Texas Democrats seek to cut funds for abortion alternatives

AUSTIN

As the Texas House prepares for a floor fight today over the budget, a flurry of amendments filed by Democrats seeks to cut back funding for the state’s Alternatives to Abortion program.

A group of Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Chris Turner of Grand Prairie, filed more than a dozen amendments to reduce or eliminate funding for the program, which provides “pregnancy and parenting information” to low-income women.

Under the program, the state contracts with the Texas Pregnancy Care Network, a nonprofit charity organization with a network of crisis pregnancy resource centers that provide counseling and adoption assistance.

Since September 2006, the program has served roughly 110,000 clients. The network features 60 provider locations, including crisis pregnancy centers, maternity homes and adoption agencies.

Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, said she filed an amendment to defund the program because the state is giving more money to “coerce women” into a “political ideology instead of providing information and services” at a time when Texas women’s access to health services is being reduced.

The proposed House budget allocates $9.15 million a year to the program in 2016 and 2017, up from $5.15 million in the last budget.

“I think it’s troublesome that here we are going to almost double funding for a program that has not proven to be successful in any way,” said Farrar, chairwoman of the Women’s Health Caucus in the House. An additional amendment by Farrar would require an audit of the program.

Other House Democrats including Turner, Borris Miles of Houston and Celia Israel of Austin filed amendments that would transfer more than $8 million from the Alternatives to Abortion program to family planning services and programs for people with disabilities.

“These facilities have very little regulation, no accountability and no requirement to offer actual medical services,” Turner said. “My amendments are an attempt to address our state’s real priorities and needs.”

Two Republicans filed measures to boost the program’s funding.

Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, wrote an amendment that would supplement the Alternatives to Abortion program with $3.35 million per year, funded by a cut for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. In a budget subcommittee, Hughes sought to increase the program’s funding by nearly $15 million in the two-year budget, but that measure failed.

Another amendment from Rep. Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, would boost the program’s funding by $3.35 million yearly by cutting funding from a film and music marketing program in the governor’s office — a move he hopes will help the Alternatives to Abortion program extend into East and South Texas.

“They’ve done a good job with what we’ve given over the last 10 years,” Phelan said. “I think whatever increase we can give them is well-warranted.”

Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Friendswood, filed an amendment that would rename the program to Pregnancy and Parenting Services, which he said would defuse any controversy surrounding the program.

“There are individuals who seem to dislike the program, which I think is disappointing, because the program really isn’t about abortion rights or abortion restrictions,” said Bonnen, a neurosurgeon. “I find it a little disheartening and disappointing that anyone would want to take resources away from pregnant women or newborn children.”

Read more here: http://ift.tt/1Gd1YlX

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1IjPK9Y

via IFTTT

Liberal Democrats “quietly confident” as election campaign is launched

LIBERAL Democrat leaders in North Devon say they are “quietly confident”, about their chances in this May’s General Election.

Speaking at a launch event for the party’s North Devon campaign local party leaders played down concerns the party will lose out.

North Devon’s Liberal Democrat MP, Nick Harvey, believes he’s got a good chance of holding onto his seat despite predictions the Liberal Democrats will lose MPs on May 7.

He said: “There’s been a price for being part of the coalition.

“I believe in dug in seats, like North Devon, the outlook isn’t as bad as it is in the marginal areas.

“It’s not necessarily the case that seats will be lost.

“I think focussed campaigning and getting out on the street can help us keep seats.”

With another hung parliament being predicted, a second coalition government seems likely.

Mr Harvey said his party would not be rushing into any coalition agreements and ultimately any negotiations will depend entirely on the results of the election.

He said: “Nobody should assume we’ll be in any hurry to go in with anyone.

“In 2010 action needed to be taken, the country was facing a financial crisis, we had to help form a government.

“We’re not however straining at the leash to do it all again.”

The MP for North Devon hopes voters recognise the amount of money brought to the area for infrastructure, business and education.

By lobbying his Liberal Democrat colleague, chief secretary to the treasury, Danny Alexander, Mr Harvey helped to secure a share of a £23 million infrastructure fund to be used on improving the North Devon Link Road.

Last May working with the Liberal Democrats running North Devon Council Mr Harvey also helped secure Assisted Area status for Barnstaple, Braunton, Ilfracombe, Fremington and Instow.

It’s hoped the new status issued by the European Commission will give new opportunities to businesses in the area.

Liberal Democrat district council leader Brian Greenslade said the local party is “quietly confident”, and predicts a high turnout for the district elections.

He said: “I’m fairly sure turnout will be higher this year. I predict around 65% turnout.

“Of course anything is possible but we’re quietly confident here in North Devon.

“We don’t feel we’ll do as badly as predicted.”

Read more: http://ift.tt/1OQWz8f

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/19qKq9h

via IFTTT

House Democrats feature education, mental health in budget

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Highlights from the $38.8 billion state operating budget for 2016-17 unveiled by Democratic leaders of Washington’s House of Representatives Friday morning:

—K-12 EDUCATION: The proposed budget spends $3.2 billion more on K-12 education than the previous two-year budget, but about $1.5 billion of that is new spending, which includes $412 million to reduce class sizes in kindergarten through third grade, $741 million to cover the cost of textbooks, supplies and other costs of running schools, $180 million for all-day kindergarten for children statewide, and $70 million to help make students college and career ready via programs including guidance counseling and support for bilingual students.

—MENTAL HEALTH: Partly in response to a Supreme Court decision, House Democrats propose to increase mental-health system spending by $103 million, most of which will go to adding more beds in community mental health facilities ($35.1 million) and in competency restoration wards at state hospitals ($23.1 million).

—COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: A two-year tuition freeze at the state’s public colleges and universities would cost $106 million, which is the largest single slice of Democrats’ proposed $257 million increase in higher-education spending. Two scholarship programs, the Opportunity Scholarship for low- and middle- income students majoring in science, engineering, math or technology, and the State Need Grant, which currently is not paid to more than 30,000 students who qualify for it, get a combined $113 million in new spending. Starting the new Washington State University Medical School costs another $8 million.

—EARLY LEARNING: The proposed budget spends $227 million more on pre-kindergarten programs, with $89.1 million going to preschool for low-income families and families with disabled children, and another $47.4 million on the Early Achievers program that ties reimbursements for child care providers to the state’s quality rating and improvement system.

—TEACHER PAY: The proposed budget allocates $385 million to restore cost-of-living-adjustments for teacher pay, which have been suspended for six years, and $203 million to bring teachers’ health benefit funding to the same level as the state employee system.

—STATE EMPLOYEE PAY: Pay raises and arbitration awards for state employees draw $256.2 million in increased spending from the state’s general fund.

In addition to several larger-ticket revenue measures in the budget, the Democrats’ proposal also includes an equalizer for Internet transactions that charge customers sales tax for in-state transactions only — a setup the Democrats say puts Washington businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

For a Washington resident, buying from Amazon means paying sales tax, while buying from Overstock.com does not. The Democrats say SHB 1678, to establish several ways to charge sales tax on such transactions — if a credit card from a company with a Washington presence is used, or if a transaction middleman, such as transaction referrer, has Washington presence — would increase state revenues by $30 million in 2015-17 and $54.7 million in 2017-19.

Read more here: http://ift.tt/1EMNdCk

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1EMNbu4

via IFTTT

State capital gains tax part of House Democrats’ budget plan

Former Obama Tech Expert: Democrats Need a Competitive Primary

Senate Democratic opposition to Medicare pay bill softening

Senate Democrats are softening their opposition to a bipartisan bill likely to pass the House on Thursday that would fix how Medicare pays physicians and extend a children’s health insurance program for two years.

President Barack Obama put pressure on Democrats on Wednesday when he said he looks forward to signing a “good bipartisan bill” to change the Medicare formula and permanently put an end to the “doc fixes” that Congress has passed for years. Endorsements also came from a wide swath of outside groups, such as the Center for American Progress and nearly every physician, hospital and health advocacy group.

Despite some misgivings by conservatives over the price tag, the House is expected to overwhelmingly approve the deal negotiated by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It will then go to the Senate, where it is seen as increasingly likely to pass, although that may not happen until after Congress returns from its

Senate Democrats had two big objections. They wanted to double the House’s two-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and they didn’t want to include Hyde Amendment abortion restrictions to the bill’s funding for community health centers. Also, the Senate was not involved in the negotiations, which has frustrated Democrats. Senate Republicans are much more supportive, but some have expressed concern that the package is not fully paid for.

But support has been growing for the unlikely breakthrough. The deal is striking in its historic nature: a bipartisan negotiation between the House’s top Republican and top Democrat on a budget issue — the broken Medicare payment formula — and the extension of CHIP months before its funding deadline in late September. That gives the states — and doctors and hospitals — a lot more certainty as they plan ahead.

House Republican and Democratic aides expressed optimism that it would be widely supported except by hard-line conservatives who oppose deficit spending and progressives who don’t like some of the Medicare changes, which shift some costs to older Americans. The House Rules Committee approved the legislation on a bipartisan voice vote on Wednesday.

After House passage, it is unclear whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would try to quickly approve the bill after the Senate’s budget debate wrapped up, likely late Thursday or very early Friday morning. But Democrats aren’t likely to go along with a fast-track plan.

A handful of Democratic senators on Wednesday said for the first time that they would support the deal, but they still want a chance to amend it. Some are also worried about approving changes to entitlement programs with scant debate in the predawn hours after a long budget vote-a-rama.

If a vote doesn’t happen this week, lawmakers still have a little time to act after the recess. Without legislation, physicians would see a 21 percent cut in their payments on April 1, but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services could essentially delay that cut until April 14, one day after the Senate returns.

Some, like Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, are pushing for a swifter resolution.

“As a doctor, I used to come here to lobby to say why is this thing still getting kicked down the road,” said Barrasso, a member of the Republican leadership. “I think it will pass if we can get it to the floor without having [Minority Leader] Harry Reid once again obstruct the business of the Senate.”

Reid said Tuesday that he wanted to wait until the House passed the bill before deciding whether he supports it.

As recently as last week, many Senate Democrats — including all of those on the Finance Committee — said they were reluctant to support the plan.

But some, such as Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, said they support it. She said Wednesday that she has no concern with the Hyde language since community health centers have been subject to the abortion restrictions for decades.

“We’re getting two years of CHIP, and it was not too long ago that we worried we were even going to get one year,” she said. “So to me, we should reward Speaker Boehner for working with the Democrats and finding a compromise by saying ‘way to go.’”

“I’m fairly confident that we will get this done,” she added.

Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is also inclined to support the bill.

“Getting the doc fix done once and for all is a positive development,” he said. “I wish that it had four years for the CHIP program, but as Mick Jagger once famously said, you don’t always get what you want.”

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia said that he could see himself supporting it, but he too would like to offer amendments, such as a longer extension for CHIP.

“We have a chance to do something that hasn’t been done for 17 years,” he told reporters. When asked whether Democratic leaders should slow down the bill, he said, “I would hope not.”

Other Democrats remain more skeptical. Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, both of Maryland, told POLITICO that they’re concerned about the bill.

The deal would eliminate the existing Medicare formula for paying physicians, the Sustainable Growth Rate, which both sides agree is flawed. It would implement a new payment policy that is designed to reward quality instead of volume, part of a larger shift in American medicine. To pay for part of the deal, it would establish two changes to entitlement programs: It would require additional means-testing for high-income seniors’ Medicare premiums and eliminate first-dollar coverage in future Medigap policies. Some seniors groups oppose those changes.

Only a fraction of the cost of the package is paid for in the first decade. The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that it would add $141 billion to the deficit in the next decade — but that Congress’s current patch-after-patch trajectory would cost almost as much. The agency said savings from the structural reforms to Medicare would increase in later years but that a solid estimate was nearly impossible to measure that far in the future, given how fast U.S. health care is changing.

“It’s my hope that after tomorrow we won’t actually have to talk about [the SGR] anymore,” said Rep. Michael Burgess, one of the bill’s sponsors, “and that’s actually the day that I live for.”

Read more: http://ift.tt/1Cd0Iwt

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1HO1m4U

via IFTTT

Israel’s lobbying on Iran makes no difference, Democrats say

Sen. Diane Feinstein said she thought her conversation with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer "cleared the air," but many Democrats remain unhappy with Israel's lobbying against nuclear negotiations with Iran. | AP Photo

Israeli officials have mounted an aggressive push over the past three months to turn Senate Democrats against President Barack Obama’s nuclear negotiations with Iran — an effort that, according to The Wall Street Journal, was aided by Israeli spies who snooped on the nuclear talks and shared negative information with U.S. lawmakers.

But interviews with numerous Democratic senators on Tuesday suggest the Israeli campaign in Congress against a nuclear agreement may have backfired. At best, several of them said, it’s made no difference and was simply a restatement of the Israeli government’s public antagonism toward a deal. In some cases, it appears to have made some lawmakers more sympathetic to the White House, given that the Israelis are decrying a deal that isn’t yet finished.

“They are putting on a full-court press to say it’s a bad deal,” said Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and supports legislation that would allow Congress to approve or reject a deal.

“The deal’s not done, it’s not completed and yet it’s being presented … as ‘it’s a bad deal.’ I’m not sure how you say it’s a bad deal,” King said. “We don’t know what the deal is.”

The push and pull in Congress between the president and one of America’s closest allies has culminated with Democrats successfully pushing Republican leadership to postpone votes on legislation that could undercut the president on Iran until mid-April. Now the White House has three weeks of breathing room to reach a framework for an agreement before Congress potentially moves to intervene.

Led by Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer, a fierce opponent of Obama’s dealings with Iran, Israeli officials began briefing Democratic lawmakers on the alleged contours of the deal weeks ago. That information included details that administration officials believe can have come only through spying on the talks, according to the Journal.

Israeli officials strongly denied that the information was gleaned through electronic eavesdropping. And on Tuesday, influential senators could not verify that information used in meetings between Israeli officials and Democrats came from Israeli surveillance or was classified.

“All the intelligence information I’ve gotten has come from America,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Anything I’ve heard from [Dermer] has been no different from his public pronouncements. They don’t like the deal.”

The aggressiveness of the Israeli officials was swiftly countered by the White House, which expanded its own outreach to target Democratic senators who may be predisposed to take a hawkish position toward Iran and could decide how much sway Congress has — if any — over a nuclear deal.

The behind-the-scenes efforts come as relations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama appear to be as poor in public as they are said to be in private. On Wednesday, Obama called their relationship “businesslike” and made little effort to deny the strained ties between the two leaders.

The competition between Netanyahu and Obama’s emissaries was evident in their efforts to sway senators like Kirsten Gillibrand. In the past, the New York Democrat supported new Iran sanctions, but so far this year she has not. On Thursday, Gillibrand visited the White House for a briefing on the negotiations’ state-of-play, which she said was mostly a recitation of a deal’s potential contours that loosen some sanctions on Iran in return for monitoring of the country’s nuclear program and scaling back its potential to make nuclear weapons.

That meeting came a few weeks after Gillibrand met with Dermer for what she called a “frank” discussion of Israeli concerns, including Netanyahu’s skepticism that a deal with Iran can be adequately verified.

She left the meeting ready to defer to Obama.

“The president has a right to have the space to negotiate the best deal he can. And then we’ll have a chance to opine,” Gillibrand said. Asked what Israel’s motivations were in her meeting with Dermer, she replied: “I think they’re just working hard to be heard.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a vocal backer of legislation that would give Congress the ability to accept or reject a nuclear agreement, traveled to Israel in January. He met with Knesset members, intelligence and military officials, and Netanyahu himself. The message from the prime minister then wasn’t much different from what all of Congress heard from him during his speech to Congress a few weeks later.

“You will not be surprised to know that the prime minister’s speech in his office was pretty much what he said to Congress in March. He does not believe in the possibility of a good deal,” Kaine recalled. “You can agree on some of the specifics that ‘yeah, this is a matter of concern,’ without necessarily agreeing that there’s no way to address it. He doesn’t see any way to address it, but I’m not sure that’s the case.”

Dermer also visited Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Feb. 6 at her Washington home, a meeting arranged at her request. The two went back and forth for 90 minutes, she said, and it was clear his intention was to change her mind and convert her into a skeptic of the administration’s negotiating acumen.

It didn’t work, Feinstein said, but “I don’t begrudge him that at all. … We had a good two-sided discussion I thought cleared the air.”

As far as whether Dermer brought classified information to Feinstein in an effort to influence her, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee demurred: “I’m not aware of anything he told me that was classified.” For his part, King said that nothing Dermer relayed to him set off an alarm over the source.

“If they are spying, they are not telling me about it,” quipped Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

But few in Congress denied that Israel is targeting lawmakers to sway their opinions on Iran. And there’s evidence that Israeli officials chose those targets carefully, avoiding members who appear immovable. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a vocal proponent of giving Obama space to negotiate, said he hadn’t heard anything from Israel. The same goes for Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who has clashed repeatedly with the president over his administration’s nuclear negotiations and supports a pair of Iran bills opposed by the White House.

Ultimately, the show of force from the administration — including more than 100 briefings this year, personal conversations between Democrats and President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, and a letter from White House chief of staff Denis McDonough — proved effective. Senate Democrats pushed Menendez and Corker to move a committee vote to April 14, when it will be clear whether there is any agreement with Iran, and Democrats can vote without worry of scuttling negotiations.

“Nothing was lost by waiting til the 14th. A final deal, even if there is an interim deal, won’t be finalized until June,” Menendez said. “We can set the legislation up and hopefully have it pass significantly so the president considers signing it.”

There’s no indication that Obama’s mind will change on a piece of legislation that McDonough wrote “goes well beyond ensuring that Congress has a role to play in any deal with Iran.”

But if there is a deal, Obama appears sure to face off with Congress, and perhaps Israel will receive late returns on its lobbying effort. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he’s expecting to move after Easter recess on the congressional approval bill, a long-anticipated vote that supporters believe can reach the veto-proof threshold of 67 votes.

Read more: Source: http://ift.tt/1EQhmTD

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1EV9DDS

via IFTTT

Democrats see glimmer of hope in Dan Coats’ retirement

Indiana Sen. Dan Coats’ announcement on Tuesday that he will not seek another term has heartened Democrats who now see a slight chance to pick off a red-state Senate seat in 2016.

At the top of Democrats’ wish list is former Sen. Evan Bayh, whose $10 million war chest has kept him firmly on the party’s radar. But a Bayh adviser threw cold water on the possibility late Tuesday.

“He received several calls urging him to run for the United States Senate. He is not a candidate for United States Senate in 2016,” said Dan Parker, Bayh’s former state director and former chair of the Indiana Democratic Party.

Asked whether that meant Bayh would not be a candidate at any point in the cycle, Parker repeated his assertion that Bayh “is not a candidate.”

“Evan wanted to thank Sen. Coats for his service,” Parker added. “He’s always been a good and decent man, and he served the people of Indiana admirably.”

Bayh told POLITICO Campaign Pro last week, before Coats’ announcement, that he’s not interested in returning to the Senate, although he stopped short of a Shermanesque refusal to run.

“I’m not running for any office, and I have no interest at this point in running for any office,” he said in a phone interview.

Despite Democrats’ optimism, the seat still leans toward a Republican hold in 2016. A number of Republicans are expected to consider the race, including Coats’ chief of staff.

But one reason Democrats are so intrigued by a potential Bayh comeback bid is that he’d begin the race with nearly enough money to run a statewide campaign from the get-go. Bayh’s $10 million campaign account left over from his Senate days is nearly twice what then-Rep. Joe Donnelly spent in the entire 2012 cycle to win the Hoosier State’s other Senate seat.

Asked about his stocked campaign coffers, Bayh said last week, “That’s a very reasonable thing for people to look at. The takeaway from that is not that I have something specific in mind, but simply because the future is uncertain. It’s keeping my options open. Even if the likelihood of me running for something is pretty unlikely, it’s just keeping that option open.”

After Bayh, Democrats are eyeing former Rep. Baron Hill, who indicated Tuesday he’s thinking about a bid.

“I am interested in it,” he said, adding that he still needs to have “conversations” with allies before he makes a decision.

Hill has been openly mulling a run for governor; Democrats are waiting to see whether Gov. Mike Pence seeks a second term or optsto run for president, which seems increasingly unlikely.

Indiana is a Republican-leaning state with an occasionally Democratic streak. The state went for Barack Obama in 2008 but shifted hard to the right in 2012, when Mitt Romney won by a wide margin. But even that year, the state also elected Donnelly, a moderate Democrat. Today, seven of its nine congressional seats belong to Republicans, many of whom were quickly considered potential contenders for the Senate seat.

They include Rep. Marlin Stutzman, a conservative who isn’t a favorite of the GOP establishment.

“We will be taking a serious look at running again,” said Stutzman, who finished second to Coats in the 2010 Senate primary before being tapped by GOP leaders to replace disgraced former Rep. Mark Souder, who resigned following a sex scandal. “A lot of our 2010 supporters are reaching out already.”

Other lawmakers Republicans mentioned as possible contenders include Reps. Todd Rokita, Jackie Walorski, and Todd Young.

But a handful of other Republicans are eyeing a bid as well. State House Speaker Brian Bosma is on some GOP short lists. Eric Holcomb, Coats’ chief of staff and a former chairman of the state party, has taken a leave of absence as he mulls running. An ally — former Indiana GOP Communications Director Pete Seat — said Holcomb has seen “an immediate outpouring of support from every corner of Indiana.”

Donnelly’s 2012 win will be fresh in the mind of Republicans in Washington, who know holding onto the seat is vital in maintaining control of the Senate in 2016. Donnelly’s 2012 win was fueled in large part by Richard Mourdock’s upset win over then-Sen. Richard Lugar in the GOP primary; after a closely fought race, Mourdock made comments about rape, pregnancy and religion that led to his downfall.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who chaired the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2012, said Tuesday that the NRSC is unlikely to unite behind one candidate before Indiana GOP voters have their say in a primary.

“That’s the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party,” Cornyn told reporters on Capitol Hill. “The Democratic Party comes in and clears the field. Republican politics don’t work that way. It’s all grass roots up. But we need to make sure we have a good candidate. We need to hold the seat.”

The current leaders of the Senate political committees greeted the news of Coats’ retirement cautiously.

“We have a very deep bench in Indiana,” said Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “And we’re going to miss Dan Coats after 2016, but we’re well positioned to hold that seat, and I think Sen. Coats is interested in being part of that effort.”

Wicker’s Democratic counterpart, Montana Sen. Jon Tester, nodded to the fact that the seat may now be more competitive without an incumbent on the ballot. “It’s not a bad thing from my perspective,” he said.

Read more: http://ift.tt/1BphFQQ

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1FCdrge

via IFTTT

Rep. Joaquin Castro climbs higher in Democratic leadership

Poll: Support for Hillary Clinton drops among Democrats

Hillary Clinton is pictured. | AP Photo

Democratic support for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the White House has taken a slight dip amid reports this month that the former secretary of state used her personal email address and server for official business, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. But the controversy hasn’t changed the minds of most Americans on whether they like her or would vote for her for president.

Another Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that two-thirds of Americans surveyed had heard of the email controversy, but 66 percent also said their opinion of the former secretary of state has not changed as a result. And 49 percent said it would have no effect on whether they would vote for her in 2016.

Democratic backing for a Clinton bid dropped by as much as 15 percentage points since mid-February in the tracking poll. By and large, however, Democrats still support Clinton by a wide margin over potential challengers in the party — just 14 percent of Democrats surveyed said the emails would make it less likely to vote for her in the primary.

A separate poll released Wednesday — this one by CNN/ORC — found that Clinton maintains a strong advantage over other Democratic hopefuls and tops every Republican candidate in a series of hypothetical matchups. That survey, conducted March 13-15, interviewed 1,009 Americans, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The responses to the CNN poll followed a decidedly partisan split: 41 percent overall agreed that Clinton turned over all work-related emails to the State Department, but only 22 percent of Republicans thought she did.

Asked by CNN whether Clinton has a right to keep her personal emails private, 71 percent said she does, compared with 17 percent who responded that she does not. Regarding an independent review of her emails, 55 percent expressed support, though only 46 percent of Democrats did so, compared with 77 percent of Republicans.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online March 10-17, surveying 2,128 Americans, including 838 Democrats, 736 Republicans and 276 independents. The online credibility interval for the survey is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points overall, 3.9 percentage points for Democrats, 4.1 percentage points for Republicans and 6.7 percentage points for independents.

Read more: http://ift.tt/1FERWu3

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1EvAALK

via IFTTT

Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal

Expensive Senate race pits Democrats against each another

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A Democrat almost assuredly will win a state Senate seat in an east San Francisco Bay Area district where the party holds a 15-point registration edge. So why have unions poured $115,000 into a committee to support a Republican who dropped out of the race weeks ago?

Blame Democratic infighting.

Labor unions are trying to ensure that Steve Glazer, a Democrat seen as anti-union, doesn’t defeat two other Democrats who are considered pro-labor: Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla and former Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan.

The 7th District race, one of three state Senate races on the ballot Tuesday, is emblematic of the battle within the state Democratic Party between those like Buchanan and Bonilla who are viewed as supporting union ideals and expanded social welfare spending and others like Glazer and Gov. Jerry Brown who preach fiscal prudence.

Underscoring the high stakes is the $2.1 million pumped into the race by independent expenditure committees — campaign organizations set up by special interests.

Glazer, a longtime political adviser to Brown, is challenging the Democratic Party orthodoxy.

Among the tactics in play are mailers urging Republicans to vote for Michaela Hertle, a first-time GOP candidate who dropped out a week after entering the race but whose name remains on the ballot. Hertle endorsed Glazer, but fliers from the Asian American Small Business PAC to Republicans say “let’s elect one of our own.”

The PAC has mostly supported Democratic candidates of Asian descent; Hertle is neither.

Bill Wong, who runs the committee, said the group backs Hertle because she is the only small businessperson on the ballot. He said he has not spoken with the unions that have poured money into the PAC in recent weeks about why they did so.

Hertle said the mailers are disingenuous; she has recorded automated calls on Glazer’s behalf urging Republicans to ignore them. Under California’s open primary, registered voters can cast their ballot for any candidate, regardless of party.

“If the labor unions don’t like Steve Glazer, there is nothing about me that they would like,” she said in an interview. “So the fact that they are spending a lot of money to promote me under this guise, that’s just false principles on their part.”

After running Brown’s 2010 election campaign, Glazer earned the enmity of labor unions in 2012 by working for a Chamber of Commerce-funded committee to unseat incumbent Democrats in the Legislature. He then called for a ban on transit strikes as Bay Area Rapid Transit workers threatened a walkout. He also posted online some of the dozens of questionnaires sent to candidates by special interest groups in exchange for endorsements and financial support.

“It’s about the special interests controlling the Legislature. They do that through campaign expenditures and through secret questionnaires,” Glazer said.

Glazer’s donors include charter school proponents and Silicon Valley venture capitalists. Southern California businessman Bill Bloomfield Jr. has spent $550,000 backing Glazer, and the Chamber of Commerce-run JobsPAC has spent about $300,000 backing Glazer and opposing Bonilla and Buchanan.

On the other side, the California Nurses Association, Service Employees International Union and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and other unions have poured $260,000 into a separate committee opposing Glazer. The California Teachers Association spent nearly $150,000 on Buchanan’s behalf.

Democrat Terry Kremin is on the ballot but has not raised enough money to meet the minimum reporting threshold.

Bonilla, of Concord, said she tells constituents who have received attack mailers to “throw them in the trash and read your voter pamphlet.”

“I don’t approve of any of it and think that what the constituents and voters deserve is an honest, straightforward message about where I stand and how I have served them,” she said.

Buchanan, of Alamo, said she would prefer to eliminate independent expenditures. She rejected the idea that the race is part of a broader struggle over the direction of the party.

“This idea that there’s only one moderate candidate is just not accurate. I’ve had a reputation as being a moderate Democrat for decades now,” she said.

Tuesday’s election is a replay of a nasty Assembly race last year in which unions spent heavily to defeat Glazer, leading to a Republican victory in a district where Democrats held an 8-point registration edge.

Brown has not weighed in on Glazer’s bids for higher office, but his sister, former state Treasurer Kathleen Brown, endorsed his Senate campaign.

The race to replace Sen. Mark DeSaulnier is one of three on Tuesday’s ballot after former senators were elected to Congress. Assemblyman Don Wagner faces fellow Republicans John Moorlach and Naz Namazi in SD37 in Orange County, and former Sen. Sharon Runner, a Republican, is the only candidate in SD21.

In the East Bay race, the infighting will continue. The top two candidates will advance to a May 19 runoff.

Read more here: http://ift.tt/1AxJoiK

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1wS5vnQ

via IFTTT

Hillary Clinton email flap gives Democratic rivals reason and room to emerge | Farmer

The outing of Hillary Clinton’s emails is a blessing for Republicans but good for Democrats, too, and better still for the public. Her premature coronation as Democratic presidential nominee — and president — is in no one’s interest.

Hillary remains the front runner for the nomination, but now there’s reason — and perhaps room — for Democratic rivals to emerge. And that’s all to the good.

Admittedly, the Democratic bench is thin. Hillary has, as cliché puts it, sucked all the oxygen — press attention and early cash commitments — out of the run-up to the presidential season. No one else has gotten even a modest look-see. It’s all Hillary all the time, especially on copy-cat cable television.

Now, perhaps, there’ll be a useful pause in her parade to the prize — maybe even something resembling a real contest for the nomination, one that can draw out her thinking on the years and issues ahead.

She needs such an outing, especially if a Wall Street Journal poll finding voters associate Hillary more with the past than the future is accurate. Nothing could be worse politically than an uncontested, Clinton on cruise-control to the nomination.

Who might oppose her? Former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, a combat marine in Vietnam and ex-secretary of the navy, has indicated interest. And Martin O’Malley, former mayor of Baltimore and a two-term governor of Maryland with a likable demeanor and liberal record, gets some mention.

Then there’s Vice President Joe Biden. He gets almost no mention but, despite his shoot-from-the-lip image, he’s a shrewder politician and sharper guy than his reputation suggests. (It’s Biden, remember, who suggested Iraq be federalized into Shi’a, Sunni and Kurdish sectors, which seems to be occurring without our help).

But it’s Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, currently busy hurling grenades at Wall Street and a federal establishment beholden to corporate lobbyists, whom the party’s liberal base yearns for. More than the others, she’d dramatize the fact — uncomfortable for liberals — that Hillary’s a foreign policy hawk and uncomfortably close to Wall Street and big money interests.

A Warren campaign could compel Hillary to move more left, against her better political instincts.

I’ve never believed Hillary is a lock — for the Democratic nomination, yes, but not for the White House. She’s certainly smart enough to be an effective president and tough as a 50-cent steak — a capable combination of competence and combativeness. She’s got the brains and the brass for the presidency.

Hillary remains the front runner for the nomination, but now there’s reason for Democratic rivals to emerge.

But her pugnacious personality, coupled with an almost paranoid secrecy born of distaste for the press, makes her a magnet for controversy.

Moreover, she strikes many as devious and solicits money shamelessly. Remember her straight-faced claim that she and Bill left the White House “dead broke” — with a fortune awaiting them in speeches and books?

It appears she violated no laws with her e-mail adventures. But it’s unclear whether she violated any rules or regulations short of law; also, which e-mails she plans to release and which she’ll withhold or destroy.

In short, she courts complaints, some true, some flagrantly false, that she’s not squeaky clean.

Barring more damage, the e-mail dust-up is unlikely to hurt her much among Democratic primary voters. But it’ll dog her through a long general election, giving House Republicans another excuse to run their bogus Benghazi hearings ad nauseam.

Then there’s the dynasty thing. Hubby Bill gave us (among other things) the most prosperous decade in recent history, plus a $250 billion budget surplus. We could do with more of the same. But are eight more years of Clintons too much? Do we really want more?

Jeb Bush as GOP nominee would dilute the dynasty thing. But a Clinton-Bush race of old familiars might reduce turnout to a near-record low, robbing the victor of anything like a mandate.

The upside for Hillary (drum roll here) is the Republican Congress. It got a gift from the gods with Hillary’s e-mails. All the Grand Old Partisans had to do was sit silently and let Hillary twist slowly in the wind. Instead, they elbowed their way into the spotlight with a bone-headed letter to the Iranian Ayatollah, undercutting President Obama’s nuclear negotiations.

The New York Daily News, usually a reliable Republican voice, branded the 47 GOP signers of the letter “traitors.” A bit over the top? Yes, but understandable. Personally, I prefer Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s characterization of the GOP after an earlier self-inflicted wound.

We are, he said, “the stupid party.” Glad somebody noticed.

Source:http://ift.tt/1EKISEL

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1b9r8GQ

via IFTTT

Why Are Democrats Stuck With Hillary? Blame Obama Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://ift.tt/1BdwN3t Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

The furor over Hillary Clinton’s private email account while Secretary of State, and her poor handling of the revelations, should be a serious blow for her presidential ambitions. She broke or twisted the rules apparently to hide her communications from the public. More broadly, it revived general concerns about her likability and skill as a campaigner.

Yet Clinton has no serious rivals for the nomination. Credit the Clinton brand and her vast political connections for scaring off significant challengers.

But another big reason is that Democrats lack a deep bench. And Democrats can thank President Obama for that.

The party controlling the White House almost always loses down the ballot, especially for a two-term president, according to Geoffrey Skelley, associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

But under Obama, Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats, 69 U.S. House seats and 13 U.S. senate seats, all the most since World War II. Democrats also have lost 11 governorships.

Republicans now control 31 governorships. Obama was elected as a sitting senator, but usually governors, former governors or vice presidents win.

“That executive experience has to make you a more attractive option,” Skelley said. “Governors have a track record for executive decision-making.”

The GOP has governors in several key battleground states, including Florida and the Midwest’s Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan. It even has the governor’s mansion in deep-blue Illinois and Iowa.

It’s not a real surprise that the early GOP front-runners for the 2016 presidential nomination are Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

But it gets worse. Democrats don’t just lack a bench. The bench lacks a bench.

The GOP now controls 68 of the country’s 98 legislative chambers, excluding Nebraska’s officially nonpartisan unicameral legislature. That’s a gain of 30 chambers since the end of 2008. Republicans hold the most slate legislative seats since the 1920s.

As a result, the Democrats’ pool of potential future governors and U.S. senators is historically low. That suggests that the ranks of attractive Democratic presidential contenders will be thin for years to come, even if the party starts to reverse its down-ticket losses.

Democrats do control most big cities. But no sitting mayor has ever been elected president. Grover Cleveland is the only ex-mayor (Buffalo) to take the White House, and he was governor of New York before becoming president.

Besides, mayors face major fiscal challenges over the coming years that will make it hard to stay popular. With public employee retiree costs soaring, Democratic mayors have to choose between raising taxes, cutting services, or taking on unions. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is in a runoff for re-election in large part because he’s butted heads with teachers unions.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://ift.tt/1Fiz6IQ

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1Fiz7wt

via IFTTT

Dispute Over Abortion Provision: Democrats Threaten To Block Trafficking Bill

WASHINGTON | Senate Democrats threatened Wednesday to torpedo bipartisan legislation combating human sex trafficking in a dispute over a Republican-backed abortion provision they said they had failed to notice for nearly two months.

Lawmakers in both parties bemoaned the bill’s evident fate, but neither Republicans nor Democrats seemed willing to give ground.

“This is really not an honorable time or a laudable time in the history of the United States Senate,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

As drafted, the measure would crack down on what lawmakers in both parties described a seamy underworld of drugs and human sex trafficking akin to modern-day slavery. Fines paid by those convicted of the crimes would go into a fund to help victims.

But the specifics of the legislation itself were far overshadowed by a who-knew-what-when dispute over a reliably contentious issue.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Democrats had, in fact, known of the abortion-related provision that Republicans backed, citing discussion among aides of both parties.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in remarks on the Senate floor that “a number of people feel that it was by sleight-of-hand” that the provision was included in the measure, while “others say staff should have seen it was in the bill.” A day earlier, others in his party had said flatly that no one on their side of the aisle had been informed.

At issue was a provision to bar the use of fines paid by convicted traffickers for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the pregnant woman is in jeopardy.

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1wDbAEM

via IFTTT

Dempsey: US worries about Iran-backed militias in Iraq

WASHINGTON — Iran is playing a helpful role against Islamic State militants in Iraq now, but once the extremists are vanquished, Tehran-backed militias could undermine efforts to unify the country, the top U.S. military officer said Wednesday.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers that any move to counter IS is a ‘positive thing.” But he said there are worries about whether those Shiite militias will later turn against Sunni or Kurdish Iraqis and hamper efforts to bridge ethnic and political divisions that have made peace elusive in Iraq.

“We are all concerned about what happens after the drums stop beating and ISIL is defeated, and whether the government of Iraq will remain on a path to provide an inclusive government for all of the various groups within it,” Dempsey said, using an acronym for the militant group.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said officials are watching to see whether the militias, after recapturing lost ground, “engage in acts of retribution and ethnic cleansing.” At this point, “there no indication that that is a widespread event.”

Dempsey joined Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Ash Carter in testifying for more than three hours at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing called to examine President Barack Obama’s proposal for new war powers to fight IS, which holds about one-third of Iraq and neighboring Syria.

The committee chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., lamented that Obama’s proposal does not give the U.S. military clear authority to defend moderate forces training for the Syrian fight from the bombing risk by troops loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Dempsey cited “active discussion” about the kind of support “we would supply once the new Syrian forces are fielded.”

Carter later told reporters at the Pentagon that the U.S. will have “some obligation” to support the moderates as they take on IS and face possible attacks from Assad.

“We all understand that,” Carter said. “And we’re working through what kinds of support and under what conditions we would do so, to include the possibility that, even though they’re trained and equipped to combat ISIL, they could come into contact with forces of the Assad regime.”

Carter and Dempsey’s comments opened the door to possible U.S. military action against Assad forces, if needed, to protect moderate rebels during a clash with regime troops. Obama has ruled out U.S. troops in ground combat in Syria.

Earlier Wednesday, Iraqi soldiers and Shiite militiamen entered IS-held Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown. They breached one of extremists’ strongholds in an important test for Iraqi forces.

Iranian military advisers were helping guide Iraqi forces in the advance. Among those directing operations was the commander of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force.

“The Tikrit operation will be a strategic inflection point one way or the other in terms of easing our concerns or increasing them,” Dempsey said.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said he thinks much of the U.S. strategy is being driven by a desire not to upset the Iranians so they do not walk away from international negotiations aimed at preventing the Islamic Republic from being able to develop nuclear weapons.

“I believe that our military strategy toward IS is influenced by our desire not to cross red lines that the Iranians have about U.S. military presence in the region,” Rubio said.

“Absolutely, not in the least,” Kerry replied.

On the issue of new powers to fight IS, the three witnesses defended the proposal that Obama submitted to Congress last month. The legislation, once finalized, would set up the first war vote in Congress in 13 years.

Carter said Obama’s draft would allow U.S. military force against IS for three years. That would give the next president and Congress the chance to reauthorize it, if needed. He said there are no geographical restrictions included in the proposal because IS has shown signs of activity beyond Syria and Iraq.

Under Obama’s proposal, the fight could extend to any “closely related successor entity” to IS. The administration has ruled out any “enduring” offensive combat operations.

Carter said the plan “does not authorize long-term, large-scale offensive ground combat operations like those we conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our strategy does not call for them,” Carter said. “Instead, local forces must provide the enduring presence needed for an enduring victory.”

Republicans have expressed unhappiness that Obama chose to exclude the possibility of a long-term commitment of ground forces. Some Democrats voiced dismay that he had left the door open to any deployment at all.

“What does ‘no enduring offensive combat operations’ mean to you?” asked Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, the committee’s top Democrat.

“I don’t think anybody contemplates years or a year,” Kerry said. “That’s not in the thinking of the president.”

Read more here: http://ift.tt/1b7jEE2

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1BcAHJN

via IFTTT