#politics trumps urgent government work

[grison-in-space]

you know what else fucks me up about the US election? one of the things that has left me reeling in bewilderment and grief this month?

I'm a scientist, y'all.

That means that I am, like most American research scientists, a federal contractor. (Possibly employee. It's confusing, and it fucks with my taxes being a postdoctoral researcher.) I get paid because someone, in the long run ideally me, makes a really, really detailed pitch to one of several federal grant agencies that the nation would really be missing out if I couldn't follow up on these thoughts and find concrete evidence about whether or not I'm right.

Currently, my personal salary is dependent on a whole department of scientists convincing one of the largest and most powerful granting agencies that they have a program that is really good at training scientists that can think deeply about the priorities of the agency. Those priorities are defined by the guy who runs the agency, and he gets to hire whatever qualified people he wants. That guy? The Presidential Administration picks that one. That's how federal agencies get staffed: the President's administration nominates them.

All of the heads of these agencies are personally nominated by the president and their administration. They are people of enormous power whose job is to administer million-dollar grants to the scientists competing urgently for limited funds. A million dollars often doesn't go farther than a couple of years when it's intended to pay for absolutely everything to do with a particular pitch, including salaries of your trainees, all materials, travel expenses, promoting the work among other researchers, all of it—so most smart American researchers are working fervently on grants all the time.

The next director of the NIH will be a Trump appointee, if he notices and thinks to appoint one. NSF, too; that's the group that funds your ecology and your astroscience and your experimental mathematics and physics and chemistry, the stuff that doesn't have industry funding and industry priorities. USDA. DOE, that's who does a lot of the climate change mitigation and renewable energy source research, they'll just be lucky if they can do anything again because Trump nigh gutted them last time.

Right now, I am working on the very tail end of a grant's funding and I am scurrying to make sure I stay employed. So I'm thinking very closely about federal agency priorities, okay? And I'm thinking that the funding climate for science is going to get a lot fucking leaner. I'm seeing what the American people think of scientists, and about whether my job is worth doing. It's been a lean twelve years in this gig, okay? Every time the federal government gets fucked up, that impacts my job, it means that I have to hustle even harder to get grants in that let me support myself—and, if I have any trainees, their budding careers as well!—to patch over the lean times as much as we can.

So I've been reeling this week thinking about how funding agency priorities are going to change. I work on sex differences in motivation, so let me tell you, the politics reading this one for my next pitch are going to be fun. I'm working on a submission for an explicitly DEI-oriented five year grant with a cycle ending in February, so that's going to be an exercise in hoping that the agency employees at the middle levels (the ones that know how to get things done which can't be replaced immediately with yes men) can buffer the decisions of those big bosses long enough to let that program continue to exist a little while longer.

Ah, Christ, he promised Health & Human Services (which houses the NIH) to RFK, didn't he? We'll see how that pans out.

I keep seeing people calling for more governmental shutdowns on the left now, and it makes me want to scream. The government being gridlocked means the funding that researchers like me need doesn't come, okay? When the DOE can't say fucking "climate change," when the USDA hemorrhages its workers when the agency is dragged halfway across the country, when I watch a major Texan House rep stake his career on trying to destroy the NSF, I think: this is what you people think of us. I think: how little scientists are valued as public workers. Why am I working this hard again?

This is why I described voting as harm reduction. Even if two candidates are "the same" on one thing you care about, they probably aren't the same level of bad on everything. Your task is to figure out the best person to do the job. It's not about a fucking tribalist horse race. A vote is your opinion on a job interview, you fucks. We have to work with this person.

Anyway, I'm probably going to go back to shaking quietly in despair for a little longer and then pick myself up and hit the grind again. If I'm fast, I might still get the grant in this miserable climate if I run, and I might get to actually keep on what I'm trying to do, which is bring research on sex differences, neurodivergence and energy balance as informed by non-binary gender perspectives and disability theory to neuroscience.

Fuck.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Don Moynihan at The UnPopulist (10.06.2024):

A standard step in the authoritarian playbook is to secure power by taking control of the bureaucracy, especially the national security components of the state. Former President Donald Trump tried to do this at the end of his administration and has made this plan absolutely central to his second-term vision. When Trump left office, the threats to democracy posed by Schedule F—his plan to reclassify hundreds of thousands of federal employees into political appointees he could fire at will—seemed remote. That is no longer true now that he has a viable chance of being reelected. A chief lesson that Trump and his supporters learned was that they failed because they were unable to treat federal employees like contestants on The Apprentice, to be fired at Trump’s whims. In a second term, they have a plan to fix this problem that even if implemented haphazardly could generate extraordinary damage to the quality of American government and the stability of our democracy. As Robert Shea, a public management expert who served in the George W. Bush administration, noted, Schedule F would create “an army of suck-ups.”

What is Schedule F?

Schedule F is an executive order that was signed by Trump, rescinded by President Joe Biden at the start of his administration, and which Trump has promised to resurrect (The “F” part is a reference to different classes of political appointees; there is already a Schedule A-E). Schedule F gives the president the power to reclassify career civil servants who have some sort of policy advisory aspect to their job into political appointees.

What does this mean? There are basically two classes of workers in government: career civil servants who work in government for the long-haul and are selected based on a non-political process, and political appointees. The first can only be fired for cause, i.e., poor performance or violating rules. The second are selected by the president and serve at his or her pleasure. In other words, political appointees can be pushed out for any reason the president deems worthy. From the perspective of career officials, under Schedule F they could be involuntarily reassigned from career status to at-will, providing them with much less job security. These leading advocates for Schedule F during Trump’s term—who proposed that at least 50,000 officials could be reclassified just as a first step—include James Sherk, who joined the administration from the Heritage Foundation and now works for the America First Policy Institute; Russ Vought, the former Heritage Foundation official who ran the Office of Management and Budget for Trump and now leads the Center for Renewing America; and Paul Dans, the Trump official who led Project 2025. With support from the Heritage Foundation and the Conservative Partnership Institute, all have been involved in planning for a second Trump term in which Schedule F would feature prominently.

The vague nature of the policy means that the upper limit of the order would be to convert hundreds of thousands of officials. There are about 2.1 million civil servants, and about 4,000 political appointee slots. So, converting tens of thousands, or maybe a few hundred thousand officials, into appointee slots might not seem like a big deal. But the U.S. is already an outlier when it comes to the number of political appointees relative to other countries, and the power those appointees hold, which tend to be the top leadership roles in government. Other countries do not embrace the degree of politicization the U.S. already has because research shows that more politicized systems are less effective in governing: they are associated with less stability, lower performance, and lower responsiveness to the public.

There is not a pressing need for more appointees; Trump never came close to filling his 4,000 slots, and had an extraordinary degree of turnover among those he did appoint. Instead, the function of Schedule F is to politicize more and more of the government and to force federal officials to worry that they will lose their job if they uphold their oath to the Constitution in the face of Trump’s demands.

[...]

Undermining Democratic Accountability

For Trump and his advisors, the purpose of Schedule F is to avoid accountability, not to embrace it. If he wins, Trump would be ineligible to run for office again, and so there is no electoral incentive to temper his actions in his second term. (He may ignore such constitutional constraints, of course, at which point Schedule F would be even more explicitly serving authoritarian ends.) His complaints during his presidency about the operation of the administrative state were usually not about responsiveness to specific policy goals, but frequently that they would not facilitate illegal behavior. In The New Yorker, Jonathan Blitzer reported that a former senior official in the Trump administration told him, “Inside the White House ... Trump was constantly enraged that his Cabinet wouldn’t break the law for him.”

Trump’s first impeachment offers a Rosetta Stone for the democratic risks that Schedule F would bring. That proceeding featured Trump seeking to use his public office of the president, and taxpayer dollars, for partisan and corrupt political purposes. The means of doing so—withholding aid to Ukraine in the hope of gaining dirt about his political opponent—was both illegal (violating the Impoundment Act) and unconstitutional. Trump political appointees were informed of this by career officials at the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget. But they were ignored as the former covered up the illegal action and invented a secret legal rationale to justify it. When the scandal was exposed, Trump forbade his appointees from testifying before Congress. Most of what was learned about the illegal actions and cover-up came from career officials. After the impeachment, Trump punished those officials to the greatest degree, removing them from their positions, blocking promotions, or demoting them. With Schedule F, he simply would have fired them, as he did at an unprecedented rate with inspectors general, the officials who are explicitly tasked with providing accountability within agencies. Few if any would have had the courage to testify and expose Trump’s illegal behaviors. Remarkably, the Project 2025 training videos are actually instructing future Republican political appointees about how to evade accountability by excluding career staff from meetings and avoiding paper trails. Take Tom Jones, a Republican opposition researcher who runs the American Accountability Foundation, an ironically named organization given that its head is seeking to subvert formal mechanisms of accountability. “You’re probably better off going down to the canteen, getting a cup of coffee, talking it through and making the decision, as opposed to sending him an email and creating a thread that Accountable.US or one of those other groups is going to come back and seek.” Jones has already been scouring the social media posts of career officials, creating an enemies list of those who have expressed views hostile to Trump and should be fired via Schedule F if he returns to office.

Don Moynihan wrote in The UnPopulist that Donald Trump (and Project 2025)’s deranged Schedule F policy will wreck the civil services and turn it into a political spoils system.

[moontyger]

Up for a potential fast-track vote next week in the House of Representatives, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, also known as H.R. 9495, would grant the secretary of the Treasury Department unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit deemed to be a “terrorist supporting organization.”

The resolution has already prompted strong opposition from a wide range of civil society groups, with more than 100 organizations signing an open letter issued by the American Civil Liberties Union in September.

With Trump set to return to office, it’s more urgent than ever to beat the legislation back, said Kia Hamadanchy, a senior policy counsel at the ACLU.

“This is about stifling dissent and to chill advocacy, because people are going to avoid certain things and take certain positions in order to avoid this designation,” Hamadanchy told The Intercept. “And then on top of that you have a president-elect who’s spent a lot of time on the campaign trail talking about punishing his opponents and what he wants to do to student protesters — and you’re giving him another tool.”

...

No Evidence Needed

Under the bill, the Treasury secretary would issue notice to a group of intent to designate it as a “terrorist supporting organization.” Once notified, an organization would have the right to appeal within 90 days, after which it would be stripped of its 501(c)(3) status, named for the statute that confers tax exemptions on recognized nonprofit groups.

The law would not require officials to explain the reason for designating a group, nor does it require the Treasury Department to provide evidence.

“It basically empowers the Treasury secretary to target any group it wants to call them a terror supporter and block their ability to be a nonprofit,” said Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council Action, which opposes the law. “So that would essentially kill any nonprofit’s ability to function. They couldn’t get banks to service them, they won’t be able to get donations, and there’d be a black mark on the organization, even if it cleared its name.”

The bill could also imperil the lifesaving work of nongovernmental organizations operating in war zones and other hostile areas where providing aid requires coordination with groups designated as terrorists by the U.S., according to a statement issued last year by the Charity & Security Network.

“Charitable organizations, especially those who work in settings where designated terrorist groups operate, already undergo strict internal due diligence and risk mitigation measures,” the group wrote. “As the prohibition on material support to foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) already exists, and is applicable to U.S. nonprofits, this proposed legislation is redundant and unnecessary.”

If it proceeds, the bill will go to the House floor in a “suspension vote,” a fast-track procedure that limits debate and allows a bill to bypass committees and move on to the Senate as long as it receives a two-thirds supermajority in favor.

Pro-Palestine Groups at Risk

In the past year, accusations of support for terrorism have been freely lobbed at student protesters, aid workers in Gaza, and even mainstream publications like the New York Times. In unscrupulous hands, the powers of the proposed law could essentially turn the Treasury Department into an enforcement arm of Canary Mission and other hard-line groups dedicated to doxxing and smearing their opponents as terrorists.

With very few guardrails in place, the new bill would give broad new powers to the federal government to act on such accusations — and not just against pro-Palestine groups, according to Costello.

“The danger is much broader than just groups that work on foreign policy,” said Costello. “It could target major liberal funders who support Palestinian solidarity and peace groups who engage in protest. But it could also theoretically be used to target pro-choice groups, and I could see it being used against environmental groups.

Costello added, “It really would be at the discretion of the Trump administration as to who they target, with very little recourse for the targeted organization.”

An earlier version of the bill passed the House in April by a vote of 382-11.

[thekristen999]

For those who want to know more about Walz from Washington Post. And can't get away from the paywall.

By Tyler Pager, 

Amy B Wang and 

Sabrina Rodriguez

Vice President Harris has chosen Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate, opting for a former high school teacher and Midwestern Democrat to complete a newly assembled presidential ticket, according to three people familiar with the pick, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a decision that is not yet public.

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

The choice of Walz, 60, creates a ticket that many Democrats have said would be politically beneficial. Harris, 59, who is Black and Indian American and spent much of her career in deep-blue California, chose from a list of finalists populated by White men, including Walz, who have represented more competitive swaths of the country.

The selection culminates an increasingly intensive process in recent days, as the Harris team narrowed down the prospects and various factions of the Democratic Party lobbied for their favorites. Over the weekend, Harris interviewed three finalists: Walz, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly.

Compared with some of the other prospects who Harris considered as potential running mates, Walz is less well-known and has faced less scrutiny on the national stage.

Skip to end of carousel

2024 presidential election

Vice President Harris has told allies that he she has chosen Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate, according to three people familiar with the pick. Follow live updates.

Trump and Harris have officially secured their party’s presidential nominations. Trump chose Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate. We broke down options for Harris’s vice-presidential pick.

(The Washington Post)

Check out how Harris and Trump stack up according to The Washington Post’s presidential polling averages of seven battleground states.

Sign up for The Campaign Moment, reporter Aaron Blake’s guide to what you really need to know about the 2024 election.

A second-term governor and chair of the Democratic Governors Association, Walz does not hail from a traditional battleground state — Minnesota has supported a Republican presidential candidate only once since 1960. But Walz’s credentials as a veteran and gun owner who previously represented a Republican-leaning, rural part of Minnesota in Congress could help Harris appeal to working-class White voters who have turned away from Democrats and helped fuel Donald Trump’s political rise.

Follow Election 2024

Walz catapulted onto the national radar as it became clear that Harris was considering him for the ticket after Biden ended his reelection bid July 21. He repeatedly criticized Trump and other Republicans as “weird” in cable news appearances, an unusual formulation that attracted attention. Other Democrats followed with the same line of attack, which appeared to strike a nerve in some Republicans, who have felt compelled to push back.

Walz now faces the urgent task of introducing himself to the country with about three months left before an election that has already been rocked by historic turmoil. The political tests ahead include a potential debate against Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.

Harris will hold her first rally with Walz on Tuesday in Philadelphia, the first stop in a four-day tour of battleground states that includes visits to Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and elsewhere.

Harris’s choice of a running mate was among the most closely watched decisions of her fledgling campaign, as she sought to bolster the ticket’s prospects for victory in November and rapidly find someone who could be a governing partner. In picking Walz, she has selected a seasoned politician with executive governing experience, and signaled the importance of Midwestern battleground states such as Wisconsin and Michigan.

Walz’s foray into politics came later in life: He spent more than two decades as a public school teacher and football coach, and as a member of the Army National Guard, before running for Congress in his 40s. In 2006, he defeated a Republican to win Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District — a rural, conservative area — and won reelection five times before leaving Congress to run for governor.

Walz was first elected governor in 2018 and handily won reelection in 2022. He emerged publicly as one of the earliest names mentioned as a possible running mate for Harris, and in the ensuing days he made the rounds on television as an outspoken surrogate for the vice president.

“These are weird people on the other side. They want to take books away, they want to be in your exam room. … They are bad on foreign policy, they are bad on the environment, they certainly have no health-care plan, and they keep talking about the middle class,” Walz told MSNBC in July. “As I said, a robber baron real estate guy and a venture capitalist trying to tell us they understand who we are? They don’t know who we are.”

More on Tim Walz

 

Tim Walz’s journey from high school football coach to VP candidate

 

Harris has chosen Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as VP pick

 

Could Tim Walz go from teaching history to being part of it?

Walz also has faced criticism from Republicans that his policies as governor were too liberal, including legalizing recreational marijuana for adults, protecting abortion rights, expanding LGBTQ protections, implementing tuition-free college for low-income Minnesotans and providing free breakfast and lunch for schoolchildren in the state.

But many of those initiatives are broadly popular. Walz also signed an executive order removing the college-degree requirement for 75 percent of Minnesota’s state jobs, a move that garnered bipartisan support and that several other states have also adopted.

“What a monster. Kids are eating and having full bellies, so they can go learn, and women are making their own health-care decisions,” Walz said sarcastically in a July 28 interview with CNN when questioned on whether such policies would be fodder for conservative attacks, later adding: “If that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the [liberal] label.”

Walz also spoke at a kickoff event in St. Paul for a Democratic canvassing effort, casting Trump as a “bully.”

“Don’t lift these guys up like they’re some kind of heroes. Everybody in this room knows — I know it as a teacher — a bully has no self-confidence. A bully has no strength. They have nothing,” Walz said at the event, sporting a camouflage hunting hat and T-shirt.

Walz has explained that he felt some Democrats’ practice of calling Trump an existential threat to democracy was giving him too much credit, which prompted his decision to denounce the GOP nominee instead as being “weird.”

“I do believe all those things are a real possibility, but it gives him way too much power,” Walz said on CNN’s “State of the Union” regarding the Democrats’ rhetoric. “Listen to the guy. He’s talking about Hannibal Lecter, shocking sharks, and just whatever crazy thing pops into his mind.”

Walz was rewarded for his willingness to attack the Trump-Vance ticket and his embrace of the liberal label, earning the endorsement of a coalition of left-leaning groups that touted him as “a credible and respected voice that has a track record of winning over and exciting an electorate, especially the ability to turn out young voters, immigrants, and independents in swing states.”

If Walz is elected vice president, under state law, Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (D) would assume the governorship for the rest of his term. Minnesota Senate President Bobby Joe Champion, a Democrat, would become lieutenant governor.

In picking Walz, Harris passed over several other Democratic governors who were under consideration, including Shapiro, Andy Beshear of Kentucky and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois.

Harris faced an effective deadline of Aug. 7 to select a running mate. That is when Democratic National Committee officials had hoped to formally nominate its ticket to avoid running afoul of ballot qualification deadlines in various states.

Amy B Wang, Michael Scherer, Sabrina Rodriguez and Patrick Svitek contributed to this report.

Election 2024

Vice President Harris has told allies that he she has chosen Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate, according to three people familiar with the pick. Follow live updates.

Kamala Harris: Harris has officially secured the Democratic presidential nomination. She has narrowed her search for a running mate to six finalists, according to two people familiar with the process.

Presidential polls: Check out how Harris and Republican Donald Trump stack up according to The Washington Post’s presidential polling averages of seven battleground states.

Trump VP pick: Trump has chosen Sen. JD Vance (Ohio) as his running mate, selecting a rising star in the Republican Party. But Vance has had a challenging start as the GOP’s vice-presidential nominee, leaving the Trump campaign to try to clean up his controversial past comments.

Election 2024

[spiderine]

take "radical" out of your bio you vbnmw lib

you know, i'm actually going to answer this seriously because it will be so much fun and other people may find it amusing as well.

what have you done to walk the talk besides bother people online? Or are you happy cowering anonymously in your little glass house? you show me yours, I'll show you mine. i have been working direct action since the mid 1980s, so believe me, I can not only slap physical evidence right on the table, but give you a list of people who can vouch for me a yard long as well. but i won't do that because...

the first rule of radical action is Don't Fucking Talk About What You're Doing Online You Dumbass. with a healthy side of DON'T FUCKING SQUEAL ON YOUR FRIENDS YOU DUMBASS

second, you don't have the first understanding of realpolitik. wait, can you even define realpolitik? Here's a clue: "by any means necessary" Includes The Boring Stuff You Dumbass

third, do you give one blue blind bloody fuck about your friends and loved ones? Your LGBTQ friends? Your Muslim and Jewish friends? Your immigrant friends? Your female (and female-plumbing) friends? DO YOU CARE ABOUT ANYONE BESIDES CISHET WHITE MALE CHRISTIANS? Of course you do! You'd do anything to protect your loved ones. Absolutely anything! THEN VOTE YOU DUMBASS.

Have you been paying real attention to what is actually going on in the world, or are you happy living in your fantasy land where you can snap your fingers, a wild Bloodless Revolution That Doesn't Hurt Any Good Guys appears, and everyone will live happily forever after and nothing bad will ever happen again?

Have you read the Project 2025 proposal? Do you know what it is? Have you been actually listening to what Trump and the Repubs have planned for DAY ONE of a Trump administration? Have you learned nothing from the elections of 2016 and 2020? This Is Not A Fucking Drill You Dumbass. In fact, it's NEVER a drill. Get your head out of the clouds, put your boots on the ground, and get to work, because The Work Never Ends You Dumbass.

Fact: the United States is a two-party system. Full stop. No fantasies, wishes, hopes or dreams. No whining and faffing around with "but..." and "if..." and "none of the above". You get two choices: Trump or Not!Trump, with a tiny bit of bait being dangled on the side by the Leopards Ate My Face Party, which exists only to siphon votes from Not!Trump. Them's the facts. There's no getting around it. There is nothing you can do to stop it by this coming November. If you don't want to have another Trump administration, hold your precious little nose and vote for Not!Trump No Matter Who, because that is the ONLY way to keep him from being elected in 2024.

---> Honestly, all bullshit aside, if you really want to make a difference, start with your local government. For example, do your government buildings have gender-neutral bathrooms? If not, start a petition for the change. Research the proper procedure, get a whole bunch of your friends to go door-to-door or stand on the street corner gathering signatures, and make sure everyone shows up at your local government's next public meeting so when you get up and present the petition, you have a groundswell of support behind you. It's a simple way to get involved in the political process and make a positive change to your community that everyone can actually see and appreciate. It's a good way to discover if you like community organizing, and if you're good at it you can slowly go bigger. If you're whining that it takes too long or is too much work or you don't like talking to people or you're shy, tough nuts. This is how the real political process works, so suck it up.

In conclusion, based on 40ish years of theoretical study, practical experience and close following of history and current events, I can confidently, sincerely and utterly urgently say:

If you do not vote for Joe Biden in 2024, the American government will topple, the world will be plunged into war, and your loved ones will die. No shit, no lie, no exaggeration. So VOTE YOU DUMBASS.

Now, just in case you think you have a leg to stand on by getting huffy at me for calling you a "dumbass", consider the following. There are only three reasons I can think of for someone doing something as patently ridiculous as walking into MY HOUSE to challenge me ANONYMOUSLY about the principles on which I have based my ENTIRE ADULT LIFE. They are: one, you're an absolute idiot; two, you're being willfully obtuse; or three, you're deliberately trying to fuck with the upcoming election, and I don't care why. If I were you, I'd take "dumbass" and Sit. Down.

Oh, and I forgot the most important thing: My Blog. Fuck You, You Dumbass.

[mariacallous]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Tuesday called for House Republicans to get behind a supplemental spending bill that would send $60 billion to Ukraine for its fight against Russia. He warned that opposing it would play into “Putin’s hands.”

“Supporting this bill is standing up to Putin, Opposing it is playing into Putin’s hands,” Biden said. “History is watching.”

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate early Tuesday passed a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, pushing ahead after months of difficult negotiations and growing political divisions in the Republican Party over the role of the United States abroad.

The vote came after a small group of Republicans opposed to the $60 billion for Ukraine held the Senate floor through the night, using the final hours of debate to argue that the U.S. should focus on its own problems before sending more money overseas. But 22 Republicans voted with nearly all Democrats to pass the package 70-29, with supporters arguing that abandoning Ukraine could embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin and threaten national security across the globe.

“With this bill, the Senate declares that American leadership will not waver, will not falter, will not fail,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who worked closely with Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on the legislation.

The bill’s passage through the Senate with a flourish of GOP support was a welcome sign for Ukraine amid critical shortages on the battlefield.

Yet the package faces a deeply uncertain future in the House, where hardline Republicans aligned with former President Donald Trump — the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, and a critic of support for Ukraine — oppose the legislation.

Speaker Mike Johnson cast new doubt on the package in a statement Monday evening, making clear that it could be weeks or months before Congress sends the legislation to President Joe Biden’s desk — if at all.

Biden in a statement urged the House to urgently act: “We cannot afford to wait any longer. The costs of inaction are rising every day, especially in Ukraine.”

“Already, we are seeing reports of Ukrainian troops running out of ammunition on the front lines as Russian forces continue to attack and Putin continues to dream of subjugating the Ukrainian people,” the president said.

Schumer said the strong bipartisan support should pressure Johnson to advance the bill. McConnell has made Ukraine his top priority in recent months, and was resolute in the face of considerable pushback from his own GOP conference.

Speaking directly to his detractors, the longtime Republican leader said in a statement, “History settles every account. And today, on the value of American leadership and strength, history will record that the Senate did not blink.”

Dollars provided by the legislation would purchase U.S.-made defense equipment, including munitions and air defense systems that authorities say are desperately needed as Russia batters the country. It also includes $8 billion for the government in Kyiv and other assistance.

“For us in Ukraine, continued US assistance helps to save human lives from Russian terror,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy posted on social media. “It means that life will continue in our cities and will triumph over war.”

In addition, the legislation would provide $14 billion for Israel’s war with Hamas, $8 billion for Taiwan and partners in the Indo-Pacific to counter China, and $9.1 billion in humanitarian assistance for Gaza and the West Bank, Ukraine, and other populations caught in conflict zones across the globe.

Progressive lawmakers have objected to sending offensive weaponry to Israel, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent of Vermont, as well as two Democrats, Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Peter Welch of Vermont, voted against it.

“I cannot in good conscience support sending billions of additional taxpayer dollars for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s military campaign in Gaza,” Welch said. “It’s a campaign that has killed and wounded a shocking number of civilians. It’s created a massive humanitarian crisis.”

The bill’s passage followed almost five months of torturous negotiations over an expansive bill that would have paired the foreign aid with an overhaul of border and asylum policies. Republicans demanded the trade-off, saying the surge of migration into the United States had to be addressed alongside the security of allies.

But a bipartisan deal on border security fell apart just days after its unveiling, a head-spinning development that left negotiators deeply frustrated. Republicans declared the bill insufficient and blocked it on the Senate floor.

After the deal collapsed, the two leaders abandoned the border provisions and pushed forward with passing the foreign aid package alone — as Democrats had originally intended.

While the slimmed-down foreign aid bill eventually won a healthy showing of GOP support, several Republicans who had previously expressed support for Ukraine voted against it. The episode further exposed divisions in the party, made more public as Trump dug in and a handful of lawmakers openly called for McConnell to step down.

Sen. J.D. Vance, an Ohio Republican, argued that the U.S. should step back from the conflict and help broker an end to it with Russia’s Putin. He questioned the wisdom of continuing to fuel Ukraine’s defense when Putin appears committed to fighting for years.

“I think it deals with the reality that we’re living in, which is they’re a more powerful country, and it’s their region of the world,” he said.

Vance, along with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and other opponents, spent several hours on the floor railing against the aid and complaining about Senate process. They dug in their heels to delay a final vote, speaking on the floor until daybreak.

Supporters of the aid pushed back, warning that bowing to Russia would be a historic mistake with devastating consequences. They pointed out that if Putin were to attack a NATO member in Europe, the U.S. would be bound by treaty to become directly involved in the conflict — a commitment that Trump has called into question as he seeks another term in the White House.

In the House, many Republicans have opposed the aid and are unlikely to cross Trump, but some key GOP lawmakers have signaled they will push to get it passed.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, traveled to Ukraine last week with a bipartisan delegation and met with Zelenskyy. Turner posted on X, formerly Twitter, after the trip that “I reiterated America’s commitment to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia.”

But Speaker Johnson is in a tough position. A majority of his conference opposes the aid, and he is trying to lead the narrowest of majorities and avoid the fate of his predecessor, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was ousted in October.

Johnson, R-La., said in a statement Monday that because the foreign aid package lacks border security provisions, it is “silent on the most pressing issue facing our country.” It was the latest — and potentially most consequential — sign of opposition to the Ukraine aid from House GOP leadership, who had rejected the bipartisan border compromise as a “non-starter,” contributing to its rapid demise.

“Now, in the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters,” Johnson said. “America deserves better than the Senate’s status quo.”

The Republican speaker has repeatedly pointed to a sweeping set of hardline immigration measures passed by the House last year. But that legislation has gained no Democratic support — essentially dooming it in the politically-split Congress.

Schumer at a news conference called on Johnson to put the foreign aid package on the House floor, saying it would pass with “strong bipartisan support.”

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

#20yrsago Ground broken on Hong Kong Disneyland https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2650763.stm

#10yrsago Quinn Norton on Aaron Swartz https://www.quinnnorton.com/said/?p=644

#10yrsago Lessig on the DoJ’s vindictive prosecution of Aaron Swartz https://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully

#10yrsago RIP, Aaron Swartz https://memex.craphound.com/2013/01/12/rip-aaron-swartz/

#5yrsago NERD HARDER! FBI Director reiterates faith-based belief in working crypto that he can break https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-fbi/fbi-chief-calls-unbreakable-encryption-urgent-public-safety-issue-idUSKBN1EY1S7

#5yrsago A brief history of how the rich world brutalized and looted Haiti, a country the US owes its very existence to https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/haiti-donald-trump-shithole-america-history/

#5yrsago Scottish police confirm requests from world governments to find money laundered through “the UK’s homegrown secrecy vehicle” https://archive.news.stv.tv/politics/1406010-scots-firms-with-business-model-tied-to-1bn-fraud-probed.html

#5yrsago UK tax authority, gutted by austerity and buried by Brexit, can’t deal with the crime revealed by the Paradise Papers https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/12/hmrc-struggling-fallout-paradise-papers-leak

[rotationalsymmetry]

countries are really big (and the US is really big for a country), made up of many many people, so one person's worth of difference is small and hard to see. The smaller the scale you look at, the easier it will be to see the difference you make (if you want to make a difference and know that you are making a difference.) And there are a lot of differences that are worth making on smaller scales.

I came of age right in the face of 8 years of Republican presidency and a corresponding (post 9-11) cultural shift towards the conservative, it happens. There are arguments to be made that Trump is worse than Bush, and they are reasonable arguments, but they also tend to focus on conditions within the US and I am very concerned with the whole world, and Bush was very bad for the whole world. Trump isn't great for the whole world, but I'm not convinced he's worse. (Also some things sucked in the US too! This was the age of "that's so gay" and a corresponding rise in school bullying of kids perceived as gay (accurately or not.) Things got worse in the 2000's than they were in the 90's, in this regard, and got better after. (Mostly because a ton of people put in a small amount of work over long periods of time to make it better.) This is common, things change with time, often in up and down ways.

Good things happen during Republican presidencies and bad things happen during Democrat presidencies, the person who's president matters but is not the only thing that matters. It is one thing among many things: how the news presents things, how people talk about things to their friends and family, what's going on in local and state governments, what nonprofits and advocacy orgs are doing/pushing for, etc. I used to be really into advocating for more bike lanes; picking one local cause you really care about can go a long way to seeing when what you do makes a difference in the world. It doesn't have to be a group thing either if you don't want; I notice when benches in my neighborhood are missing the middle bar (anti-homeless architechture); that's going to be the work of one or a couple people doing things on their own.

I like the point about language! This was a little thing, but a few months ago I ran into a woman who was lost who only spoke Spanish, and I ...sort of speak Spanish, and I was able to get her to where she needed to go. These opportunities do come up now and then, and more often if you seek them out (eg offer to write Spanish translations for an activist group's website or email newsletter or fliers or social media page.) I also occasionally run into a serious first aid situation, so I recommend taking a basic first aid and CPR class, and keeping your certification current if you already have. (Extra important for people who can't easily afford hospital/ER/urgent care visits.) (A lot of these aren't explicitly political, but that's ok, about 90% of what people NEED is not explicitly political.) (Some things like naloxone and CPR training are things where normally you'd *expect* to not actually use them -- it's a precaution, like wearing a seat belt or a mask, it's not going to matter most of the time, but on the rare/unlikely occasion that it does matter, it matters a lot.)

5. Doing stuff and emotional management aren't entirely the same thing. It is good to do stuff because stuff needs to be done -- whether you need to regulate your feelings or not. If you need to regulate your feelings and either don't conveniently have something to DO or it's not enough or you just want a different way to regulate your feelings, there's journaling, cbt stuff, RAIN, EFT/tapping, talking to a friend, breathing exercises, and lots of other things.

hi, hopefully this isnt a stupid question -- this is only my second election i'm voting in, and i'm a little confused about results. is it actually confirmed that trump has won, or is it just almost certain based on the counted votes? bc i know that provisional ballots (like mine) probably arent immediately counted, and there was that thing about votes needing to be verified because of signatures, plus to my knowledge the electoral college doesnt vote til december? i'm probably just grasping at an infinitesimal chance of things not being shit, but also i do actually want to understand and google is not helping :( if you can't explain no worries, you just seem to be knowledgable & willing to answer questions haha

This is absolutely not a stupid question.

So everything is currently pointing at what is most likely, not at what is 100% certain, but it's like 99% certain. There are still votes being counted, but in the states where the election has been called it has been called either because enough of the ballots have been counted that the remaining count wouldn't change the results, or that the area is historically so strongly in favor of one party that it's exceptionally unlikely that they'd flip the other way (for example, they're still counting california's ballots but you're more likely to get struck by lightning five times today than california is to flip red in this election). The places that have not yet been called do not have enough electoral votes for Harris to win the election.

The electoral college is exceedingly unlikely to flip their votes against the state/district vote; "Faithless electors" is the term for members of the electoral college who would vote against the vote they are committed to for their region. It was something discussed in both the 2016 election and the 2020 election and flipping the electoral college without winning the election was the motivation behind J6. As shitty and bullshit as I think the electoral college is, if you're going to have one and you're going to have the rule of law, you can't hope for faithless electors because what you're hoping for at that point is that the people representing you are acting directly against the choice of the voters.

I want you to listen to me. I have been voting in presidential elections since 2004. Presidential elections always suck. Who the president is does matter, and does impact your life, but you genuinely do not have a ton of influence over that so you can't let it throw you into despair and inaction, because we should be active and political and protesting the wrongs of the world even if your favored political party wins. Vote in local elections, work with your local community, and if your local community sucks too, work with online communities to both give and get support.

Whenever something like this happens, people pass around the Mr. Rogers quote about looking to the helpers. I like that quote. I think it's good, I think it's hopeful, I think it helps! But I also think that sometimes it's even more effective if you look for how to help. Who are you the most scared for after this election? Who are you worried about in your community or among your friends? What can you do that might make their life easier? What can you do to protect people like that in your community? What don't you know that might make you better prepared to help them in the future?

One thing that I think is a fantastic way to prepare to help is to either begin or continue learning a language that you don't know. I am working hard on my Spanish because I live in California and there are a ton of Spanish speakers here who I might be able to help. Is it directly aiding anyone right at this second that I'm practicing conjugation? No. But it might help someone who is being harassed by a cop, or who is unhoused and needs help, or who is being abused by an employer at some point in the future, and I can get myself ready to help. Learn how to use naloxone and pick up up an inhaler; you might not need it now, but it'll make you ready to help someone who does need it. Order free covid tests every chance you get, even if you don't need them, because then you can give them out to people who do need them. Plan B has a multi-year shelf life. Pick some up so that you've got some on hand if someone needs it.

Maybe there's nothing you can do right at this exact second (though if you are able to donate to gender affirmation fundraisers, border kindness, abortion funds, bail funds, etc., you can absolutely do that), but you can get ready to help someone who will need you someday.

[bopinion]

2024 / 46

Aperçu of the week

„F-e-a-r has two meanings: Forget everything and run. Or Face everything and rise."

(Thomas Wirth on his transportable mega artwork "Global Gate", which is currently on display at the Zollverein UNESCO World Heritage Site in Essen, North Rhine-Westphalia)

Bad News of the Week

"The Sick Man of Europe" was the headline of the British business magazine 'The Economist' in 1999, describing the toxic mixture of the burdens of reunification, a rigid labor market, excessive social benefits and a lack of dynamism that weighed Germany down at the time. 25 years later, it's that time again. Because Europe's largest economy is sick again. And this time even more fundamentally. And with very bad timing.

Yes, there was the coronavirus shock. And yes, there were supply chain problems and inflation. But the fundamental problem is homemade: Germany has been asleep politically and economically. And must now be careful not to fall into a coma. Like Japan, Germany has always been an exporter of high-quality goods. And, like Japan, has been too slow and inadequate in adapting to a new global economy. The shift of the dominant nations, the USA and China, has made it a very different one today than it was ten years ago.

Thanks to its huge market, China has been able to force foreign companies to settle locally and enter into partnerships. Originally "the world's extended workbench", China was able to benefit from an enormous transfer of technological knowledge in a short space of time. And thus became a quality supplier itself. As a result, China now covers more of its own production needs and has also become a serious competitor on the global market. Both bad for exporting nations.

The USA, on the other hand, has once again placed itself at the forefront of technological development (connectivity, digital, AI, etc.) and at the same time has brought industrial production back into the country through an increasingly isolationist trade policy. The restrictions imposed by Donald Trump in his first term of office were not (!) reversed by Joe Biden's government. And Trump has unequivocally announced that he will continue to tighten the America First screw - his declared favorite word is "import tariffs". Both bad for exporting nations.

The German flagship industry, automotive manufacturing, is symptomatic of the general economic trend. After decades of success stories and technological and brand leadership, we were crushed by electromobility. Which we underestimated in many respects. For example, the fact that it considerably simplifies vehicle construction - which brings us back to the competitive pressure from the USA and China. Now the share prices of our former industrial jewels are plummeting, short-time work is being introduced everywhere and now there is even talk of entire plant closures: Volkswagen - not long ago worlds biggest manufacturer - alone wants to close three German factories.

The political magazine Cicero analyzes: "The location conditions in Germany are getting worse and worse. In particular, the excessive bureaucracy, the tax burden and the high energy prices are having a negative impact. If politicians fail to find solutions here, things will look bad for the industrial future." Rising unemployment will increase social spending. At the same time, labor costs will continue to rise due to inflation. And the infrastructure, which has been neglected for 20 years, should be urgently and expensively modernized. Not to mention the necessary climate-neutral restructuring of the economy. I find it difficult to be optimistic about our economic future right now...

Good News of the Week

Lately, Ukraine has had to accept rather bad news from the USA. Donald Trump himself and his entourage have confirmed more than once that the extensive military aid from the USA will certainly not continue in full. This means that half of the arms deliveries are at risk and full compensation from other countries - Germany is a distant second - is practically impossible.

But now there has probably been a kind of farewell gift from Joe Biden, which could possibly even be a game changer. It concerns long-range weapons systems and their use on Russian territory. Until now, this was formally prohibited, as Ukraine's partner countries wanted to avoid the escalation of being seen as a party of war themselves. Specifically, this means that the US ATACMS missiles with their range of 300 kilometers can also be deployed behind the Russian border.

This is a decisive strategic advantage that replaces a previous disadvantage. Until now, the aggressor's supply routes, weapons depots, military bases, etc. have been practically unassailable. The outcry on the Russian side is correspondingly great. The "first deputy chairman of the International Affairs Committee of the Russian Federation Council" (yeah, that's his title) Vladimir Jabarov even speaks of an "unprecedented step of escalation that could lead to the start of the Third World War".

Ukraine's NATO neighbor Poland, for example, sounds different. Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski wrote on Twitter that Biden had responded to the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia and the massive Russian missile attacks on Ukraine "in a language that Vladimir Putin understands". Let's hope so. And let's also hope that Germany, for example, allows the use of its Taurus cruise missiles, which experts see as ideal for Ukrainian defense purposes. The current Chancellor Olaf Scholz has always refused to do so. By contrast, the likely incoming chancellor (in the early elections at the end of February 2025), conservative opposition leader Friedrich Merz, is in favor. As far as I know, this is the only position where I am leaning more towards Merz than Scholz. So at least there's something good in this respect too...

Personal happy moment of the week

I've really thought about it. But I'm so stressed at the moment that happiness just doesn't get enough attention. But I did remember one thing: we got our winter tires fitted just in time before the first snow. You get modest in age... ;-)

I couldn't care less...

...that it is always possible to use legal sophistry to overturn a groundbreaking court ruling. In this case, and once again at the expense of the environment. The British-Dutch oil and natural gas giant Shell does not have to drastically reduce its CO2 emissions after all. This is because a civil court in The Hague overturned a corresponding climate ruling by the court of first instance and dismissed the lawsuit brought by environmentalists. The latter had originally demanded that the company reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by a net 45 percent by 2030. However, the appeal chamber found that this figure lacked a "reliable basis for calculation". Excuse me? So now - exactly: nothing is happening.

It's fine with me...

...that fat doesn't always have to be bad. It's actually considered fattening. And extremely unhealthy, especially belly fat, which not only looks shitty (I've been developing alarmingly for ten years now), but can also damage the organs. However, a study by the Charité hospital in Berlin and the German Institute of Human Nutrition (DIfE) in Potsdam has now shown that a diet containing polyunsaturated fatty acids - such as those found in oils, nuts, avocado or fish - not only melts belly fat, but also has a positive effect on cholesterol levels, blood pressure and the brain. That should give me pause for thought.

As I write this...

...EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is putting together her new Commission. Each country has the right to one post - with 27 countries in the European Union, this is quite a large governing body. Its members are appointed by the respective country. So in the case of Italy, for example, Raffaele Fitto from the right-wing Fratelli d'Italia is actually an imposition - but in the shadow of Viktor Orban, everyone seems harmless. Nevertheless, von der Leyen seems to have managed to find a balanced personnel tableau. This is also necessary, as this Commission can only be confirmed as a whole by the European Parliament. Or not.

Post Scriptum

Apparently, New Zealand is not a perfect world either. At least not for the original population, because ruthless colonialism was also practiced there. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has publicly apologized in parliament for the immense suffering that occurred according to an investigation by the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Around 200,000 mainly young people and mainly indigenous Maori experienced violence in New Zealand's state and religious institutions between 1950 and 1999. In view of a population of just 5 million, this is a huge number. This means that almost one in three people under protection suffered some form of abuse. We're talking about rape, electric shocks and sterilization, among other things. Whew, that's hard to take. I could cry over their wounded souls.

[darkmaga-returns]

Children’s Health Defense’s The Defender has a blockbuster report. (link in footnote)

“A group of Argentine scientists identified 55 chemical elements—not listed on package inserts—in the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, CanSino, Sinopharm and Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccines, according to a study published last week in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.”

“The chemical elements include 11 heavy metals—such as chromium, arsenic, nickel, aluminum, cobalt and copper—which scientists consider systemic toxicants known to be carcinogenic and to induce organ damage, even at low exposure levels.”

ARSENIC in the vaccines? How does that happen? I can’t see how a vaccine assembly line would be accidentally contaminated with arsenic, from other prior uses.

There are extremely important further statements in the Defender article. For example:

“The research builds on a series of studies conducted since 2021 using different analytic techniques to analyze COVID-19 vaccine vials from major manufacturers. Previous studies also identified significant numbers of chemical elements not listed on vaccine labels.”

“Research efforts included a 2022 study by a German working group, including the late pathologist Arne Burkhardt, submitted to the German government; a 2021 study by scientists in England; a 2022 study by Canadian Dr. Daniel Nagase; and a 2023 Romanian study by Dr. Geanina Hagimă.”

These previous studies, which yielded results similar to the findings of the latest Argentine group, flew under the radar.

There is no doubt that toxic chemicals in COVID vaccines is an URGENT issue which needs to be widely known and investigated further—after the vaccinations are halted immediately.

Of course, for a number of reasons I and others have explained for years, the vaccines should never have been launched in the first place.

Warp Speed was one of Trump’s gross exaggerations. It was a lethal project from the beginning. Trump would prefer it to be buried as ancient history. He still claims the kill shot “saved millions of lives.”

Trump’s interim President—he stood aside and let Fauci run the country—eventually made sure the vaccine was mandated.

[bllsbailey]

House Speaker Mike Johnson Announces Vote On Bill To Avert Government Shutdown

U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to the media after the vote on the government funding bill at the U.S. Capitol on September 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has announced that the House will be voting on a three-month stopgap funding bill to keep the federal government open until December 20th. 

On Sunday, Johnson (R-La.) announced that the House will vote on the bill next week. 

If the measure is implemented, the government will avoid a shutdown, which is scheduled to begin at the start of next month.

In a letter to colleagues, Johnson said the “legislation will be a very narrow, bare-bones CR including only the extensions that are absolutely necessary.”

“While this is not the solution any of us prefer, it is the most prudent path forward under the present circumstances,” he continued. “As history has taught and current polling affirms, shutting the government down less than 40 days from a fateful election would be an act of political malpractice.”

Johnson’s plan does not include any provisions of the SAVE Act, which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote. Johnson had previously attempted to link the act to a six-month continuing resolution, but the House rejected the proposal last week. 

In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said that “the Administration urges swift passage” of the bipartisan measure.

“This short-term CR will keep the government open and give Congress more time to complete full-year funding bills that deliver for our national defense, veterans, seniors, children, and working families, and address urgent needs for the American people, including communities recovering from disasters,” the spokesperson continued.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that while he was “pleased” with the outcome of the bipartisan negotiations, he criticized Johnson’s handling of the situation.

“While I am pleased bipartisan negotiations quickly led to a government funding agreement free of cuts and poison pills, this same agreement could have been done two weeks ago,” Schumer said in a statement. “Instead, Speaker Johnson chose to follow the MAGA way and wasted precious time.”

Schumer had told reporters that there’s a “really good chance” the government will not shut down at the end of the month.

“We really now have some good news: There’s a really good chance we can avoid the government shutdown with all the pain it would cause for New York and America this week,” Schumer said.

Last week, House Republicans rejected their own plan to avoid a shutdown.

On Sunday, Schumer said he is “coming closer” to an agreement with Johnson.

“I am ready to sit down, and I have been sitting down for the last four days with Speaker Johnson, his staff, and my staff, and we’re coming closer to an agreement,” Schumer told reporters.

“We can get this done, but we can’t have any delays,” he said, adding: “We can’t have any people on either side of the aisle, Democrats or Republicans, standing up and saying unless I get my way, I’m going to shut down the government. We can’t have that. There’s too great a consequence for the American people.”

Schumer’s remarks come after he called Johnson’s previous strategy of passing both the CR, known as a continuing resolution, and the SAVE Act “unworkable” and urged him to abandon it during a floor speech last Tuesday.

Johnson has struggled to get his caucus to agree on a spending plan in recent weeks, particularly after former President Donald Trump urged Republicans to shut down the government if they can’t tie a bill to the SAVE Act, which deals with voting and elections.

“If Republicans in the House, and Senate, don’t get absolute assurances on Election Security, THEY SHOULD, IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, GO FORWARD WITH A CONTINUING RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET…. CLOSE IT DOWN!!!” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, earlier this month.

Congress has just over a week to pass the CR bill to avoid a government shutdown at 12:01 a.m. on October 1st. If the House approves the bill, it will proceed to the Senate.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

[abigailspinach]

But the two men gave remarkably different answers, neither of which seem likely to bring down the cost of child care.

Vance, speaking to a conservative activist at an Arizona church on Wednesday, thinks parents should look to grandparents, aunts and uncles for those who have them, and also suggested cutting down on training and certification requirements for day care workers. That answer, at least, focuses on the issue at hand, but it won’t satisfy any parent or potential parents who don’t live near their extended family or whose extended family can’t afford to work for free.

Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care. That – it’s going to take care – we’re going to have – I – I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country.

Egan has written about the widely held fear among economists that Trump’s proposal to place a new 60% tariff tax on goods from China and a 10% across-the-board tariff on goods from other countries would mostly just be passed along to consumers and not replace income tax for the government. Trump’s not listening to those warnings.

Because I have to say with child care – I want to stay with child care – but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just – that I just told you about.

Hear that, parents? The cost of child care is small change compared with all the money the US is going to be bringing in from Trump’s tariffs. What you’re not hearing is a concrete proposal for a tax credit or a program to transform those tariff dollars Trump is sure the US government will be swimming in into help for affording child care.

We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in.

Repeat: Child care – actually not very expensive, per Trump.

The child care question was put to Trump by Reshma Saujani, founder of Moms First and Girls Who Code. Spoiler alert: Saujani was not satisfied with what Trump had to say.

“I don’t even think he’s actually thought about this, and parents are suffering,” she later said on TikTok, arguing families are being crushed by the cost of child care.

While she might not have been expecting much from Trump’s answer, the question as she posed it on stage was detailed and not at all partisan. Here’s what she said:

President Trump, you – you talked about how the increase in the price of food, gas and rent is hurting families, but the real cost that’s breaking families’ backs and preventing women from participating in the workforce is child care. Child care is now more expensive than rent for working families and is costing the economy more than $122 billion a year, making it one of the most urgent economic issues that is facing our country. In fact, the cost of child care is outpacing the cost of inflation, with the majority of American families of young children spending more than 20% of their income on child care. One thing that Democrats and Republicans have in common is that both parties talk a lot about what they’re going to do to address the child care crisis, but neither party has delivered meaningful change. If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable? And if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?

-- Reshma Saujani

Saujani is mostly right on her facts. That $122 billion figure comes from a 2023 study by the nonpartisan nonprofit group Council for a Strong America. Luhby reported in May about another report that found in 11 states and Washington, DC, parents with two kids in a child care center could expect to pay at least twice as much for child care as for typical rent. CNN’s Matt Egan has also reported on the child care crisis.

So, this is not a new issue. But here’s what Trump had to say:

Well, I would do that. And we’re sitting down – you know, I was somebody – we had – Sen. Marco Rubio and my daughter Ivanka were so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue.

Trump’s off to a good start here. When she worked in the White House, his daughter Ivanka did help add provisions to Trump’s tax cut law that doubled the child tax credit to $2,000 per child for millions of Americans, according to a CNN fact check.

However, those increases were not granted to the millions of children whose parents don’t make enough to pay income tax. Democrats would later further expand the child tax credit by up to an additional $1,600 and also gave the credit as cash even to families who don’t pay income taxes. That additional bump and expanding it to all parents was credited with cutting the child poverty rate nearly in half in 2021. But Democrats failed to get the votes for a longer-term expansion of that experiment.

Vice President Kamala Harris has promised to try to permanently extend and expand that credit, and Vance, not the Trump campaign, has also suggested he supports an expansion, but details are sketchy.

Even Trump’s doubling of the credit to $2,000 is set to expire next year, so this will be a key issue for whoever wins the White House. Luhby has written extensively about the child tax credit.

This is where Trump stops making much sense:

But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that – because, look, child care is child care. It’s – couldn’t – you know, it’s something – you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it.

Yes, you do have to have child care. But what are these numbers he’s talking about?

But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly – and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country.

So Trump has moved from the cost of child care to the taxes – tariffs – he plans to impose on imports.

Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care. That – it’s going to take care – we’re going to have – I – I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country.

Egan has written about the widely held fear among economists that Trump’s proposal to place a new 60% tariff tax on goods from China and a 10% across-the-board tariff on goods from other countries would mostly just be passed along to consumers and not replace income tax for the government. Trump’s not listening to those warnings.

Because I have to say with child care – I want to stay with child care – but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just – that I just told you about.

Hear that, parents? The cost of child care is small change compared with all the money the US is going to be bringing in from Trump’s tariffs. What you’re not hearing is a concrete proposal for a tax credit or a program to transform those tariff dollars Trump is sure the US government will be swimming in into help for affording child care.

We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in.

Repeat: Child care – actually not very expensive, per Trump.

We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people, but we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first, it’s about Make America Great Again. We have to do it because right now we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question.

Yep. Very good question.

[extremely-moderate]

Politics often feels like a battleground. But there's a powerful weapon that can heal rather than hurt: good-faith compromise.

When politicians work together, amazing things happen. Compromise is not about giving in; it's about finding common ground. It's about building bridges instead of walls. The greatest progress often emerges when diverse voices unite for a shared goal. From civil rights to environmental protection, many historic achievements came from leaders willing to meet halfway.

Why is this so important today? Our world faces complex challenges. Climate change, healthcare, and social justice demand urgent action. No single party has all the answers. Good-faith compromise fosters innovative solutions by blending the best ideas from all sides. It’s a process rooted in respect and a genuine desire to serve the public good.

Studies show that nations with collaborative governments often enjoy more stable economies and happier citizens. People feel heard when their leaders prioritize unity over division. This boosts trust in institutions and strengthens democracy.

We need to champion politicians who embrace good-faith compromise. Celebrate those who listen more than they speak, who value dialogue over diatribe. They are the true patriots, steering the ship of state through stormy seas to safer shores.

In a world hungry for solutions, let’s recognize the power of unity. By supporting good-faith compromise, we build a future where cooperation trumps conflict, and hope conquers hate. This is the path to progress, the key to a brighter tomorrow.

[head-post]

Foreign policy experts do not seek Ukraine’s accession to NATO

Dozens of foreign policy experts on Wednesday urged NATO members not to move toward Ukraine’s membership at the summit, warning that doing so would endanger the US and allies and lead to a breakup of the coalition.

Western analysts keep Ukraine out of NATO

More than 60 foreign policy experts have signed an open letter calling on NATO not to promise Ukraine an invitation to the alliance ahead of the bloc’s summit to be held in Washington on July 9-11. Its text was obtained by POLITICO.

The authors called any signal about Kyiv’s potential membership in the bloc “unreasonable.” They recalled Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, according to which an attack on one member of the alliance would be considered an attack on all members.

“Some argue that Ukraine’s accession to NATO will deter Russia from invading Ukraine again. This is wishful thinking,” the experts said. They also called talk of Kyiv joining the alliance after the end of hostilities a “motivation” for Moscow to continue them. In the authors’ opinion, “the challenges related to Russia can be solved without Ukraine’s admission to NATO.”

NATO members nervous about French election

NATO members are increasingly worried about risks to the cohesion of the Western military alliance posed by the possible rise to power of the French far-right and that Paris’s influence and commitment to Ukraine could wane in the near future, Euractiv reports.

The RN, which could potentially have a say at the table of the next government or act as a strong blocking minority in the National Assembly after Sunday’s elections, has led leading military allies to question the future of France’s influence in the alliance, several NATO diplomats told Euractiv, citing the RN questioning the purpose of the military alliance and aid to Ukraine.

Unlike smaller countries, France is one of four – along with the US, Germany and the UK – that have a significant influence on NATO’s long-term strategy, one NATO diplomat told Euractiv, referring to the informal grouping known as the Quad.

France’s influence on policy is also far greater than that of smaller countries such as Hungary or Slovakia, which are leading strategies against supporting Ukraine, they added, suggesting it would set a bad example and look in Russia’s direction.

Macron, for example, has rethought France’s approach to relations with Russia and sent more troops to NATO’s eastern flank in Romania to bolster the military alliance’s defence and deterrence.

With Macron’s camp in shreds and half of France’s centrist MPs expected not to return to the National Assembly next Sunday, the shift in priorities in a likely coalition government with the RN raises questions.

Military matters have also historically been the purview of the French president, although this may be questionable under a coalition government.

Still, there is a risk that the RN could be working on a “soft and subtle” exit, Michel Duclos, a military affairs expert and special adviser to liberal think tank Institut Montaigne, told Euractiv. He said:

“Troops France sends to NATO could be of lower ranks. France could also send fewer troops altogether.”

The aforementioned NATO diplomat also noted that the group of diplomats did not rule out a soft exit, characterised by France leaving the alliance’s military command – again.

According to one NATO diplomat, this is all the more urgent with the re-election of US Republican Party candidate Donald Trump looming in the background. In February, Trump said he would “encourage” Russia to attack NATO members who fail to honour their financial commitments.

Asked if they had any concerns about NATO’s commitments to Ukraine, including the €40 billion annual pledge, a US State Department spokesman downplayed recent political developments:

“We don’t have any real concerns. Allies have always faced elections.”

Read more HERE