Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Lawmakers see the pain of the shutdown — and are digging in even harder

Published

on

Lawmakers see the pain of the shutdown — and are digging in even harder

As the government shutdown reaches the monthlong milestone, both parties agree on two things: The pain is mounting, and that the other party should give in.

Republicans and Democrats widely acknowledge how the shutdown is hurting Americans. They see food benefits running outmore missed paychecks on the horizon and the prospect of low-income pregnant women, infants and children in the WIC assistance program not receiving aid.

But, thus far, the general reaction from lawmakers in both parties has been to argue that this latest pain point is just evidence that the other side needs to succumb to the demands of their party.

Republicans say the quickest way to address the escalating pain is to pass the GOP’s short-term spending bill that the House approved last month, which most Senate Democrats have shot down 13 times.

Ask a GOP lawmaker about, say, the approaching cliff for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and they’ll agree it’s a major problem.

“It’s a serious issue, that’s 40 million Americans,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said. “It affects a lot of people, and my desire is to have this settled a month ago.”

But ask Lankford whether that SNAP cliff is affecting his thinking, and he’ll suggest “the only way” to fix the problem is for Democrats to support the Republican-continuing resolution.

“It’s the only vehicle that’s ready right now,” Lankford said.

Democrats say that proposal is a nonstarter — not because they disagree with anything in the bill, but because they want a fix to expiring Obamacare tax credits included in the legislation. Not extending those subsidies, Democrats warn, will cause health-care premiums to skyrocket for millions of Americans.

Every day that they get closer to the next pain point is to their disadvantage, and frankly, I think it exposes them to the wrath of what they consider to be their own base.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.

But ask a Republican such as Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., whether open enrollment starting on Nov. 1 is an incentive for Republicans to start negotiating with Democrats, and he’ll tell you that it’s actually “a lot of incentive for Democrats to finally come to their senses and reopen the government so we can have that discussion.”

“Every day that they get closer to the next pain point is to their disadvantage, and frankly, I think it exposes them to the wrath of what they consider to be their own base,” Cramer said.

Democrats, of course, see it the other way. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday afternoon he believes there will be “increased pressure” on Republicans to negotiate with Democrats once open enrollment begins.

But so far, that hasn’t happened — and the belief that President Donald Trump will come to the table once he sees the scope of the rising premiums may not bear out.

Democrats do, however, agree that the SNAP cliff is a big problem. From their perspective, that’s just all the more reason Republicans should work out a broader deal, with some Democrats taking offense to the suggestion that Republicans suddenly care more about food benefits than their party.

“This is the same party that cut billions of dollars from SNAP benefits in order to fund tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy,” Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., told BLN, referring to the GOP reconciliation bill over the summer. “Now they are suddenly the protectors of people on SNAP benefits? It’s all BS.”

Gallego noted that, even if Congress approves funding, GOP lawmakers could claw the dollars back through rescissions — something Republicans have already done this year.

“I don’t trust them,” Gallego said.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., a moderate Democrat who broke with the majority of her party in March to support a GOP funding bill, agreed that Congress has to address SNAP running out of money. But she suggested that it shouldn’t come in lieu of Congress addressing the expiring Obamacare tax credits.

“We gotta be able to provide the SNAP benefits that people are entitled to, and the premium tax credits that will make health insurance affordable, and keep the government open,” Shaheen said.

The hardening of positions comes as the shutdown is on the brink of its fifth week, inching closer to breaking the current record for the longest shutdown in history: the 35-day lapse in funding of 2018-19.

During previous shutdowns, mounting pain was a key part of solving the impasses. The 2013 shutdown ended, in large part, because the U.S. was about to reach the debt limitand a major reason the 2018-19 shutdown ended was because air traffic controllers stayed home and grounded flights. But this time around, lawmakers are looking at the pain and suggesting it’s a key reason why the other side should relent.

There is hardly any inward reflection — and neither side is seeing much political blowback, with Americans narrowly blaming Republicans more than Democrats for the shutdown in polls.

“I believe both sides think they’re either winning or they’re not losing, and that’s not fertile ground for any change,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. “For another week or two.”

For a potentially record-breaking shutdown, the standoff has been marked by how little Republicans and Democrats are talking. The GOP position, in fact, is that they have nothing to discuss. Republicans say they will only talk about those expiring subsidies once the government is reopened. Democrats say that will leave Americans making health-care decisions with incomplete information.

Democrats think Americans should know what they’ll be paying for Obamacare before they’re forced to make those decisions during open enrollment, and they refuse to accept on blind faith that Republicans will extend subsidies in some form.

With those positions established — for Republicans, that there is nothing to discuss, and for Democrats, that the GOP has to come to the table — there’s been very little movement over the past month.

Even a statement from the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing federal workers that has traditionally supported Democrats, did little to change the dynamic this week — even as AFGE called on Democrats to pass the Republican spending bill and stop “punishing the people who keep our nation running.”

Most Democrats were simply incredulous about the statement.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., noted that he works very closely with that union. “The AFGE would not want us to cut a deal and then have Trump fire a bunch of people next week,” Kaine said. “If we cut a deal and then he did that, they would come to us and say, ‘What the hell were you guys thinking?’”

When reporters asked Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., about the AFGE statement on Monday, he reiterated the general Democratic position: “I don’t like shutdowns.”

“I think we should never have a shutdown,” Peters said. “That’s why I hope Republicans would come with us and find common ground.”

When known asked Peters whether he agreed with AFGE’s position that the GOP funding bill should pass, he made it clear that Democrats still wanted a resolution on the Obamacare subsidies. “So I’m going to do that,” he said.

And then he succinctly summed up how lawmakers — and outside groups — seem to be talking past one another.

“I agree, we don’t want a shutdown,” Peters said. “We want to end the shutdown as quickly as possible, I totally agree with that.”

Mychael Schnell

She covers Capitol Hill involving both Democrats and Republicans. She previously covered Congress at Blue Light News. She graduated from George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and mass communication and political science. She is a native New Yorker, Billy Joel’s No. 1fan and a Rubik’s Cube aficionado.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

No plan B: Trump is flailing to find an off-ramp for the Iran war

Published

on

This is an adapted excerpt from the March 24 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

Donald Trump’s war on Iran is in its fourth week. Gas prices are up $1 a gallon in much of the country. Stocks continue to fall on fears of global supply shortages.

The death toll is growing. Thirteen American service members have lost their livesand more than 1,200 Iranians have been killed, along with upward of 1,000 people in Lebanonmore than 150 in the surrounding Gulf states and 17 Israelis. That’s not accounting for the millions who are displaced and the thousands who have been injured, including hundreds of U.S. troops.

But according to the president who launched the war, it’s all over.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win.

“We’ve won this. This war has been won,” he told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office. “The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.”

However, during those same remarks, Trump was all over the place — talking about an epic victory, ongoing peace negotiations and personal gifts.

It was all completely counter to his posture over the weekend, when he threatened to “obliterate” Iranian civilian power plants — essentially teasing a war crime — if Iran did not stop blocking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuzsomething Iran was not doing before Trump attacked them.

But now, he has supposedly pressed pause on that bombing plan for five days because, he said, the negotiations are going well.

When he first announced that in a social media post Monday, it sent oil prices down 10% and boosted stocks.

However, those markets reversed themselves Tuesday after the Iranians said they have not engaged in any serious high-level negotiations with the Americans, and they claimed Trump was making things up to help oil prices. The Israelis said the same thing. (That’s not to say you should take Iran’s word for it, or Israel’s, but you shouldn’t take the White House’s word, either.)

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win. He had no plan B, and now he is flailing to find some kind of fallback position.

On Monday, sources from the administration told Politico that they have their eyes on a future U.S.-backed leader of Iran: Mohammad ⁠Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament.

“He’s a hot option,” one unnamed U.S. source — who seems to really wants a deal — told Blue Light News. “He’s one of the highest. … But we got to test them, and we can’t rush into it.”

But on Tuesday, that “hot option” trolled Trump for what he called a “jawboning campaign” to stabilize oil prices. In a social media postGhalibaf wrote: “[L]et’s see if they can turn that into ‘actual fuel’ at the pump — or maybe even print gas molecules!”

Call it the fog of Trumpian war: a million contradictory messages flying around, constantly wildly pinging bits of news that don’t make sense together.

Right now, we have reports that Trump’s negotiators, including his envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance, are traveling to Pakistan for informal talks with an Iranian official.

At the same time, unnamed U.S. officials have told The New York Times that the Saudi crown prince is pushing Trump to continue the war until Iran’s government collapses — something the Saudis publicly deny.

In fact, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Saudi officials are holding talks in Riyadh with their Arab counterparts to find a diplomatic off-ramp from the war.

On Tuesday evening, U.S. officials said the Pentagon was poised to deploy 3,000 troops of the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East. That is in addition to two Marine expeditionary units on their way to the region and the 50,000 U.S. troops already stationed there.

Also on Tuesday, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq are claiming that U.S. strikes there killed 30 of their members.

But, according to Trump, the peace talks are going great, right?

All eyes everywhere have been on the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran responded to the U.S. attack by striking oil tankers and shutting down 20% of the world’s supply of oil and liquefied natural gas. It is now essentially running a toll operation in the strait.

Some countries, such as China, Japan and India, are negotiating deals with Iran to get its oil out. Which is to say, Iran is shipping more oil and making more money than it was under the U.S. sanctions in place before Trump attacked it.

It’s clear the president sees what’s happening, so now he is trying to share control of the strait with Iran. Trump told reporters the strait would be “jointly controlled” by “maybe” him and “the next ayatollah.”

The administration really thought this was going to be another Venezuela. They told themselves that, and they were egged on to believe it by the staunchest advocates of the war, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Lindsey GrahamR-S.C.

But in Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact, even if militarily degraded, and they now have explicit control of the Strait of Hormuz — a huge pressure point.

It really looks like the U.S. is backed into a corner: It can sue for peace because of the oil tanker situation, but they do not have much leverage, or it can escalate the war. That may be why we’re seeing all these contradictory developments.

In Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact.

Trump issued an ultimatum he had to walk back from because he said there were deep peace negotiations, which then later proved to be completely fabricated.

Now, more U.S. troops are set to be deployed for a possible ground invasion in the Middle East, despite reports that the U.S. has supposedly sent a 15-point plan to Iran through Pakistan to end the war.

It almost looks as if Trump is trying to wave the peace card to keep a lid on oil futures and financial marketsjust long enough to have ground troops in position — and just in time for the markets to close for the weekend on Friday, when Trump’s “pause” on bombing Iranian power plants is set to end.

That could be the plan Trump now settles on, weeks into a deadly war where there was obviously, very clearly, no real plan at all.

Allison Detzel contributed.

Chris Hayes hosts “All In with Chris Hayes” at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday through Friday on MS NOW. He is the editor-at-large at The Nation. A former fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, Hayes was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is “The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource” (Penguin Press).

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

Published

on

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

A California state jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark social media case on Wednesday, awarding $3 million in compensatory damages to a plaintiff who brought the case and putting the Instagram maker’s liability at 70% and the Google company’s at 30%.

The jurors later decided to award a total of $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000. The verdict was reached on the jury’s ninth day of deliberation.

A 2023 complaint accused social media companies of fueling an unprecedented mental health crisis for American children through “addictive and dangerous” products. Plaintiffs accused the companies of deliberately tweaking their products to exploit kids’ undeveloped brains to “create compulsive use of their apps.”

The civil case was brought by several plaintiffs against several companies, but this state court trial, which featured testimonyfrom Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, involved a plaintiff described by her initials as “K.G.M.” in court papers against Instagram and YouTube.

In the 2023 complaint, K.G.M. said she was a 17-year-old in California who started using social media at a much younger age, though her mother told her not to and used third-party software to try to prevent the daughter’s social media use. The complaint alleged that the corporate defendants designed their products in ways that let kids evade parental controls and that the companies knew, or should’ve known, that K.G.M. was a minor.

The plaintiff alleged that Instagram’s and other companies’ addictive designs led her to develop “a compulsion to engage with those products nonstop” and to see “harmful and depressive content, urging K.G.M. to commit acts of self-harm, as well as harmful social comparison and body image.”

She alleged that she suffered bullying, depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia through Instagram and that Meta did nothing in response to a report about it. “Meta allowed the predatory user to continue harming minor Plaintiff K.G.M., including through the use of explicit images of a minor child,” the complaint said, adding that the company’s “defective reporting mechanisms and/or deliberate failure to act caused emotional and mental health harms to K.G.M. in addition to and separate from any third-party conduct.”

The companies, which have denied wrongdoingsaid Wednesday that they plan to appeal.

Jillian Frankel contributed from Los Angeles.

Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

Published

on

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released hours of deposition footage from its interviews with two former close associates of Jeffrey Epsteinattorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn. Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., a member of the committee, joined “The Weeknight” to discuss the interviews and the efforts to hold any accomplices of the late sex offender accountable.

“What is remarkable is that even in death, his closest associates and co-conspirators are still covering for him,” Stansbury said.

During their depositions, both Indyke and Kahn insisted they had no knowledge of Epstein’s illegal behavior. The New Mexico Democrat cast doubt on those claims, taking particular issue with Indyke’s testimony, during which she said it was possible that Epstein’s former attorney may have “perjured himself.”

“He claimed that he had no knowledge of all of these nefarious activities, and yet he literally has spent decades of his life at the center of this controversy,” she said. “I’m sorry, I’m not buying it.”

Stansbury told MS NOW she believed it was important for the public to understand that both Indyke and Kahn “stand to make tens of millions of dollars off of their execution” of Epstein’s will. She added that “the way the will is structured, there is a survivor fund, and at the end of that, they get to basically keep whatever is left over.”

“We don’t know what was written into whatever contracts, but it’s clear that they have a financial interest,” she said.

Stansbury said the pair’s depositions should be part of a greater effort from lawmakers and law enforcement across the country to pursue accountability for Epstein’s victims, even after his death. She highlighted how her home state, New Mexico, was doing just that.

“That is why we are going to continue to seek justice in this case, and it’s why in New Mexico, not only did we pass a truth commission, but one of the updates that we want to tell people about is that we plan to pursue convictions against individuals who were implicated in these crimes who were not prosecuted by the federal government,” she said. “We want to turn these Epstein files into Epstein trials — and that’s exactly what we plan to do.”

You can watch Stansbury’s full interview in the clip at the top of the page.

Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending