In this column are comments from debate audience members who lean in favor of the resolution, in support of (affirmatives) making HR 1 law. …

There are few legitimate problems with illegal or fake votes that have been discovered but many known problems that make it hard to vote for many citizens. That being the case,  allowing your state to perpetuate rules that continue to make it difficult is working against your own interests. Unless of course you fear you are going to be outvoted by those who disagree with you. Look into your own heart - do you really want to act on fear? Or do you want to provide for a society that can resolve issues with healthy, informed debate followed by voting? --Barbara Watts

I agreed with the speaker who pointed out that the current bill at 800 pages is unlikely to pass the Senate.  Suggest paring it down to essential elements that need fixing, e.g., independent commissions to review redistricting to avoid gerrymandering, and automatic voter registration.  --Ginny Haver

Participating in American elections by voting should be the final step in a longer deliberation, come out of a totally different medium of exchange between citizens. At present voting cements in place the Us-Against-Them of party politics. It short-circuits not only rational thought but any sense that we are one country. Despite loud claims of what "the American People" want, there is no such thing. We are riven by more than factionalism. We take each other as positions, as representatives of some generalization about truth or morality or justice. To recapture American exceptionalism, we need infrastructure for generating another universe to live in: We-For-Each-Other. --Henry McHenry Jr.

[Note: Comments are edited for length and clarity. Braver Angels and The Hustings standards of civil discourse apply.]

_____
To comment on the Braver Angels debate resolution, or to any of the comments on this page, please email editors@thehustings.news

By Todd Lassa

In the end, affirmatives and negatives in last Tuesday’s Braver Angels National Coliseum Debate, “Resolved: Pass HR 1” agreed that the For the People Act is flawed, over-written at 800 pages and has no chance of passing a U.S. Senate blocked by a Republican filibuster advantage that Democrats cannot overcome. [The House passed HR 1 mostly along party lines last March.] They also agreed that Florida, almost counter-intuitively, has a good system, allowing for deep early and mail-in voting, a reversal of its “hanging chad” image from the 2000 presidential election.

Affirmatives argued that the minority is blocking the majority’s will, and that legislation making its way through Republican-controlled states will only make matters worse. Negatives countered that voting laws always have varied state-to-state, and that the federal government should not have overreaching control over the process. [See The Hustings’ pre-debate arguments by David Amaya in the left/affirmative column and Bryan Williams in the right/negative column by scrolling down this page.

In the face of Founding Father James Madison’s dictum that the will of the people should prevail, “they’re being overruled right now,” with the smaller populations of rural states controlling the vote of larger, more urban states through Republican Party rule, argued Zach Beauchamp, a writer for Vox.

Georgia’s recent voting rules bill “cuts the number of polling places to cut the number of minorities able to vote,” he said. “… there is one party that rejects minority rule – it’s not the Democratic Party. It’s the Republican Party.”

Asked in the parliamentary style Q&A why the federal government should insert itself into the states’ systems, Beauchamp noted that HR 1 would restore the pre-clearance requirement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which restricted states with histories of minority-voter suppression to seek pre-approval[VJ1]  for any substantive changes to voting laws from federal courts or the Department of Justice. The U.S. Supreme Court removed the requirement in Shelby v. Holder (2013), because a majority of justices found it outdated and no longer necessary.

“I would argue it was justified in ’65, and it’s justified now.”

The debate’s first negative, Craig Engle, head of political law at the firm Arent Fox, says the U.S. form of voting laws creates two layers of government.

“And when they compete with each other, then I think the people win,” Engle said. “There are no federal elections. There are state elections for federal offices.” 

Engle doesn’t see HR 1 as a Democratic vs. Republican bill, “I look at this as a Washington, D.C. bill. If you’re a fan of the federal government and that’s all you know, then this bill is for you. … If I were a member of Congress, I would vote against this bill.”

Why should each state should have different laws for voting? “Because each state is different. Western[VJ2]  states (with sparse urban populations) have different rules than urban states.”

In the affirmative, Osita Nwanevu argued that the issue stems from the United States’ status as a republic, not a democracy. 

“We actually don’t have a voter fraud problem in this country,” The New Republic journalist said. “We have a system that confers more importance on some parts of the country.” Especially true, he said, in the Senate, where sparsely populated states each get two members, just like New York, California, and Texas. 

“I’m a fan of democracy, personally,” Nwanevu said, though he doubts Congress can pass a voter bill that would protect the American people.

The second negative, Kaylee McGee White, of The Washington Examiner described HR 1 as “a power grab by Democrats who think they’re being disenfranchised, when that’s not the case at all.” Supporting the key issue of her fellow negatives in this debate, she said; “Quite frankly, the federal government does not have the power to do any of this.”

She called last November’s election “a disaster,” with no final results for days. “You’re asking for disorganized chaos every time.”

In White’s Q&A, The Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell disagreed with White’s assertion that the election was a “disaster,” especially taking place during a pandemic, but that results would have come more quickly if all states were allowed to count early mail-in ballots before November 3. 

The third affirmative, Sheba Williams, founder of Nolef Turns, said that the Jamestown Settlement 402 years ago was known for its slavery, poll taxes, lynching, mass incarceration and disenfranchisement. 

“Tonight, on the one-year anniversary of George Floyd’s death, “lynching, mass incarceration and disenfranchisement still exist. … If we all love this country and believe people should have the right to civic engagement, then we should support HR 1.”

In Q&A, Williams said she favors a national holiday for elections. “It should be as accessible as possible.”

While Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark served as the third negative, she agreed with much of Zach Beauchamp’s arguments in the affirmative. 

“Donald Trump has told a lie to the American public,” the publisher of the never-Trumper conservative outlet said. “And many of the laws going through states right now codify that lie.”

One-third of the 800-page HR 1, especially campaign finance reform with matching taxpayer funds are “a bad idea,” Longwell said. 

“I think we should do something with voters’ rights, and I think the Voting Rights Act needs to be restored.”

The final affirmative, U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips, a Democrat, said of his state, “It’s easy to vote in Minnesota, and I had no idea other people didn’t have the same rights.” 

“HR 1 empowers voters, not politicians,” Phillips added. “The only place these proposals do not have bipartisan support is Washington, D.C.” 

He also supports redistricting that would be independent of the two parties. “I would definitely ban gerrymandering, in which politicians choose their voters.”

Retired U.S. Rep. Dennis A. Ross, R-FL, wrapped up the negative side saying, “I am a states’ rights person, and I always have been.” Ross was a member of the Florida state legislature when the 2000 presidential election vote from the state was “solved” by the Supreme Court.

“There are enough factions within each party that it always creates a multi-party system,” Ross said. He is worried HR 1 would lead to more “ballot-harvesting” and that its finance-reform provisions would be ineffective. 

The federal government’s role in elections should be to “make sure states do what they’re supposed to do,” Ross said.

---

 [VJ1]We should really put pre-approval of what…which I think is any changes that the state wants to make in the voting law. I would put that, but I’m not sure what it is.

 [VJ2]I mean, this is his quote, but…every state in the West has urban areas and, well, every state has urban areas. This is informative bollocks to me.

I think you can safely cut everything after “different.”

_____
We welcome your comments on this Braver Angels debate coverage and/or any of the individual comments within. To comment, please email editors@thehustings.news

In this column is a comment from a debate audience member who leans against the resolution, in opposition (negative) to making HR 1 law. …

The key to maintaining voter security and avoiding voter suppression is voter registration. Both parties in the duopoly have partisan policies that each, often mistakenly, believes will aid their party in winning elections. Mostly its false or at least misleading. 

Personally, I love early voting. I have been a regular voter since 1956 and I don't remember how we managed to have everybody vote "on Election Day"! There should be enough days and places of early voting that long lines and waits -- 10 to 20 minutes should be avoided. Flow of voters into polling places is irregular no matter what we do, so there will be times of being able to walk right in and times of having to wait in line. But we should not expect to pay people to be idle for hours at unused polling places for days on end. I don't see any reason not to have a 11 day "election season" ending on Tuesday, "Election Day": That would give us two weekends, two Mondays, two Tuesdays, and one Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. 

I never had occasion to "vote absentee" until Covid and election 2020. My wife and I did so, and I loved the convenience. Encourage mail in ballots that must be postmarked before the end of Election Day. I do see how this paper floating around offers up increased opportunities for fraudulent votes. Proper voter registration obliterates most of these opportunities.

Personally, I know of voters in the nursing home with severe dementia being "voted" in the same way I know of my nephew's parents voting far more regularly after they died than they did while alive. Proper registration greatly mitigates the opportunity for this, and the board of elections that maintains the voter rolls should be automatically notified when a death certificate is filed and the name removed from the roll. Persons who scream that voter fraud is non-existent are either 1.) naive, 2.) ignorant of history, 3.) in a partisan echo-chamber, or 4.) equating being caught with committing the act. 

Either way, proper registered voter roll maintenance is the key, so registering to vote at the same time and place as voting is an invitation to uninformed voting if not to fraud. --Dr. John R. Dykers Jr.

. 

[Note: Comments are edited for length and clarity. Braver Angels and The Hustings standards of civil discourse apply.]

_____
To comment on the Braver Angels debate resolution, or to any of the comments on this page, please email editors@thehustings.news

By David Amaya

It is human nature's desire to be heard. It is the essence of democracy. Democracy in America changed the world forever, for democracy is the reason the word patriotism exists. Patriotic Crystal Mason cast a provisional ballot and was sentenced to five years in prison. Never mind the nuances of Mason's case; look to the 15^th Amendment for guidance. 

The 15^th Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." One can make many deductions from this single sentence that stems from the post-Civil War Reconstruction era. We pay attention to race because inequities are denied, hence the question of voter fraud versus voter suppression. What is race, color, and previous servitude without a distinction of privilege and disadvantage?

Many public-school textbooks hide the truth when it comes to race and color, but BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) were even at one point considered to be three-fifths of a person. When it comes to every citizen’s right to vote, race and color should be a threshold that is a vital signifier of a healthy democracy. H.R. 1, the For the People Act, upholds Section 2 of the 15^thAmendment: that “Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Race and color (even "previous servitude") have many derivative consequences, as well as causes when it comes to equity and just legislation in our nation. Mason is a resident of the most prominent Republican city in the country, Fort Worth, Texas. Voter turnout is highest in urban areas, including states like Texas. There is no homogeny in urban areas except the idea that "I will do better." That is to say, areas of high voter turnout are made up of people like Mason -- those who are disadvantaged but have hope for themselves and selflessly, for others.

While many will argue, "states retain the right to set voting laws within their borders," please direct them not only to the 15^thAmendment but the history behind it as well. Alleged widespread voter fraud does not justify abridging the voting rights of millions of citizens when the instances of voter fraud (1,328, according to The Heritage Foundation’s most recent numbers) are less than the 11,780 votes requested be found in Georgia by suspicious Donald Trump in 2020. The justice system exists to make voting wrongs right. When an individual cannot vote at all, democracy loses faith and, with it, the suppression of a voice that wants liberty and justice for all.  

_____
We welcome comments on these posts on Voting in America, especially from those attending Tuesday evening’s Braver Angels National Coliseum debate. Please email your comments and opinions to editors@thehustings.news

(Click on the tab above for Thursday, May 27 News & Notes.)

By Todd Lassa

As many Capitol Hill Republicans have re-coalesced behind former President Trump in the last couple of months, the chances the Senate passes the For The People Act, House Resolution 1 (of the 117^th Congress) have dimmed.

What’s more, several Republican-controlled state legislatures--including those of Georgia, Texas, Iowa and Arizona--have passed bills designed ostensibly to crack down on voter fraud by making it harder to mail in an absentee ballot, for example. 

The House of Representatives passed HR 1 last March. (Past is prologue: it passed in the House during the 116^th Congress but died in the Senate). It expands early voting and allow same-day registration, loosens voter identification requirements, and triggers automatic voter registration for federal elections. The bill also restricts the purging of voters from the rolls (which some states’ laws require for those on the rolls who miss a certain number of consecutive elections) and allows registration of felons who have served their sentences.

HR 1 passed the House 220-210, with one Democrat joining Republicans in opposing the bill. Two House Republicans did not vote. It faces a much steeper hill in the Senate, where it needs the support of 10 Republicans to overcome a filibuster. Not only have no Republicans voiced support so far, Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-WV, has not committed his support.

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-MO, summarized his party’s objections to HR 1 in a Senate Hearing after it was passed by the House, calling it a “federal takeover of the election process” and describing it as “an unmitigated disaster for our democracy.”

Senate Bill 1 (yes, there was a similar bill for during the 116^th Congress that went nowhere like its House counterpart), renamed for the late civil rights leader and Rep. John R. Lewis, D-GA, was written to address the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Shelby v. Holder (2013), which removed a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires states with a history of minority voter suppression (mostly in the South) to have any new voting requirements pre-cleared by federal courts or the Justice Department. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act has languished on Capitol Hill this year even more than HR 1, if such a thing is possible.

As mentioned, several states’ legislatures, especially in “swing” states where Donald J. Trump narrowly lost last November’s presidential election to Joseph R. Biden, are rushing to tighten voter requirements, thereby countering the federal proposals. At least 43 states had more than 250 such bills being circulated as of March, The Brennan Center for Justice estimated (https://thehustings.news/voter-fraud-or-voter-suppression/)

The first, and perhaps the most prominent of these, signed by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, R, makes these changes:

•Additional identification for absentee voting.

•Cuts the number of ballot drop boxes.

•Limits weekend days for early voting.

•Restricts handing out food and drink to voters waiting in long lines (“self-service” water stands are still allowed). 

•Faster vote reporting.

•Runoff elections are five weeks shorter.

•The state election board won’t be chaired by the secretary of state.

The last provision is aimed at Georgia’s current secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, who refused to “find” 11,780 votes from last November, enough to overturn Joseph R. Biden’s victory over Donald J. Trump in the state, as the former president pressured him to do in a phone call last December.

The fight for two different kinds of voter reform -- state legislation proponents say is written to clamp down on perceived fraud after mail-in ballots were made more accessible in 2020 during the pandemic, versus federal legislation that its proponents say makes it easier for citizens to vote, especially minorities and working class people – appears to be headed for a clash just in time for the November 2022 midterms.

Note: The Hustings debated “Voter Rights vs. Voter Suppression” on March 9, with 

https://thehustings.news/voter-fraud-or-voter-suppression/

https://thehustings.news/second-wave-mccarthyism/

https://thehustings.news/elections-need-safeguards/

_____
We welcome comments on the Voting in America posts, especially from those attending Tuesday evening’s Braver Angels National Coliseum debate. Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Bryan Williams

Consulting the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for the definition of “suppression” does not alleviate the confusion with “fraud” as raised by the center column. The first definition is “to put an end to the activities of (a person, body of persons, etc.), and the second: “to do away with by, or as by authority; abolish; stop.”

Even in the much-maligned Georgia law, there is not much a conservative or Republican, or any thinking person really, should have a problem with, save for the removal of the secretary of state from the election’s board.

Where does the new law restrict the right to vote? Sure, there was some tightening, but for the most part, the Georgia law makes sense. No politician should be able to hand out bottles of water with her or his name on it to people in line at the polling place.

Years ago as a Republican Party volunteer, I was running to various polling sites across my city I, checking the rolls to see who had voted. I would write down the names of those who hadn’t, race back to HQ, and call them to see if they intended to vote and whether they needed a ride or any such assistance. I was wearing a “Reagan for President” shirt that day, Election Day 2012. I was ushered out by a county poll worker who said my shirt advocated for a certain party and I couldn’t be there.

So I left. Even though Reagan wasn’t on the ballot. And this was in California, land of the easiest, least restrictive voting laws.

It is my firm belief that voting has gone out of control in the United States. In my last column on this subject, I said voting should be easy and available within reason.  Americans love decentralized power, and for the most part, this is a good thing. All those arguments between the Federalist John Adams and Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson were very worthy, and the blend of their two world views gave us the country, culture, and norms we have today. Overarching state laws that streamline and standardize voting laws, reigning in disparate counties that are small and rural and may not have the ability, funding, or manpower to have polling places open as often as they should be are necessary. Where do most poor people live, who have the hardest time getting to the polling place after work? In rural or small-town/county regions of America. The Georgia bill addresses this.

Zoom out now and use that argument above for an overarching federal voting law. That’s where I have a problem. We are made up of 50 smaller, more local governments formed together in a union. “All politics is local,” right? What’s good or what works in microscopic Delaware doesn’t work in complex, spread-out California. 

Also, mark me down as one who says you should produce an ID when you ask for a ballot. It just makes sense. Likewise, same-day voter registration. Liberals are usually in tune with the “plight” of the government worker, so give them a break! Give them a week or two to process new voter registration cards.

The resistance to passing HR 1 represents our government at work here. Yes, it’s frustrating and slow and it is easy to blame Republicans for gumming up the system when something needs to be done now.  But we have the government we asked for because we voted for it to be this way. Massage the bill so it can be passed, or just let the states and courts work it out. Adams and Jefferson, I think, would agree.

_____
We invite comments on these posts on Voting in America, especially by those attending Braver Angels’ National Coliseum Debate Tuesday evening. Please email your comments and opinions to editors@thehustings.news

Subscribe to our weekdaily email newsletter. Go to thehustings.substack.com

Scroll down this column to read:

•Michelle Naranjo’s commentary on a proposed gas tax increase to pay for part of President Biden’s infrastructure plan.

•Stephen Macaulay’s take on the House Republican caucus’ stripping of Rep. Liz Cheney of her committee chair position.

•Jim McCraw’s commentary on the Gaetz/Greene America First Tour in his backyard at The Villages, Florida.

•Keith Tipton’s commentary on the reintroduction of Congressional earmarks to the budgetary process.

Comment on any of our political news and opinion at our substack page, or email us at editors@thehustings.news, and help us make The Hustings a new, civil type of social medium.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news, or go to the comments section of thehusting.substack.com

TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2021 

Sign up for the Braver Angels National Coliseum Debate, Voting in America, held 8-10 p.m. EDT Tuesday on Zoom. Coming in The Hustings, a home page debate preview on the issue between David Amaya in the left column, and Bryan Williams in the right column.

To Register for the Debate – Go to https://www.eventbrite.com/e/national-debate-voting-in-america-registration-154335111473

See https://www.braverangels.org 

for more information. After the debate, we will post your comments and opinions on Voting in America in the left and right columns of this page. Please email comments to editors@thehustings.news.

For Today’s News & Notes – Click on the “News & Notes” tab above.

___________________________

MONDAY, MAY 24, 2021
Coming Tuesday – A home page debate on House Resolution 1, the For The People Act on voting rights, and state legislatures’ efforts to tighten voting standards. The Hustings debate is presented as a preview of Tuesday evening’s Braver Angels National Coliseum Debate on Voting in America. Scroll to the bottom of News & Notes for details. 

International Outcry Over Jetliner Forced to Land in Belarus – A Ryanair flight from Athens to Vilnius, Lithuania Sunday was forced to land by a MiG-29 fighter jet in Minsk, Belarus, under orders of Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko. Roman Protasevich, a journalist and anti-Lukashenko activist was arrested upon its landing. The Belarus government claims the plane was diverted because there was a bomb on board. There wasn’t.

It’s “a case of state-sponsored hijacking,” Michael O’Leary, CEO of Ryanair, told The Wall Street Journal.

The Biden Administration is looking into appropriate U.S. sanctions, though Russia will continue to economically support Belarus.

Protasevich had contested the results of last August’s Belarus elections, in which Lukashenko was re-elected president with 80% of the vote, according to Reporting Democracy. Lukashenko’s government insists the jetliner was diverted because it believed a bomb was aboard the plane. 

•••

Memorials for Floyd Begin – George Floyd’s family members and others who have lost loved ones to police violence held a march in Minneapolis Sunday in memory of Floyd’s death. It was the first of several commemorations, including a White House meeting with the Floyd family scheduled for Tuesday, one year after he was killed by a Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, who was convicted of the killing last month. Former officer Chauvin is scheduled to be sentenced by a Hennepin County judge on June 25.

•••

On Biden’s Infrastructure Price Cut – President Biden announced a “price cut” in his American Jobs Plan infrastructure proposal, from $2.3 trillion down to $1.7 trillion this past weekend, in an effort to close in on a deal with Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has floated an infrastructure budget on the order of $600-800 billion.

On ABC News This Week Sunday, Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican moderate whom the White House figures in among the 10 members of the opposition party Democrats need to avoid a filibuster and get to bi-partisan agreement, said “the heart of negotiations is to get to the scope of the bill,” by which she means that Republicans want the White House to strip out what they consider social programs in the Biden proposal, and fix only roads, bridges, broadband and the like. No indication yet, however, that any Republicans will go for a rollback of the Trump Administration tax cuts from the 21% corporate tax rate back up to the 28% rate.

Note: The White House has given to Memorial Day to reach an agreement with Republican senators on a bi-partisan infrastructure compromise. But Biden doesn’t even have Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-WV, on board, so the chances of a Democratic bill to scuttle the legislative filibuster is nil. That leaves the possibility of passing a more ambitious Biden plan under reconciliation, though the smart bet appears to be on a package price closer to the low-end of a trillion dollars.

•••

Axios Poll Shows Things Republicans Might Not Like -- Two hot-button issues that Republicans are working to create more friction about are (1) alleged voter fraud and (2) resistance to the creation of a 9/11-type commission to look into the events of 1/6. An Axios-sponsored poll conducted by Survey Monkey has results for both of those topics that don’t look good for McConnell, McCarthy and the random Minions.

That is, when asked about “how much, if any” voter fraud occurred in one’s state, 18% answered “a lot,” 28% “some,” 25% “not much” and 24% “not at all.”

On the subject of support for a bipartisan 1/6 congressional commission, 44% “strongly support,” 21% “somewhat support,” 12% “somewhat oppose” and 17% “strongly oppose.”

Note: For the fraud question, let’s face it, statistically one might assume that “some” or “not much” occurred because that are sufficiently CYA answers. Of course, the minority that say “a lot” are more vocal than those who answer “not at all” because who can get all worked up about something that didn’t happen? Still, this seems to be not an advantageous approach for the Republicans, as putting doubt in the minds of their voters — witness the results in Georgia this past January.

As for the commission on 1/6, the Republican approach seems to be one that if they don’t permit one to go forward then there won’t be any “distraction” for the 2022 elections. Wouldn’t it be more likely the case is that if you have 65% supporting something that they’re going to try to quash that they’re going to get more attention than they’d like on their obstruction?

•••

Leahy Considering a Run for Senate Longevity Record – Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, is considering a run for a ninth term, Poltico reports. Leahy, 81, is the only Democrat ever elected senator from the state. (Although Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Dems, he is officially an Independent.) First elected in 1975, Leahy would not be the oldest senator, but he would pass the late Sen. Robert Byrd’s, D-WV, record 51 years in the upper chamber if he completed his ninth term in 2029. Vermont has a late primary next year, August 9, so Leahy has until May 26, 2022, to file for re-election. 

•••

Braver Angels National Coliseum Debate, Voting in America – The debate is scheduled for 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Tuesday, May 25 on Zoom. Audience members are encouraged to participate as debaters or in the Q&A sessions. After the debate, The Hustings will post audience comments and opinions in the left and right columns at https://thehustings.news. Go to https://www.braverangels.org for more information, or register at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/national-debate-voting-in-america-registration-154335111473

--Edited by Todd Lassa and Gary S. Vasilash

__________________________________

FRIDAY, MAY 21, 2021

Should a gas tax increase pay for part of President Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan? Michelle Naranjo and Bryan Williams debate that proposal on the home page of The Hustings. To comment on this and other issues, email us at editors@thehustings.news, or at thehustings.substack.com.

Israel and Hamas Reach Cease-Fire – After 11 days of missile attacks that left at least 212 Palestinians and about a dozen Israelis dead in the worst battle on the Gaza strip since 2014, Israel’s security cabinet unanimously accepted Egypt’s proposal for an unconditional cease-fire, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu announced Thursday evening. The cease-fire commenced early Friday morning local time, The New York Times reports. 

Both Israel and Hamas declared victory in the very “fragile” cease-fire.

President Biden, who was involved very quietly and “behind the scenes” in talks between Israel and Egypt, had reiterated his support for Israel’s “right to defend itself,” while also facing pressure from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to support human rights for Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

Note: The Abraham Accord of 2020, heretofore former President Trump’s most notable foreign relations accomplishment, although achieved by his son-in-law Jared Kushner without input from the Palestinians now becomes forgotten history. While Netanyahu had been considered a close ally of Trump, the NYT recalled in its radio show this week how he and Biden had forged a relationship back in the 1990s, when Biden was in the Senate and Netanyahu was in the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. The relationship continued when Netanyahu became Israeli prime minister during the Obama/Biden administration, and was undoubtedly a factor in the U.S. president’s ability to take a tough stand in this week’s negotiations.

•••

CARB, Uber  & GHG — The California Air Resources Board announced yesterday that rideshare companies must begin electrification of their fleets starting in 2023. This is pursuant to SB 1014 of 2018, which is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 2030 to 40% of 1990 levels, and for the state to be carbon neutral by 2045. The “Clean Miles Standard” requires that rideshare companies have zero emissions by 2030 and for 90% of the miles traveled by their vehicles be fully electric. According to CARB head Liane M. Randolph, ‘The transportation sector is responsible for nearly half of California’s greenhouse gas emissions, the vast majority of which come from light-duty vehicles.”

Note — “Light-duty vehicles” are conveyances like Toyota Camrys and Ford F-150s. Lyft and Uber are in the process of transitioning their fleets to EVs. Of course, this means that private individuals are going to have to make that transition, as they’re the ones who own the vehicles. There is a bit of a fly in the proverbial ointment. According to Experian, there were 99,030 light-duty electric vehicles registered in California in the first quarter of 2021. That’s a mere 1.7% of all vehicle registrations in the state. Not a whole lot by any measure. In addition to which, 40,772 of those 99,030 light-duty EVs were Tesla Model Ys. How many Tesla owners are likely to have ride-sharing strangers in their back seats?

•••

Trump DOJ Obtained CNN Reporter’s Phone and Email Records – President Trump’s Department of Justice “secretly” obtained phone call and email records of CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, the cable news network reports. The Justice Department informed Starr in a May 13 letter that the records were sought from the courts for her calls and emails from June 1 to July 31, 2017. The Justice department provided no further comment nor context, but an official said Starr was not the subject of any official investigation.

•••

Russian-Built Teslas? – Tesla CEO Elon Musk told students at a Kremlin-sponsored event he would be open to expanding electric vehicle manufacturing into Russia, The Hill reports Friday morning. Musk’s statement was immediately greeted with enthusiasm, including a tweet from politician Aleksandr Brechalov, who welcomed Tesla production to the country. 

But Musk’s comments were more tempered; “Over time, we will look to have factories in other parts of the world, potentially Russia at some point.” That’s not an aggressive plan from a Silicon Valley mogul known for aggressive plans. 

Last year, Tesla opened a quickly built assembly plant in China without having to set up a 50-50 partnership with the local government, as all other foreign auto manufacturers in China are forced to do. While the Chinese government is pushing for more EV sales in the country, in Russia, electric-powered vehicles make up just 0.7% of the market, The Hill says, citing Bloomberg.

Note: Musk did not raise the possibility of opening an operation in Russia for his other tech company, outer-space rocket manufacturer SpaceX.

•••

Will Eastern Oregon Secede to Idaho? – Five sparsely populated, conservative counties in eastern Oregon voted this week to leave the state and the stereotypically latte/kale/craft beer headquarters of Portland behind to join adjacent Idaho, The Washington Post reports. The political and cultural gulf between Greater Portland and the five eastern counties has only grown since the TV show Portlandia was a thing. Mike McCarter, group president of the non-profit Citizens for Greater Idaho noted to the WaPo that if Baker, Grant, Malheur and Sherman counties left the Beaver State for Famous Potatoes, the new Idaho would become the state with the third-largest land mass in the U.S. – Edited by Todd Lassa, Gary S. Vasilash and Nic Woods

_____
Support independent political journalism and civil debate. Subscribe to thehustings.substack.com

Subscribe to our weekdaily email newsletter. Go to thehustings.substack.com

Comment on any of our political news and opinion at our substack page, or email us at editors@thehustings.news, and help us make The Hustings a new, civil type of political social medium.

Scroll down this column to read:

•Bryan Williams’ commentary on a proposed gas tax increase to pay for part of President Biden’s infrastructure plan.

•Williams’ take on the House Republican caucus’ stripping of Rep. Liz Cheney of her committee chair position, and the prospects for a third party.

•A reader’s comments on our home page debate on Congressional earmarks.

•Stephen Macaulay’s commentary on the reintroduction of Congressional earmarks to the budgetary process.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Subscribe to our weekdaily email newsletter. Go to thehustings.substack.com

Comment on any of our political news and opinion at our substack page, or email us at editors@thehustings.news, and help us make The Hustings a new, civil type of social medium.

Scroll down this column to read:

•Michelle Naranjo’s commentary on a proposed gas tax increase to pay for part of President Biden’s infrastructure plan.

•Stephen Macaulay’s take on the House Republican caucus’ stripping of Rep. Liz Cheney of her committee chair position.

•Jim McCraw’s commentary on the Gaetz/Greene America First Tour in his backyard at The Villages, Florida.

•Keith Tipton’s commentary on the reintroduction of Congressional earmarks to the budgetary process.

Subscribe to our weekdaily email newsletter. Go to thehustings.substack.com Comment on any of our political news and opinion […]

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021

The House of Representatives Thursday takes up a supplemental security funding bill for $1.9 billion to reimburse the National Guard and an increase for both Capitol Police and Congress members in the wake of the pro-MAGA January 6 insurrection. It may seem like a slam-dunk, but like Wednesday’s House vote to approve a commission to investigate the attacks, the supplemental spending needs 10 Republican votes to pass in the Senate.

Subscribe to our newsletter, delivered weekdays to your emailbox, at thehustings.substack.com

Initial Unemployment Claims Hit Another Post-Pandemic Low – Seasonally adjusted initial unemployment claims dropped to 444,000 for the week ending May 15, another record low since the pandemic begun shutting down the economy last year, the U.S. Labor Department reports Thursday morning. Last week’s unemployment claims number was 34,000 lower than the previous week’s revised claims of 478,000 (up 5,000 after revision). 

Note: Though we’re still in for a bumpy unemployment claims ride over the next several months as the economy reopens, the latest numbers take some air out of Republican criticism of President Biden’s $1.9-trillion COVID-19 stimulus package that the party’s leaders say has created disincentives for those unemployed because of the pandemic to seek work.

•••

McConnell Push-Back Jeopardizes 1/6 Commission – Considering ex-President Trump’s hold on the GOP, yesterday’s 252-175 vote in the House of Representatives to approve the National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attacks on the United States Capitol Act, HR 3233, may seem a sort of victory against the “Big Lie.” Support included 35 House Republicans, 25 more than had voted for Trump’s second impeachment resulting from the attacks in January. 

Now the bill must pass the Senate. 

Following the Senate’s acquittal of ex-President Trump in his second impeachment trial last February, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said; “The issue is not only the President’s intemperate language on January 6^th. … It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged ‘trial by combat. … It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by our now-president.”  

The Office of the Former President at Mar-a-Lago issued a statement by Trump Wednesday calling the 9/11-style commission on the insurrection a “Democratic trap.” McConnell is warning his caucus that they should vote against the bill because the attack has been sufficiently investigated, already. Democrats need 10 Republicans to vote with them to approve the commission in order to avoid its dying by filibuster.

So far, there appears to be two. 

“We should understand what mistakes were made and how we could prevent this from happening again,” said Sen. Mitt Romney, R-UT. Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME, says she also supports the idea of a commission, but the House bill needs “adjustments,” the AP reports. 

Note: Rep. John Katko, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee from New York, who negotiated the specifics of the commission said, “This is about facts, not partisan politics.” Rep. Fred Upton, R-MI, said the insurrection “is going to haunt this institution for a long, long time.” 

But other House Republicans who opposed the bill used the word “incoherence” to describe it. That was the jumping-off point for Rep. Tim Ryan’s, D-OH, impassioned response, which bears repeating even as they fall on deaf Trumpian ears. Most of what he said was shouted from a sparsely attended House floor Wednesday (per The Hill).

“To the other 90% of our friends on the other side of the aisle, holy cow! Incoherence! No idea of what you’re talking about. … 

“Benghazi! You guys chased the former secretary of State all over the country. Spent millions of dollars! We have people scaling the Capitol, hitting the Capitol Police with lead pipes across the head, and we can’t get bi-partisanship? …

“If we’re gonna take on China, if we’re gonna reverse climate change, we need two political parties in this country that are both living in reality, and you ain’t one of them.”

Unauthorized Capitol Police Letter Slams Commission Opposition – Every member of the House and Senate received an unsigned letter on U.S. Capitol Police letterhead Wednesday, just prior to the House’s vote on HR 3233 Politico reports. It reads:

“On Jan 6^th, where some officers served their last day in the US Capitol Police uniform, and not by choice, we would hope that Members whom we took an oath to protect, would at the very minimum support an investigation to get to the bottom of EVERYONE responsible and hold them 100 percent accountable no matter the title or position they hold or held.” 

The Capitol Police issued a statement that the letter was not written, nor formally approved by the department. The U.S. Capitol Police “has no way of confirming it was ever authorized by USPC personnel. The U.S. Capitol Police does NOT take positions on legislation.”

•••

Texas Abortion Ban Law Signed -- A ban on abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy — or two weeks after a missed menstrual cycle — has been signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, R. The law is to take effect in September, the Texas Tribune reports. During the bill signing Abbott said, “Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion.”

Note — Also on Wednesday Texas executed Quintin Jones by lethal injection, The Daily Skimm reports, ending the state’s 10-month pause on executions.

A disconnect?

•••

Progressives Probe Biden Arms Deal with Israel – Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, plans to introduce a resolution to dissolve the Biden administration’s recent $735 million arms deal with Israel because of the country’s intense battles with Hamas on the Gaza strip, The Washington Post reports. The arms sale came to light just as fighting between Israel and Hamas commenced nearly two weeks ago.– Edited by Todd Lassa and Gary S. Vasilash

---

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021 The House of Representatives Thursday takes up a supplemental security funding bill for $1.9 […]

Subscribe to our weekdaily email newsletter. Go to thehustings.substack.com

Comment on any of our political news and opinion at our substack page, or email us at editors@thehustings.news, and help us make The Hustings a new, civil type of political social medium.

Scroll down this column to read:

•Bryan Williams’ commentary on a proposed gas tax increase to pay for part of President Biden’s infrastructure plan.

•Williams’ take on the House Republican caucus’ stripping of Rep. Liz Cheney of her committee chair position, and the prospects for a third party.

•A reader’s comments on our home page debate on Congressional earmarks.

•Stephen Macaulay’s commentary on the reintroduction of Congressional earmarks to the budgetary process.

_____
Please email comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Michelle Naranjo 

Today, I went into a Dollar Tree and found canned plant-based tuna. Sriracha flavor, to be exact. 

It’s not a frequent shopping destination for me because we are fortunate enough to have nearby an independent outlet grocer that carries locally sourced fresher, seasonal produce, and soon-to-be-expired shelf and freezer goods from retailers like Whole Foods, Wegmans and Stop N Shop. We are educated, sort of snobby, gourmet GenX on a budget. 

Change is inevitable. Even limited income households like mine in rural Pennsylvania are moving towards sustainability. Many, if not most, are opting for smaller footprints in the shadow of the minority of coal-rolling, brand-brandishing personalities who will recoil at any idea of government-anything that doesn’t come with a message that freedom is more of a right than liberty and buy “Live, Laugh, Love,”  or “All Lives Matter” yard signs. 

Just observe the growing number of RAM and Jeep vehicles in your own neighborhood. 

But these people are socially loud, despite being a growing minority. 

Maybe the politicians who would reject an increase of gas taxes because they are following their base are truly out of date, pandering to an old-school constituency with the worst intentions. Intentions that favor Big Oil.

Maybe, if new car manufacturers (the same ones that made the government create our roads) were paying their fair share of taxes -- or even using government tax credits allotted to them to build alternative energy vehicles -- a gas tax wouldn’t be necessary. 

Maybe, just maybe, alt-energy cars should be affordable at the expense of automakers’ overall profit, instead of letting them glorify high-powered, fuel-guzzling vehicles as a lame sign of Being American. 

New taxes on gas, diesel, corporations, and the wealthiest are taxation with the right representation with this proposed gas tax increase.

It’s time, regardless of pushback from oil-heavy states and corporations, to tax what is the least sustainable in order to pave the way for a truly healthier future. 

Full disclosure: I inherited monthly oil income from my great-great grandmother, probably owe more taxes to a county in Texas than it is worth. I reap about $300 a month in income from it and hope I can be the generation to see it die. 

Also, the fake tuna is just fine. And I'm a food snob. 

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Todd Lassa

More than the gulf between President Biden’s $2.3-trillion American Jobs Plan price tag and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s apparent $800-billion “final offer” on infrastructure, the most significant sticking point between the two parties is the question of how to pay for it. 

Under the Trump administration, Congressional Republicans got their dream bill, a corporate tax cut from the already low 28% set in the Bush 43 administration to 21%, lowest in the industrialized world, along with personal income tax cuts that weighed heavily in favor of the wealthiest Americans. Tax hikes have been so much a no-no among Republicans since at least the Reagan administration that even Biden’s argument that corporate taxes will be no higher than President George W. Bush’s rate falls on deaf GOP ears. 

Republicans and many Democrats, especially from oil-producing states, have long been opposed to hiking another kind of tax; the federal tariff placed on each gallon of gasoline or diesel pumped in the United States. Politicians have been so stubborn in raising the federal gas and diesel taxes that they have remained unchanged, not adjusted for inflation, since October 1, 1993. Gasoline is currently taxed at 18.4-cents per gallon, and diesel fuel at 24.4-cents per gallon. State taxes are added to those numbers; add 8.95-cents per gallon for gas and diesel in Alaska to 53.3-cents per gallon for gas and 74.1-cents per gallon for diesel in Pennsylvania.

Last month, a bipartisan group of 58 members of Congress called the Problem Solvers (half of them Republicans and half of them Democrats) proposed increasing the rate for motor vehicle fuel taxes to pay for expanded infrastructure spending. Specifically, their call is for improvements to roads, bridges, mass transportation, and broadband Internet.

The Problem Solvers call their proposal “Rebuilding America’s Future,” and it’s not as notable for the Biden administration’s dismissal as it is remarkable for being proposed by any elected official to the right of AOC and The Squad. 

Rebuilding America’s Future could entail indexing gasoline and diesel taxes to inflation, highway construction costs, fuel efficiency standards, or some combination of the three. The proposal also considers taxing vehicle miles logged to collect taxes on electric vehicles to pay for roads and highways.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg reportedly had considered proposing a gas tax increase. But after the Problem Solvers’ proposal last month, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the president “does not believe that paying for this historic investment in rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure and creating millions of jobs should be on the backs of Americans.”

What can the Biden administration offer as a counter-proposal when McConnell and his Senate Republican caucus refuses to budge on the corporate tax? A few short years ago, it would have been nearly impossible to find any Republican or moderate Democrat willing to talk seriously about a gas tax increase. Could President Biden be next to change his mind?

_____
Sign up for our (week)daily newsletter at thehustings.substack.com

By Bryan Williams

So where does the rubber meet the (newly constructed) road? For years we have heard successive administrations talk about the need for new investment in our country’s infrastructure, and it’s one issue with some bipartisan consensus. As I have said in previous columns, bi-partisan support is critical to infrastructure spending, and yet here we are in 2021 with no large-scale bill close to passage. The time is ripe to pass a massive infrastructure bill, with as unified a government as President Biden is likely to have in the form of Democratic majorities in the House of Representatives and (thinly in) the Senate, at least until next year’s midterms. American taxpayers have become used to coronavirus stimulus packages with the word “trillions” thrown in, so another two or three trillion isn’t a big deal, right? 

It isn’t a big deal until the bill comes due, and now a previously untenable form of funding has been floated: a gas tax increase. This is perhaps one of the most (small d) democratic ways to pay for something. Nearly everyone save for folks in New York City, San Francisco, and maybe Washington, D.C. buys gas. It also makes sense that it’s a federal requirement that the gas tax goes to programs connected to it, in the form of paying for nice, new roads and bridges. 

As a Republican, I can get behind this. But then the specifics get in the way. I would feel much more comfortable if any monies raised by an increased federal gas tax are spent only on roads, and specifically on roads used by cars and trucks. Not bicycles. Not money-losing mass-transit trains. Roads on which you and I and 95% of Americans drive our privately-owned cars and trucks. Republicans should make sure such a provision is required (if negotiations get that far).

Much has also been said about the dichotomy between gasoline and electric vehicles. Obviously electric vehicle owners don’t pay gas taxes, but they do pay use taxes figured in at the time of sale and annually when they re-register. Again, a provision should be made where EV owners’ user taxes go up too. 

Will increased gas taxes be the demise of gas-powered cars? We all know the future is electric (or – at least not with fossil fuel-powered vehicles), but that is still years away. And I mean years. Millions of people still predominantly buy gasoline-powered vehicles and internal combustion engines will continue to dominate new car and truck sales well through the decade. Even with battery technology advancing quickly, a full charge in most state-of-the-art EVs will get you 250 miles, whereas a full tank of dinosaur juice will get you as much as 400-500 miles. Internal combustion-powered vehicle owners should not have to carry the burden of our brave new infrastructure plans.

I’m going to pour some more gasoline on all of this before I close. If Biden and the Democrats think they can pass off social-welfare spending as “infrastructure” paid for by the drivers of America then Biden should grow out his hair and curl it because he’ll be facing a revolt just like King George III.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news