Donald Trump campaigning in Las Vegas in January. (Photo by David Becker/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear former President Donald Trump’s argument that he should be immune from criminal charges related to the 2020 election.

In a one-page order, the court set an expedited briefing schedule, with oral arguments to be held the week of April 22. Proceedings in the federal trial court will be on hold while the Supreme Court case is ongoing, further delaying the trial originally scheduled to begin March 4.

The Supreme Court will consider only the question of “whether and if so to what extent” a former president is legally shielded from official actions while in office.

Trump and his lawyers had asked the high court to pause pretrial activities in District of Columbia federal court for the case brought by U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith that alleges Trump tried to overturn the results of the presidential election.

Smith, in his brief to the court, had asked justices to turn down the plea for a delay, saying a speedy trial is in the public interest. The claims of absolute presidential immunity and protection under the impeachment clause raised by Trump, now the GOP presidential front-runner, lack the merit needed for the justices to grant a stay, Smith said.

The Republican attorneys general of 22 states filed a brief to the court Feb. 16 endorsing Trump’s request for a delay.

Led by Alabama, the group of GOP states said Smith’s effort to hasten a trial appeared to be politically motivated to damage President Joe Biden’s likely opponent in November’s election.

“Contrary to the prosecution’s haste, the fact that the defendant is a former President is a reason to move carefully—to be sure the prosecution is constitutional from inception,” they wrote. “And the fact that the defendant is potentially a future President is even more reason to ensure the appearance and reality of fairness.”

The states represented in the brief are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Trump’s district court trial has been postponed indefinitely while the presidential immunity arguments play out.

A four-count federal indictment last year after an investigation by Smith accused Trump of conspiring to subvert his 2020 reelection loss to Biden, eventually leading to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

For weeks after the election, he fed his supporters a stream of lies claiming that he won the election but was denied a second term by voter fraud, the indictment said. He worked with attorneys, a U.S. Department of Justice official and a political consultant to organize slates of false presidential electors in seven states Biden won to take the place of Biden electors and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to reject the legitimate electors, according to the indictment.

Late last year, Trump asked to dismiss the charges, saying he could not be prosecuted for any actions he took as president. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan denied that claim, a ruling Trump appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

A three-judge appeals panel appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents unanimously denied Trump’s request in a Feb. 6 opinion that found the former president’s arguments “unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution.”

Trump then asked the Supreme Court to pause all proceedings in district court while he petitioned the appeals court to escalate his case to the full circuit and potentially the Supreme Court.

“Today, despite a total absence of legal precedent and universal rejection by lower courts, the Supreme Court decided to give a hearing to Trump’s claims of absolute presidential immunity. By agreeing to hear the case at all, they are delaying a trial over the January 6 election interference case,” said Norm Eisen, who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment and trial. “But let’s be clear: there is still time to have a trial, and Department of Justice policy does not prohibit the scheduling of one during an election. The Supreme Court must decide as quickly as humanly possible after oral argument, so that Trump can at last be judged by a jury of Americans.”

The post U.S. Supreme Court to decide if Trump is immune from prosecution for acts as president appeared first on Nevada Current.

The lawsuit is expected to ultimately wind up at the Supreme Court. (Adobe Stock)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

An appeals court in New Orleans late Wednesday partly blocked a judge’s order that would have overturned federal approval of the abortion pill — which means the pill remains available across the nation for now.

But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals also let part of the Texas judge’s order stand. The effect of the appeals court decision appears to be that while the case is on appeal, the abortion medication mifepristone is approved for use in pregnancies up to seven weeks, not 10 weeks, and it can’t be dispensed through the mail.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, in the Northern District of Texas, had ruled Friday, April 7, to overturn the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2000 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.

Kacsmaryk put a seven-day delay in his ruling and the U.S. Justice Department filed an appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and asked the court to put the Texas ruling on hold. The manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, also appealed.

In the 42-page ruling in the 5th Circuit, a panel of three judges wrote, “At this preliminary stage, and based on our necessarily abbreviated review, it appears that the statute of limitations bars plaintiffs’ challenges to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone in 2000.” They granted a stay, or pause, of that part of the Texas decision.

But they said the arguments of anti-abortion groups are more likely to succeed in connection with the actions taken by the FDA in 2016 and later to make the abortion pill more widely available.

The 2016 changes by the FDA increased maximum gestational age to 70 days when the pill could be used; reduced required in-person office visits to one; allowed non-doctors to prescribe and administer mifepristone; and eliminated reporting of non-fatal adverse events, according to the appeals court ruling.

In 2021, the FDA announced “enforcement discretion” to allow mifepristone to be dispensed through the mail during the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this year the FDA permanently removed the in-person dispensing requirement, the court said.

The lawsuit, brought by the anti-abortion Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and others against the FDA, will continue through the appeals process and is expected to wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The three-judge appeals court panel in New Orleans that issued Wednesday night’s order was made up of Judge Catharina Haynes, appointed by former President George W. Bush; Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt, appointed by former President Donald Trump; and Judge Andrew W. Oldham, also appointed by Trump.

It was not immediately clear how the 5th Circuit ruling would affect — or not affect — a separate ruling from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Judge Thomas Rice.

Rice on Friday, just minutes after the Texas order, barred the FDA from changing “the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone” in the 17 states and District of Columbia that filed a lawsuit about the pharmaceutical in his court.

The U.S. Justice Department has asked Rice to clarify his ruling, saying it “appears to be in significant tension” with the Texas opinion.

The post Appeals court rules that abortion pill can stay on the market, but limits access appeared first on Nevada Current.

"We must ensure that voters of color have a choice in choosing our nominee much earlier in the process and throughout the entire early window,” Biden wrote the DNC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) 

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden is recommending to the Democratic National Committee that South Carolina become the first primary state in the presidential nominating process in 2024, and that New Hampshire and Nevada follow a week later — leaving Iowa out of the early lineup, the Washington Post reported on Thursday night.

Georgia and Michigan would follow next, with Michigan becoming the dominant player in the Midwest under the new calendar that Biden has requested be put in place, the Post said.

The DNC late Thursday released a letter from the president that he has sent to members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to begin a two-day meeting on Friday morning to review its 2024 primary and caucus calendar.

In the letter, Biden does not specify the order in which states should participate in the nominating process. But he does emphasize a much larger early role for states with diverse populations, a quality that the committee has also said would influence its selection.

South Carolina in the leadoff role would represent a huge shakeup from the past, when Iowa has attracted months of publicity and candidate spending for its first-in-the-nation caucuses.

New Hampshire traditionally has held the first primary a week later. Both states have overwhelmingly white populations.

“We must ensure that voters of color have a choice in choosing our nominee much earlier in the process and throughout the entire early window,” Biden wrote the DNC.

“As I said in February 2020, you cannot be the Democratic nominee and win a general election unless you have overwhelming support from voters of color — and that includes Black, Brown and Asian American & Pacific Islander voters.”

He added: “For decades, Black voters in particular have been the backbone of the Democratic Party but have been pushed to the back of the early primary process. We rely on these voters in elections but have not recognized their importance in our nominating calendar. It is time to stop taking these voters for granted, and time to give them a louder and earlier voice in the process. ”

In a clear swipe at Iowa, Biden also said in the letter that “our party should no longer allow caucuses to be part of our nominating process” because caucuses, with their long hours and public scrutiny of candidate choices, “are inherently anti-participatory.”

While Democratic leaders have long criticized the caucuses for not being accessible, criticisms grew following the 2020 Iowa caucuses where technical delays caused delays in reporting. While the results in Iowa and New Hampshire often reflect the future winner of the presidential nominating process, Biden did not win a nomination contest in the 2020 cycle until South Carolina.

Biden added, “I got into politics because of civil rights and the possibility to change our imperfect union into something better. For fifty years, the first month of our presidential nominating process has been a treasured part of our democratic process, but it is time to update the process for the 21st century.”

He also said the Rules and Bylaws Committee should review the calendar every four years.

Nevada Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, in a joint statement to the New York Times, raised “serious concerns” about South Carolina going first, saying the first primary “should be held in a competitive, pro-labor state that supports voting access and reflects all of America’s diversity.”

New Hampshire Democrats pushed back strongly Thursday night against the notion their place in the lineup would change, pointing out state law mandates their primary is first in the nation.

“The DNC did not give New Hampshire the first-in-the-nation primary and it is not theirs to take away,” said New Hampshire Democratic Chair Ray Buckley. “This news is obviously disappointing, but we will be holding our primary first. We have survived past attempts over the decades and we will survive this. Our first-in-the-nation primary has been an integral part of our state’s history for over 100 years, and is enshrined in state law.”

In Michigan, state Democratic Party Chair Lavora Barnes and U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., said:  “We have always said that any road to the White House goes through the heartland and President Biden understands that.”

The sequence shocked many Democrats who have been working on revamping the primary calendar, the Post reported, noting there had been little discussion of moving South Carolina up and almost no discussion of adding Georgia as an early state.

The new 2024 plan would have to be approved by the Rules and Bylaws Committee as well as the full DNC.

The panel decided earlier this year to strip Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina of their traditional leading positions and require them to compete with other states for the coveted spots. ​​

The committee heard presentations in June from 16 states and Puerto Rico about why they should hold early contests, which could set the course for the nominating cycle. The DNC has said it would evaluate states based on their diversity, competitiveness, and feasibility.

Robin Opsahl contributed to this report.

The post Biden says South Carolina should go first, then Nevada and New Hampshire share second appeared first on Nevada Current.

“We will finally empower Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drug costs,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. "After years of trying." (Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — A major spending bill from U.S. Senate Democrats would allow Medicare for the first time in its history to begin negotiating the prices of certain high-priced prescription drugs — a proposal that’s been around for years but has never come so close to the finish line.

Under the legislation, Medicare would start negotiating the prices of some drugs in Part D, the program’s prescription drug plan, beginning four years from now.

What’s more, seniors’ out-of-pocket drug costs would be capped at $2,000 a year, beginning in 2025, which would help with paying for expensive drugs like those used to treat cancer. And beneficiaries would get all their covered vaccines for free, including those for shingles.

“We will finally empower Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drug costs,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said on Saturday. “After years of trying, we will finally cap out-of-pocket expenses and make vaccines free for our seniors. After years of trying.”

Drug inflation

One disappointment for Democrats, though, came on Saturday when the chamber’s parliamentarian ruled against a section of the measure aimed at drug inflation — it would have forced drugmakers to pay rebates if the prices of prescription drugs in private insurance plans rose faster than inflation.

The inflation curb still would apply to drugs in Medicare, and that’s significant. A Kaiser Family Foundation study said that price increases ran ahead of inflation for half of all Medicare-covered drugs in 2020.

The Medicare prescription drug reforms are included in a piece of budget legislation known as reconciliation, whose main attractive feature for Democrats is that the final product can’t be filibustered by Republicans under U.S. Senate rules.

Initially, the prescription drug provisions overall were scored by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office as reducing the deficit by $288 billion over 10 years, though a new score reflecting last-minute changes to the bill was expected.

The Senate voted on a series of amendments to the bill in what is called vote-a-rama overnight Saturday into Sunday, with a final vote appearing possible Sunday. Schumer has said he believes the legislation will be backed by all 50 Democrats, following a deal on taxes struck with Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, and it is scheduled to be taken up by the House on Friday.

Medicare is the federal health insurance program for Americans 65 and older, as well as some younger people with disabilities. About 64 million people were enrolled in Medicare as of the most recent coverage year, and close to 49 million in a prescription drug plan of some kind.

Public support

While pharmaceutical companies have argued against Medicare price negotiation, saying it would harm research and development of new drugs and innovation, polling has found strong public support.

The non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation conducts regular tracking polls on health issues and found in October that 83 percent of those surveyed backed negotiation, even after they were told about the arguments on both sides.

The same poll found that 27 percent of those over 65 taking four or more medications said they had problems affording their medications.

Here’s what the Democrats’ proposal would do for Medicare prescription drug costs, based on an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Senate Democrats’ summary and the legislative text:

• Beginning in 2026, the prices of 10 high-priced prescription drugs in Medicare Part D would be directly negotiated by the federal government. The number of negotiated drugs would climb to 15 in 2027. Then in 2028 it would cover 15 drugs in both Part D and Part B  — typically those drugs in Part B are given by doctors or in hospital outpatient treatment. In 2029 and later, it would include 20 Part D and Part B drugs.
• Drugs that would qualify would include those that don’t have generic or what is called biosimilar equivalents — copies of more complex drugs. Depending on their type, it would have to be nine or more years since their approval by the Food and Drug Administration, which means newer drugs would not be included.
• Pharmaceutical companies that don’t comply with negotiation would face steep excise taxes and potential civil financial penalties.
• Any secretary of Health and Human Services would have to negotiate for the maximum number of drugs allowed in a given year, which Democrats say would keep a future Republican presidential administration from balking at negotiation.
• Drug manufacturers would have to pay rebates to the Medicare trust fund under some circumstances, beginning in 2023. They would have to pay if their drug prices increase faster than the rate of inflation, except for drugs with an average annual cost under $100. Penalties would be levied on those who don’t pay out the rebates. The inflation curb would apply only to Medicare and not private drug plans.
• Out-of-pocket spending on drugs would be capped at $2,000 a year, beginning in 2025, and seniors could spread out their drug costs throughout the year. In 2024, a 5% coinsurance requirement above the Medicare Part D “catastrophic” threshold, which was $7,050 in out-of-pocket spending in 2022, would be eliminated.
• A Low Income Subsidy Program that gives extra help with paying Medicare costs to very poor Medicare recipients would be expanded, beginning in 2024. Seniors qualify now for full benefits in the program if they have incomes of up to 135 percent of the federal poverty level, and resources of about $9,900 for an individual and $15,600 for a couple. The Senate plan would extend full benefits to people up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level and resources up to $15,510 for an individual and $30,950 for a couple.
• There would be no charge for vaccines covered under the Part D program, beginning in 2023. This would include vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
• Growth in Part D premiums would be capped at 6 percent annually from 2024 to 2029.
• A Trump administration drug rebate rule that was supposed to go into effect in 2027 would be repealed.

The post How Medicare prescription drug coverage would change under U.S. Senate Democrats’ bill appeared first on Nevada Current.

Joe Biden speaking from the White House in December. (C-SPAN screenshot)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden on Tuesday urged that COVID-19 vaccine doubters stop “peddling lies” on TV and online, as the nation grapples with a rising number of cases due to the highly transmissible omicron variant.

Biden also announced new federal help for testing and treatment in the states, including 500 million at-home rapid test kits that will be distributed for free by the federal government beginning in January.

“Look, the unvaccinated are responsible for their own choices,” the president said in an afternoon address from the White House. “But those choices have been fueled by dangerous misinformation on cable TV and social media.

“You know, these companies and personalities are making money by peddling lies and allowing misinformation that can kill their own customers and their own supporters,” he said. “It’s wrong. It’s immoral. I call on the purveyors of these lies and misinformation to stop it. Stop it now.”

Biden stressed that Americans must get their vaccinations and booster shots as the best protection against contracting COVID-19. “Those who are not vaccinated are causing hospitals to be overrun again,” he said. “Omicron is serious, potentially deadly business for unvaccinated people.”

The new surge is causing many Americans to wonder if they can safely celebrate the holidays with family and friends, he acknowledged. “The answer’s yes, you can, if you and those who celebrate with you are vaccinated, particularly if you’ve gotten your booster shot,” he said.

He said more than 60 million Americans, including 62 percent of eligible seniors, have received boosters — including former President Donald Trump. “Maybe one of the few things he and I agree on,” said Biden.

The new surge “absolutely” will not resemble the initial wave of COVID-19 that hit the U.S. in March 2020, Biden insisted. More than 200 million Americans now are fully vaccinated, and the nation is more prepared, he said.

The White House announced multiple steps that the U.S. will take this winter as omicron emerges as the dominant variant, responsible for more than 73 percent of new COVID-19 cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It’s been difficult in many regions to obtain appointments or kits for COVID-19 tests, and administration officials said that Americans soon will be able to order free at-home kits from a website to be set up by the federal government.

The kits, which officials said will be delivered by mail, will be in addition to 50 million test kits already bought by the federal government for free distribution at community health and rural health centers, officials said.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said details are still being worked out, such as the number of kits each individual can order and whether certain groups will be prioritized.

“Five hundred million tests in January is the largest order we’ve ever made to date, and we’re going to do it as quickly as we can,” she said.

Psaki earlier this year had rejected a suggestion by a reporter that tests be sent to every home free of charge, questioning the cost. At retail, the kits generally cost at least $25 for a pack of two tests and often more.

She said with Tuesday’s move, “We are providing an opportunity, another opportunity or ability for people to…go on a website and request a test if their preference is to get their test to their home. Not everybody will want to do that.”

New federal free testing sites will be set up, the first in hard-hit New York City, in addition to thousands of sites that already are up and running, Psaki said. She said states are coordinating with the federal government as to where new sites should be located.

Biden said he will also direct the secretary of defense to mobilize an additional 1,000 troops such as medical doctors and nurses to work at hospitals through January and February as needed.

Six emergency response teams made up of federal clinical staff and paramedics will deploy to Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona, New Hampshire and Vermont, the White House said.

To assist hospitals with the expected surge in cases, Biden directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to mobilize planning teams to work with every state to assess hospital needs and begin expanding bed capacity, “with the federal government paying for all of it,” according to a White House fact sheet. Millions of gowns, gloves, hospital gowns, masks and ventilators are stockpiled, too, Biden said.

FEMA also is ready to send out ambulances and emergency teams to transfer patients from overburdened medical facilities, the administration said. “Just this week, 30 paramedics are heading to New Hampshire, 30 to Vermont, and 20 to Arizona, and 30 ambulances are headed to New York and 8 to Maine,” according to the fact sheet.

On the vaccination front, the White House said that FEMA will establish new pop-up vaccination clinics across the country, including four new mobile units across New Mexico expected to open Thursday. More sites are expected in the coming weeks.

Biden in his remarks sought to calm anxiety provoked by the new round of business, school, college and entertainment closures.

“I know you’re tired…and I know you’re frustrated,” Biden said. “We all want this to be over. But we’re still in it. This is a critical moment. But we also have more tools than we’ve ever had before. We’re ready. We’ll get through this.”

The post Biden slams COVID-19 vaccine ‘lies,’ announces free at-home tests appeared first on Nevada Current.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters Monday that the administration is “obviously going to abide by the law and fight any efforts in courts or otherwise” to prevent health care facilities from protecting their work forces. (Photo by Steven Cornfield on Unsplash)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON–A federal judge in Louisiana on Tuesday issued a ruling blocking nationwide the Biden administration mandate requiring millions of health care workers be vaccinated against COVID-19.

A suit challenging the mandate was led on behalf of multiple states by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, and U.S. Judge Terry Doughty granted the states’ request for a preliminary injunction.

Doughty said in his opinion that he extended the injunction beyond those states and to the entire U.S. because “there are unvaccinated healthcare workers in other states who also need protection.”

States joining Louisiana in its suit, filed Nov. 15, included Montana, Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia.

Doughty, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, said that “this Court believes the balance of equities and the public interest favors the issuance of a preliminary injunction.”

“The public interest is served by maintaining the constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals who do not want to take the COVID-19 vaccine,” he wrote. “This interest outweighs Government Defendants’ interests. “

At issue is President Joe Biden’s campaign to ensure that workers throughout the country are vaccinated against COVID-19.

Under Biden’s order, many private-sector employees were required to get vaccinated or undergo weekly tests, while some 17 million health care providers at facilities participating in the federal Medicare and Medicaid health insurance programs must be vaccinated — with no option to choose weekly testing instead.

Under the requirement, health care workers were to be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4, 2022.

Becker’s Hospital Review reported earlier this month that a federal study found 30 percent of health care workers in 2,000 hospitals across the U.S. remained  unvaccinated as of Sept. 15.

“I applaud Judge Doughty for recognizing that Louisiana is likely to succeed on the merits and for delivering yet another victory for the medical freedom of Americans,” Landry said in a statement. “While Joe Biden villainizes our healthcare heroes with his ‘jab or job’ edicts, I will continue to stand up to the President’s bully tactics and fight for liberty.”

The Louisiana ruling followed another on Monday by a federal judge in Missouri that blocked enforcement of the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for millions  in 10 states.

That ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp, another Trump appointee, affected the states involved in that lawsuit: Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Arkansas, Wyoming and Alaska.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters Monday that the administration is “obviously going to abide by the law and fight any efforts in courts or otherwise” to prevent health care facilities from protecting their work forces.

The post Vaccine mandate for health care workers halted nationwide by Louisiana judge appeared first on Nevada Current.

The utility submitted the proposal after the Nevada Legislature required NV Energy to develop and submit an electric infrastructure plan. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Senate last week passed a massive bipartisan infrastructure bill and an even larger budget blueprint that would pave the way for historic changes in U.S. health, education, climate and tax policies.

The two measures are roped to each other, reflecting Democrats’ strategy to pass what could be bipartisan with Republicans—and to go it alone on the rest.

The Senate votes represented important steps for that approach—and the Biden administration’s priorities. But getting the packages to President Joe Biden’s desk will still require delicately balancing competing factions among congressional Democrats, who hold slim majorities in both chambers and are unlikely to get further GOP help.

Plus, the strategy is complicated.

Below are questions and answers about what happened over the last several days, what the bills would do if they become law, and what we know about what will happen next.

What does the Senate infrastructure bill do?

The Senate passed a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill to upgrade the nation’s roads, bridges, transit, passenger rail, electric grid, water systems, broadband and more.

It includes record spending for items that have been underfunded for years, but doesn’t dramatically alter a transportation system that’s a major contributor to climate change.

Nineteen Republicans voted for it—including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

What else did the Senate do before it left for recess?

The Senate approved a budget resolution for fiscal 2022, the federal budget year that begins on Oct. 1. That document serves as a blueprint for how much revenue the federal government expects to take in and how much it expects to spend.

It also opens the door to an ambitious $3.5 trillion package of health, education, climate and social services items much desired by progressives and President Joe Biden, and on a scale not seen since the New Deal.

The budget resolution is not a law—it is not signed by Biden—and instead guides Congress in a spending plan. It was adopted by the Senate, which is split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans, on a 50-49 party-line vote.

What happens next with the budget?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland says the House will return from its recess on Aug. 23 and pass the resolution.

What else does the budget resolution include?

The resolution that the Senate adopted includes instructions for what is known as reconciliation. That is a process that operates separately, in a second stage and will be used to pass the social programs Biden wants.

It’s not employed every year but it is useful when Congress wants to move relatively quickly on budget matters. Congress used reconciliation earlier this year to enact the American Rescue Plan.

Those reconciliation instructions make recommendations to 11 Senate committees on legislation that would change laws in their jurisdictions dealing with spending, revenue, deficits or the debt limit.

Why is reconciliation politically important for Democrats?

In the Senate, a reconciliation bill is not subject to the 60-vote filibuster, and that means it requires only a majority vote to pass. Routine legislation usually needs 60 votes to advance.

Why is reconciliation even more important right now?

It’s pretty much the only way Democrats can pass into law the sweeping package Biden has proposed.

The specifics in that $3.5 trillion package will be spelled out by the 12 committees in detail when they write up their reconciliation legislation.

What are some policies likely to be included?

Universal pre-K for 3-and-4-year olds; paid family and medical leave; drought, forestry and conservation programs to help prevent wildfires; expanding Medicare to include dental, vision and hearing benefits; extending the child tax credit; tuition-free community college; tax cuts for Americans making less than $400,000 a year; reductions in prescription drug costs; and much more.

“Every part of Biden’s proposal will be there in a big, robust way. We’re going to all come together to meet that goal,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says.

When will the Senate committees start that work?

Schumer says committee chairs will meet weekly with their members through the rest of the month and into September. There is a Sept. 15 deadline, though it’s not ironclad.

But what happens now with the bipartisan infrastructure bill?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she won’t take up the roads-and-bridges infrastructure bill until the Senate also passes the reconciliation, or “human infrastructure” bill, which now won’t happen until September at the earliest. This has become known as the “two track” approach.

What happens with the reconciliation bill in the meantime?

The Senate Budget Committee, if it follows usual procedures, would wrap together all the policies adopted by the 12 committees into one giant omnibus bill that will be considered by the full Senate. There are limits on debate time and the kinds of amendments senators can try to attach to change it.

Why are there two tracks? 

Moderate Democrats in the Senate were adamant that they could work with Republicans on physical infrastructure, long a priority for both parties.

Additionally, Senate rules limit what can be included in a reconciliation bill, requiring some provisions to go through the normal legislative process.

The bipartisan nature of the infrastructure bill resulted in a product that some progressives found inadequate because it left out the “human infrastructure” pieces. The second track, the Democrats-only reconciliation bill, provides a path to their more ambitious goals.

Will all Senate Democrats support the reconciliation bill?

All 50 Senate Democrats voted for the budget resolution that would unlock the reconciliation process, a good sign for Schumer, who predicted all his members would be on board for the final bill.

Keeping them all satisfied will be a challenge, though. Senate Democrats across the political spectrum disagree about the level of spending.

West Virginia’s Joe Manchin said Wednesday he had “serious concerns” about the $3.5 trillion figure, which is down from Vermont independent Bernie Sanders’ initial $6 trillion plan.

“There are some in my caucus who may believe it’s too much,” Schumer said. “There are some in my caucus who believe it’s too little. …We are going to all come together to get something done.”

Could there be last-minute changes in the Senate?

The reconciliation bill will be subject to a grueling Senate procedure known as “vote-a-rama,” a series of back-to-back votes on amendments proposed by senators, often by members of the minority party trying to score points. This can go on for hours and the votes can be very rapid.

What does the House do with reconciliation?

Like the Senate, the committees in the House will be assigned to make decisions about the policies affecting spending or revenue that should be in the reconciliation bill.

What do House Democrats think about the reconciliation plan?

As in the Senate, members on the moderate end of the House Democratic caucus have voiced concerns about the $3.5 trillion price tag for the partisan reconciliation bill. Nine members in a letter asked Pelosi to take up the bipartisan infrastructure bill first. They underlined their point with a second letter that said they “will not consider” voting for the budget resolution until the bipartisan infrastructure bill is signed into law, the New York Times reported.

That’s unacceptable to about 50 or more House progressives, who are withholding support for the infrastructure bill until the larger spending plan is approved.

What about the debt limit?

Congress must raise or suspend the debt limit, the total amount the federal government is permitted to borrow, before spending reaches that limit or the government will be unable to pay for what it has already committed to.

Democrats are not including debt limit changes in the reconciliation process, even though 47 Senate Republicans have pledged not to support any changes to the debt limit. One of those things will have to change for the U.S. to avoid default.

The post How Congress will attempt the biggest expansion of social programs since FDR appeared first on Nevada Current.

"They are incredibly, incredibly brave at what they do…. And I just realized—I didn’t realize this, I admit—that federal firefighters get paid 13 dollars an hour,” Biden said. (The Cajon Pass between Las Vegas and Los Angeles during the Blue Cut Fire in August 2016. Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON—President Joe Biden said Tuesday that he will host a meeting next week of Western governors, Cabinet members and Federal Emergency Management Agency officials “to prepare for heat, drought and wildfires in the West.”

“There’s an old expression: God made man. Then he made a few firefighters. They have a higher incidence of severe injuries than police officers do. They are incredibly, incredibly brave at what they do…. And I just realized—I didn’t realize this, I admit—that federal firefighters get paid 13 dollars an hour,” Biden said. 

“That’s gonna end in my administration,” he said, banging the table for emphasis, according to a pool report.  “That’s a ridiculously low salary to pay federal firefighters.”

According to a U.S. Forest Service fact sheet about becoming a federal wildland firefighter, salaries vary but range from about $26,150 at an entry level to $49,765 annually. 

Biden made the remarks even as fires already are erupting across the parched West. In Colorado, a plume of smoke from the Sylvan Fire, first reported Sunday, was visible across much of the surrounding region on Tuesday, Colorado Newsline reported.

In Arizona, Gov. Doug Ducey has signed off on $100 million in emergency funding after wildfires ravaged rural Arizona this month, the Arizona Mirror said.

In Montana, the Robertson Draw Fire and other blazes already are kicking off what could be a devastating fire season, the Daily Montanan reported.

“The last few days we’ve seen droughts and wildfire in the West,” Biden said, according to the pool report. “We’ve seen tornadoes in Illinois, flooding in the South and Mid-Atlantic. Extreme weather doesn’t confine itself, as you all know, to state lines. These crises require pro-active federal response. It’s just not just the states.”

Biden at the event was flanked by FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell and Homeland Security Adviser and Deputy National Security Adviser Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, the pool report said.

“We’re going to bring every resource to bear to be prepared, to respond and to help people recover,” Biden said. “It’s a big challenge, and we’re making sure FEMA and other front-line agencies have what they need to continue getting the job done. And I insist on being ready for whatever comes our way. That’s what this is all about.”

He added: “The drought in the West is just astounding…Fires have already started. Flooding. So, we’re in for a tough season but I think we’ve got to be prepared, [have] every resource available.”

The post Biden to meet with Western governors about wildfires, vows to raise firefighter pay appeared first on Nevada Current.

iStock / Getty Images Plus

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden on Thursday signed into law legislation declaring a legal public holiday annually on June 19, the date of the end of slavery in the U.S. known as Juneteenth.

“Throughout history, Juneteenth has been known by many names—Jubilee Day, Freedom Day, Liberation Day,” Vice President Kamala Harris said at the White House signing ceremony. “And today, a national holiday.”

She noted that the White House was built by enslaved people, and the ceremony was taking place footsteps away from where President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

“Today is a day of celebration. It is not only a day of pride. It’s also a day for us to reaffirm and rededicate ourselves to action,” Harris said.

Formally called the “Juneteenth National Independence Day Act,” the bipartisan legislation sped through the U.S. Senate earlier this week without objection and passed the House on a 415-14 vote on Wednesday night. It means Juneteenth will be recognized as a federal holiday, like Memorial Day or July Fourth. Many states already designate it as a holiday as well.

All 14 House votes in opposition were from Republicans and included Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar of Arizona; Andrew Clyde of Georgia; Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee; Matt Rosendale of Montana; and Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin. Rep. Mark Amodei, the lone Republican in Nevada’s congressional delegation, voted for the bill, as did Democratic Reps. Dina Titus, Steven Horsford and Susie Lee.

The Office of Personnel Management said the holiday would be observed beginning this year, and so federal offices will be closed on Friday since June 19 falls on a Saturday.

Also called Emancipation Day, the holiday commemorates the day in 1865 that Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, and ensured that enslaved people there would be freed. Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, but the news took years to reach Texas and many other places.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, pushed the legislation for years in the House and gained more than 170 cosponsors.

“It has been a long journey,” she said on the House floor. “It has not been an easy journey. When we stand here today, we should be reminded of the fact that there were people who continued to experience the whips of a whip for two more years, even as Abraham Lincoln stood in the shining sun in the aftermath of Gettysburg to unite the Union and proclaim the slaves free in 1863.”

Horsford, who attended the signing as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, in a statement called the establishment of Juneteenth as a federal holiday an “important move to honor the history of Black Americans and recognize our ongoing struggle for freedom.”

His statement continued: “At a time when some would hide the ugly chapters of American history, today’s bill signing shows the power of truth. As we celebrate Juneteenth, I call on my fellow members of Congress to join me and take the next step — making real change for Black Americans.”

Some House Republicans raised questions about the holiday’s cost and the name of the bill.

Republican Rep. James Comer of Kentucky said that while he would back the measure, the House panel that oversees federal holidays did not have a chance to review it and there was no Congressional Budget Office estimate of the cost.

He said that a 2014 analysis by the Office of Management and Budget found it cost federal taxpayers $660 million in payroll and holiday premium costs when federal employees were given an extra holiday on the day after Christmas that year by executive order.

Rep. Danny K. Davis, an Illinois Democrat, responded that “whatever the cost, it will not come close to the cost of slavery.”

Other Republicans objected to using the term “Independence Day” in connection with Juneteenth, saying it would cause confusion with July Fourth. They suggested instead calling it Emancipation Day or Freedom Day.

“We support the holiday. But why would the Democrats want to politicize this by co-opting the name of our sacred holiday of Independence Day?” said Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana.

“Why would it not be named the Juneteenth National Emancipation Day? Why would we want to inject conflict about this? I don’t understand this body and the way it moves forward contrary to the best interests of the American people.”

At the signing ceremony, Biden noted Juneteenth would be the first new national holiday since Martin Luther King Day was enacted nearly 40 years ago, and that signing the bill was “one of the greatest honors I’ve had as president.”

Lawmakers gathered around Biden as he signed the bill included Democratic Sens. Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Tina Smith of Minnesota, and Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Also present was Opal Lee, a 94-year-old activist from Texas who has campaigned for the holiday’s recognition for years. Harris put her arm around Lee as Biden signed the bill.

Biden pointed out that Thursday was the sixth anniversary of the slaying of nine parishioners at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C., all African Americans, by a 21-year-old man who called himself a white supremacist.

Biden said the anniversary is “a reminder that our work to root out hate never ends.”

April Corbin Girnus contributed to this report.

The post Biden signs law making Juneteenth a new federal holiday appeared first on Nevada Current.

The United States on Jan. 6, 2021. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON–The U.S. House voted Wednesday 252-175 to give the go-ahead to the formation of an independent, bipartisan commission that would investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, despite objections from Republican leaders that the scope of the commission was not wide enough and other investigations are ongoing.

Thirty-five Republicans joined with Democrats in backing the measure, which would set up a 10-member commission styled on the panel that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, with appointed members split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei voted against it, saying he has “grown incredibly weary of Congress’s addiction to ‘special’ this and ‘special’ that.”

The bill now goes to the Senate, where its future fell into doubt after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced his opposition earlier Wednesday, saying the commission is not needed, and the proposal is “slanted and unbalanced.”

Democrats in a Senate divided 50-50 would need the votes of 10 Republicans to move ahead with debate and a final vote.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer slammed GOP objections as a “shameful” concession to former President Donald Trump, who has urged Republicans to resist the “Democrat trap” of an investigatory commission.

“Once again, they are caving to Donald Trump and proving that the Republican Party is still drunk off the Big Lie,” Schumer (D-New York) said.

The House GOP resistance to the commission came even though Rep. John Katko, a New York Republican, had been given the go-ahead by his leaders to work with Democrats on the bill, following months of disagreement over the party makeup of the commission and more.

Five people died in the Jan. 6 assault, including one U.S. Capitol Police officer.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, said that the commission will be used to attack the GOP. “You see, what’s going to happen with the January 6 commission is the media is going to use this to smear Trump supporters and President Trump for the next few years,” she said.

Rep. Dan Bishop, a North Carolina Republican, said he felt compelled to defend Republican leaders from “one more partisan attack” by Democrats. “If we are concerned about the danger the police officers were in on January 6, and certainly they were, then why don’t we have concern about the violence, the injuries, the deaths that have been faced by police officers across the country?” he asked.

Democrats said the commission is needed to explore how and why the insurrection occurred.

“Let’s be clear—democracy itself was violently attacked on January 6,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat. “We don’t tell the truth about what happened on January 6, it will happen again.”

Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who wrote the bill with Katko, said on Jan. 6, the world watched Americans storm the U.S. Capitol and try to interrupt the certification of the election of President Joe Biden.

“Given how politically charged the events of January 6 have become, we need to come together in a patriotic, bipartisan way and approve this independent body, just as we did when we approved the creation of the 9/11 Commission,” he said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, said law enforcement officials on Jan. 6 were punched, kicked, spat upon, speared by Confederate battle flags, and had their eyes gouged by the rioters. “We must honor those brave men and women who fought for hours against medieval-style waves of violence raining down on them,” said Raskin.

But McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said that at least 445 people already have been arrested in connection with the assault and investigations are ongoing with at least another hundred people expected to be charged. He said that bipartisan investigations also are underway in Senate committees.

“It’s not at all clear what new facts or additional investigation yet another commission could lay on top of the existing efforts by law enforcement and Congress,” he said. “The facts have come out and will continue to come out.”

Schumer, however, vowed there will be Senate votes on the bill.

“What the House Republicans are doing is beyond crazy, to be so far under the thumb of Donald J. Trump,” Schumer said. “Letting the most dishonest president in American history dictate the prerogatives of the Republican Party will be its demise, mark my words. Whatever that means for Democrats, it is bad for America.”

At least one Senate Republican, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, told reporters Wednesday that he is “inclined to support” the commission proposal, according to a Capitol Hill pool feed. Asked if he agrees with McConnell that the commission’s setup is unbalanced politically, Cassidy replied: “At this point, I do not.”

Sen. Susan Collins, (R-Maine), told reporters that she supports the concept of a commission to review what happened on Jan. 6, but has concerns about parts of the House bill, including provisions on how staffers would be picked.

“I also think it’s important that this be independent and nonpartisan, and that means that we should make sure that the work is done this year and does not go over into the election year,” Collins said.

Like McConnell, House Republican leaders recommended a vote against the commission.

A memo from GOP Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana said that the legislation is intended “only to investigate” the Jan. 6 attack and not “political violence leading up to and following the attack on the 6th,” including the June 2017 shooting at a GOP congressional baseball team practice that left Scalise severely injured and near death.

The lone shooter in that case, James Hodgkinson, died of his injuries shortly after the attack. Republicans, pointing to his social media posts advocating for Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, and liberal causes, long have contended Hodgkinson was politically motivated to harm Republicans.

The GOP leadership memo also cited other ongoing investigations and said that a Jan. 6 commission could undermine prosecutions.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had asked for an even split of members by party on the commission and equal subpoena power, and the measure included that, Democrats said.

Under the bill, H.R. 3233, a commission would be appointed made up of 10 members, five appointed by congressional leaders in each party. The members would not be members of Congress or anyone employed by Congress but rather experts in law enforcement, the military, civil rights, technology and more.

Subpoenas would be issued only through an agreement by the Democratic chair and Republican vice chair.

The Biden administration said in a Statement of Administration Policy that it backed the measure. “The attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on our democracy, an effort to undo the will of the American people and threaten the peaceful transition of power,” the statement said.

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said “it is long past time” to launch an investigation. “We need a commission with the power and the authority to collect evidence and make recommendations across multiple agencies, committees and branches of government impacted by the attack,” she said.

Former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean and former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, the chairman and vice chairman of a commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, urged that the Jan. 6 commission be approved.

“Today, democracy faces a new threat,” Kean and Hamilton said in a statement. “The January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was one of the darkest days in the history of our country.  Americans deserve an objective and an accurate account of what happened.  As we did in the wake of September 11,  it’s time to set aside partisan politics and come together as Americans in common pursuit of truth and justice.”

The post House OKs commission to probe Jan. 6 attack, but McConnell objections may doom it appeared first on Nevada Current.