sigh that filled the forest air. “Dammit. I have to help him revive or the international community will label me as the bad guy.” You grab your phone and send a mass message to your top surgeons and health care team. You knew you were going to have to kiss up to Germany if you didn’t want other bigger nations to condemn you and possibly invade (country name).

Germany came to a sterile hospital room that only he, two nurses, and Y/N were there, waiting for him to become conscious again. He avoids looking at Y/N for fear she may just get angry with him again.

You swallow your pride and disgust and finally break the constricting silence that was suffocating.

“So, you were saying? About why you were here.” Your leg was crossed over the other with arms crossed. It was like you were a teenager that had to admit that they were wrong and the realization of it was a difficult pill to swallow. Your eyes glazed over his muscular form and you noticed all of the minor injuries: cuts, bruises, and a broken left arm. But your facial expression was still stony and stoic.

“Oh ja, right uhhhhhh…..” His brain and heart still couldn’t get it together.

Ludwig’s cherry red cheeks gave away his motives that weren't hard for Y/N to pick up on.

Y/N rolls her eyes with mild amusement at the dangerous stunt he pulled.

“Look, let's just get you back to your country and agree that you won’t tell others.”

“On one condition leibling.”

Germany uses his persuasion to get you to consider letting him stay so that the two of you could get to know each other and maybe have a decent working relationship. You hesitate and Germany is persistent and eventually he convinces you to be in a relationship with him. Tying your nations relations together.

As a couple the two of you enjoy having routines together. You exercise together, train, and have weekly Wednesday and Saturday movie nights. You never expected that you could get along with a stoic work-o-holic like Ludwig but you found that he did have appeal attributes.

Alright I tried with this one lol. I’m sorry if it wasn’t what you were looking for.

[drunk-on-writing]

i look to my mother the rage and heartbreak in her eyes at the news of roe v. wade being overturned stops me in my tracks and it is in that moment that i remember -- that i realize -- that before she was my mother, she was a woman a girl someone with a life that did not revolve around motherhood and i long to take a step back in time to find her and let her know that she has an ally a sister that whatever choices she made, or didn't make, or wanted to make, or couldn't make i would stand tall beside her together, we would walk hand in hand into the fire congress has set to try and keep us enclosed in a 1970 mindset like the witches before us, we will burn in front of god and man and everyone who tries to convince us that our bodies belong to anyone but ourselves

i look to my mother my beautiful, strong, intelligent mother and consider myself lucky that i was the product of a choice she made not one someone made for her not one someone forced her to make

(cc, 2022)

[mariacallous]

The Senate Majority Leader navigated one of the most sweeping legislative sessions in memory—why haven’t voters seemed to notice?

Chuck Schumer did not expect to become the Senate Majority Leader after the 2020 election. The Democrats held forty-eight seats, with two upcoming races in Georgia that he didn’t think the Party would win. Without a Senate majority, he told Joe Biden in the months before the Inauguration, “you’re not going to have a happy time as President.” On the night of January 5, 2021, Schumer watched the Georgia returns in the book-lined living room of his Brooklyn apartment. “Finally, at four in the morning, it becomes clear we won both seats in Georgia,” he told me. “I felt amazing. I can’t sleep, get in the car at 7:30 A.M., drive down to D.C.”

Later that afternoon, as the incoming Majority Leader, he was counting electoral votes on the Senate floor when a policeman rushed over. “He grabs me by the collar. I’ll never forget that, and he says, ‘Senator, we’re in danger, we got to get out of here.’ ” Trump supporters, most of whom had just attended the outgoing President’s speech on the Ellipse, had stormed the Capitol. Schumer exited the chamber and rushed down the hallway. “I was within twenty feet of these bastards,” he told me. “January 5th and January 6th: I call them the best of times, the worst of times.”

Since then, Schumer has presided over an evenly divided Senate, just the fourth such split in U.S. history. “This is the hardest job I’ve ever had,” he told me. A month after the Capitol riot, as Democrats were trying to confirm Biden’s Cabinet secretaries, the Senate held an impeachment trial for Donald Trump. Schumer had wanted it to start in January, as soon as the House sent over the articles, but the outgoing Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, stalled. In the end, all but seven of the Republicans in the chamber voted to acquit Trump, including McConnell, who, according to an account in “This Will Not Pass,” by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, had told his aides, “The Democrats are going to take care of the son of a bitch for us.”

Then the Democrats had to legislate, with zero margin for error. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema became the faces of a party that always seemed just a few votes shy of delivering on its biggest campaign promises. Nevertheless, Congress passed two major pieces of legislation in its first year in session. One was the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9-trillion relief measure that infused money into local and state governments, financed vaccination programs, aided businesses, and fought child poverty. The other was the $1.2-trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which funded roads and bridges, public transit, improvements to the electrical grid, broadband Internet, and clean-energy initiatives. “The American Rescue Plan, in and of itself, was the most impactful thing a member could do in thirty years,” a senior Senate aide told me. The infrastructure bill, he said, “was the largest infrastructure bill in forty to fifty years.” The successes registered, but only briefly. “We didn’t let each victory breathe,” the aide said. “We went immediately into Build Back Better,” which was the President’s sweeping domestic-policy plan.

That became the crucible for a bitter fight within the Party. In its original form, the Build Back Better Act promised some $3.5 trillion to tackle climate change and invest in an ambitious range of social services, from universal pre-K to child tax credits and paid family leave. Administration officials knew it would have to be pared down. But, in multiple rounds of negotiations, spanning more than a year, Manchin played the role of principled holdout, then spoiler. By the summer of 2022, when the effort to salvage the President’s agenda appeared doomed, Schumer started to achieve a series of legislative breakthroughs on other issues. Between June and August, Congress passed a bipartisan gun-control bill, a major extension of health-care benefits for veterans, and the CHIPS Act, which provides more than fifty billion dollars in subsidies to spur domestic semiconductor production. On August 4th, Michael Bennet, of Colorado, told me, “This might be the most productive ten days that I’ve seen in thirteen years being here.”

Three days later, after an all-night session, the Senate passed an unprecedented reconciliation bill, with the Vice-President casting the tie-breaking vote. The Inflation Reduction Act, as it was called, cut the cost of prescription drugs, expanded health-care subsidies, raised taxes on large corporations, and financed an unprecedented set of tax incentives for green energy. “Did Democrats Just Save Civilization?” Paul Krugman asked in the Times, adding, “This is a very big deal.” Schumer told me, “The whole mood turned around in that second week in August. You felt it everywhere.” Still, even some of the bill’s strongest supporters didn’t expect it to swing the upcoming midterms in their favor. In the hours before the chamber passed the reconciliation bill, Chris Murphy, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, told me, “I’m a believer that this election is going to be much more about choice and personal freedom and Republican radicalism than it is going to be about the reconciliation bill, which is weird because this is the most popular, most comprehensive piece of legislation we passed in a long time.”

Now, a week before the midterms, which tend to punish the President’s party in any year, high inflation and fears of a recession have darkened the picture for Democrats. The Party is almost certain to lose the House majority. The Senate may still be within reach—owing, in part, to a slate of weak Republican candidates. The Times recently reported that many Democratic candidates were not mentioning the Party’s $1.9-trillion economic rescue plan because it “has become fodder for Republicans to attack Democrats over rapidly rising prices, accusing them of overstimulating the economy.” In a number of critical races, candidates have largely avoided touting the Party’s other legislative successes, instead boiling down their components into a series of “kitchen-table” issues, such as the cost of prescription drugs and energy prices. “What we have going for us is what we’ve accomplished, and I think what our views are is much closer to what people believe,” Schumer told me. “What’s going against us is the natural, you know—the sourness in the land.”

When I met Schumer last week, at his apartment in Brooklyn, he was sitting in his socks in his living room, home for a short spell between campaign stops. “Lots of legislation was cooked up right here,” he told me, nodding at our surroundings. He referred to the room as his “little command center.” On one wall was a framed poster from an old F.D.R. campaign. On another, beside a doorway leading into the kitchen, was a poster from the 1928 Presidential campaign of Alfred E. Smith, the New York governor, with the slogan “Honest, Able, Fearless.”

Earlier that afternoon, Schumer had been on the phone with two senators in tight races: Mark Kelly, who is holding onto a narrow lead in Arizona, and Catherine Cortez Masto, who is running about even with her opponent, Adam Laxalt, in Nevada. The Democrats’ hopes to retain control of the Senate hinge on these races, and also two others. In Georgia, Raphael Warnock has struggled to fend off Herschel Walker, whose campaign has been dogged by a series of significant scandals. In Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, the state’s Democratic lieutenant governor, had been leading Mehmet Oz, the television doctor turned Republican challenger, for much of the race. But Fetterman’s weak performance in a recent debate—the result of a stroke he suffered in the spring—has made him vulnerable. If Democrats lose in just two of these states, and the results everywhere else conform to the expectations of the polls, Republicans will retake the majority in the Senate.

Schumer dismisses any suggestion that Democrats’ current troubles stem from ignoring the precarities of the economy. “People say now, ‘Well, maybe you spent too much money,’ ” he said. “We would have had the Great Depression had we not spent it. Obviously, we have to deal with some of the aftereffects, but it was a necessity. And I remember at the moment how vital it was. I had mayors and governors and sheriffs—everyone—calling me and saying, ‘You can’t let us go dry.’ ”

The primary cause of inflation, he went on, was the pandemic and a cascade of problems with the global supply chain. “We’re the people in the various bills that have done stuff about it,” he said. He mentioned a bipartisan bill, the Ocean Shipping Act, designed to reduce supply backlogs, which “got no attention.” A number of other bills—to reform the U.S. Postal Service, to lease weapons to Ukraine—barely made it into the public eye. “When we pass things that have no partisan fighting,” Schumer said, “no one covers it.”

I asked Schumer if it was perhaps wrong to assume that the electorate still responded to policy. “Look, the whole Senate caucus, and much of the country, feels very proud of what we did,” he said. “Now you get into the Sturm und Drang of campaigns, and, obviously, the Republicans tried to attack it. But I gotta tell you this: when everyone predicted that we would have no chance to keep the Senate, the fact that we got these things done means we’re in the ballgame now. And it’s neck and neck. That never would have happened without this. So it did have a very positive effect.”

With midterm voting under way , it’s easy to forget the sense of abject failure that dominated the first half of the summer. On July 14th, Schumer was stuck at home, with COVID, when Manchin informed him that he was abandoning months of conversations on the reconciliation bill. New inflation figures had just been released, showing a nine-per-cent increase over the previous year, giving Manchin a pretext to scrap the talks. “The only thing Manchin would support was a prescription-drug reform and a two-year extension of subsidies for the Affordable Care Act,” another Senate staffer told me. “Chuck was demoralized.”

Four days later, Manchin’s staff got back in touch. “There was a feeling of ‘Oh, God, not again,’ ” according to the staffer. But Schumer was open—“persistent” is the word he uses. “We had many bad turns,” he told me. “Everyone gave up three or four times. Joe Biden gave up!” Schumer and Manchin met secretly in the basement of the U.S. Capitol building and eventually agreed to a round of private talks that became the basis of the Inflation Reduction Act. Schumer takes a historic view of what he managed to do against the odds; he considers this Senate session the “most successful in decades.” “Lyndon Johnson had sixty-some senators,” he told me. “Roosevelt had some seventy-odd senators. Even Obama had fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine.”

Chris Murphy was part of the Democrats’ Senate majority in 2013, when Harry Reid led the caucus. “Reid was running a Senate where regular order still ruled the place,” he told me, in September. “Reid had a more decentralized process. Chuck had a more centralized process.” Several senators and top aides told me that what distinguished Schumer’s leadership style was his adaptability, taking a more active role on big-ticket policies, while letting his members take the lead on other initiatives. This summer, Murphy and Sinema, neither of whom chair a committee nor occupy a leadership post within the caucus, convinced a group of Republicans to back a measure to tighten background checks on gun buyers. During the negotiations, Murphy said, Schumer took his cues from them—at least to a point. “I probably got ninety calls from Schumer in those thirty days,” Murphy told me. “Reid was a brilliant leader. But I wouldn’t have gotten ninety calls.”

In his Brooklyn living room, Schumer offered to show me his “secret weapon.” As he reached for the flip phone in his pocket—“every one of my colleagues has my direct number”—it rang, as though on command. “Off the record,” he told me, but he didn’t get up from his seat to take the call. When he hung up, he looked to one of his aides. “The President will call at six-forty-five,” he said.

Three days later, Biden would be in New York to deliver a speech in a gymnasium at Onondaga Community College, in Syracuse. Schumer, who himself is up for reëlection, would be there, along with Kirsten Gillibrand and Kathy Hochul, whose unexpectedly competitive gubernatorial race has given Democrats further cause for alarm. Earlier in the month, as a result of the passage of the CHIPS Act, the semiconductor company Micron had announced that it would invest as much as a hundred billion dollars throughout the next two decades to build a complex of factories in upstate New York. Construction is set to begin during the following two years, and the plan is expected to generate some fifty thousand jobs and a five-hundred-million-dollar fund to train the local workforce.

Because of Biden’s low approval ratings, the President has been mostly avoiding the campaign trail, so his appearance in Syracuse served as a kind of closing argument. He spoke about union jobs and a renaissance of manufacturing. Micron, Biden said, “was making the largest American investment of its kind ever, ever, ever, in our history.” The U.S. “invented” chips, he continued, but “today we’re down to producing only ten per cent of the world’s chips. . . . We’re turning things way around.” In a thirty-minute speech, he frequently used the phrase “not hyperbole” to underline the figures he rattled off—on job creation, infrastructure investment, and low unemployment. It was impossible not to feel a sense of strain. He could lambaste MAGA Republicans and decry the profiteering of oil companies, but was there any way to get the positive message to register?

The district in which the event was held is represented by John Katko, a retiring moderate Republican, who voted to impeach Trump last year. In 2020, Biden won the district by nine points, Katko by ten. The Republican on the ticket this year is calling for Biden’s impeachment. Earlier that day, when Biden arrived at the Syracuse airport, Schumer met him on the tarmac to share an update on the Senate races. A hot microphone picked up what he’d said. “It looks like the debate didn’t hurt us too much in Pennsylvania, as of today,” Schumer told Biden. “So that’s good.” He continued, “I think we’re picking up steam in Nevada,” adding, “The state where we’re going downhill is Georgia. It’s hard to believe that they will go for Herschel Walker.”

When we spoke in Schumer’s apartment, a consensus seemed to be solidifying among the pollsters and prognosticators that November 8th would be a grim day for the Democrats. The Majority Leader didn’t bother to argue the point. Last year, in an obscure deal, a Chicago businessman made one of the largest donations ever to a political nonprofit—$1.6 billion to a group called the Marble Freedom Trust, run by the conservative activist Leonard Leo. The sum, which isn’t taxable, was more than all of the money spent in 2020 by the fifteen most politically active Democratic-leaning nonprofits, according to a Times analysis. “That has set us back, because in the last month they’ve just poured money into this,” Schumer told me. “We’re in a difficult situation.” At another point in our conversation, he said, “I think we’ve done the very best we can. I don’t have any regrets about that.” He added, “I live with the stress.” ♦

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON — House Republicans plan to vote Wednesday evening on a motion to refer a Democratic-sponsored resolution to expel Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., to the Ethics Committee.

The resolution was introduced on Tuesday by Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and is privileged, which means Republican leaders must schedule a vote by Thursday.

Republicans will try to bypass a vote on the bill itself, however, by referring it to the House Committee on Ethics, which has been investigating Santos since early March.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., sent out a notice Wednesday telling lawmakers that they would vote on a motion to refer the resolution to the Ethics panel around 5 p.m.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. — who said last week that he would not back Santos' re-election bid — said Tuesday night that he preferred that approach rather than a floor vote to expel Santos from Congress.

Garcia called McCarthy's approach "a cop-out" at a press conference on Wednesday morning. "This is already in the Ethics Committee," Garcia said. "We want an actual vote on the expulsion."

Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., a former federal prosecutor, suggested that the Ethics Committee wouldn't take any action on the resolution, and instead defer to the Department of Justice, which last week charged Santos with a 13-count indictment.

"Prosecutors are going to ask the Ethics Committee to pause and let their prosecution go first," he said. "That’s what I did for 10 years, that is the nature of how these things work. And traditionally, the Ethics Committee will defer to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution and Kevin McCarthy knows that."

Goldman said this tactic is a way for Republicans avoiding accountability on the expulsion measure.

Santos' congressional office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last week, Santos pleaded not guilty at a Long Island courthouse to the federal indictment unsealed by the Justice Department. Santos was charged with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives, according to the Justice Department. He’s due in court again June 30.

Santos, who had previously admitted that he lied about his background, has called the charges against him a “witch hunt“ and said that he won’t resign.

In March, the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation that it said would determine whether Santos “engaged in unlawful activity with respect to his 2022 congressional campaign; failed to properly disclose required information on statements filed with the House; violated federal conflict of interest laws in connection with his role in a firm providing fiduciary services; and/or engaged in sexual misconduct towards an individual seeking employment in his congressional office."