Agenda Dilemma: USMCA or Impeachment?

http://www.foxbusiness.com

As 2019 comes to a close, Congress has limited time to finish many items on its lengthy agenda. For months, House Democrats and the White House have been deadlocked in their discussions to resolve policy disagreements over the USMCA, the major trade deal struck by the Trump administration with Mexico and Canada to revise NAFTA. However, as impeachment has become the central agenda item in the House, the goal of passing the USMCA by Christmas seems to be falling short.

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and the US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer met last week to move past the impasse, and while significant progress made, no agreement was finalized. Many moderate Democrats elected in 2018 in Trump districts are keen on passing to USMCA to show a tangible bipartisan issue that they have helped resolve to their voters.

Nevertheless, the nation and Congress’s focus has shifted from trade policy to the landmark impeachment hearings taking place in the House Intelligence Committee. Many progressive Democrats buoyed by their voters’ anger towards President Trump have prioritized impeaching President Trump. President Trump has pointed out the lack of policymaking on important issues such as trade and drug prices due to the impeachment inquiry.

The House’s end of year agenda will be determined by Speaker Nancy Pelosi as she balances the wishes of varying perspectives within the Democratic Caucus. While difficult, it is entirely possible that Speaker Pelosi accomplishes both passing a revised USMCA and voting on articles of impeachment by year’s end. Speaker Pelosi has incredible political instincts, and Americans should not underestimate her abilities to accomplish the House’s most pressing issues.

Impeachment Inquiry Continues: Ukraine Quid Pro Quo?

http://www.bbc.com

After Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the opening of an impeachment inquiry into potential wrongdoing by President Trump in the withholding of military aid to Ukraine, Democratic investigations have quickly ramped up after hearing from key witnesses involved in the scandal. Testimony from officials such as the former ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor and ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland have implicated the president in a quid pro quo where military aid for Ukraine was tied to opening investigations into the DNC and Hunter Biden, the son of his potential rival Joe Biden.

These revelations have bolstered criticisms of President Trump by Democrats in Congress and have created a framework for a potential impeachment after the conclusion of the investigations. Democrats believe that the president’s use of the power of his office to find dirt on his opponents violates federal law and is a threat to the American democratic system. They believe that the steady flow of incriminating evidence and testimony is slowly changing public opinion in favor of impeachment.

Republicans, however, have been quick to defend the President. While some have found it difficult to defend the president on the core allegations, stalwart defenders of President Trump in the House of Representatives have been quick to attack the process of the impeachment inquiry. They argue that an official vote should be taken in the House like the two previous impeachment investigations to provide the president fair due process and allow Republicans to have subpoena power. A group of House Republicans stormed a closed door, classified hearing from one witness to protest the process which they believe does not allow input of Republican voices.

President Trump has become frustrated by what he views as a weak response to the impeachment inquiry. However, Democrats have become determined to continue investigating and revealing potentially damning information that could establish a clear quid pro quo implicating the president. While it seems likely that the House is set for impeaching the president, it remains unclear if Republican Senators will turn on the president and convict him.

Ukraine Whistleblower Report Roils Washington

http://www.businessinsider.com

Congress and the White House were thrust into the national spotlight after reporting revealed that a whistleblower report had brought to light serious and troubling allegations about conversations between President Donald Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky. These allegations from a whistleblower who worked with President Trump’s national security team allege that the President Trump encouraged the Ukranian President to investigate potential Democratic opponent Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and his business dealings in that country.

These allegations, if true, would be demonstrably illegal and would constitute collusion with a foreign power using the office of president to improve Trump’s chances of reelection. These reports accelerated support in the Democratic Caucus of the House of Representatives for opening an impeachment inquiry. Many moderate Democrats such as Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) and Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) who have been wary of impeaching the impeachment were propelled to support this impeachment inquiry. Additionally, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), acknowledging this marked change in her caucus despite being hesitant prior, has endorsed an impeachment inquiry.

Many in the White House have acknowledged that this impeachment threat is the greatest threat to Trump’s presidency. The public and congressional pressure led the White House to release a rough transcript of the call and a copy of the whistleblower report. The information present on these documents are considered more serious that what was previously reported and indicate that the White House had hidden the phone call transcript by putting it under secure national security material.

Many Republicans were quick to come to the President’s defense by discrediting the whistleblower as using hearsay to support the vast majority of his or her argument. However, many were troubled by the allegations and say they support greater investigation into these pressing allegations. However, this report has raised greater scrutiny about the content of other phone calls the president has had with other world leaders such as with Saudi Arabia and Russia. As the impeachment investigations continue, it will be crucial to examine public opinion in support of impeachment and the severity of the president’s actions.

Massive Budget Deal Passes Congress

http://www.newsweek.com

This week Congress passed a massive budget deal that would greatly increase both military and domestic discretionary spending. This two year budget deal provides more than $2.7 trillion in discretionary spending over the next two years and raises raises the debt ceiling until 2021 after the 2020 elections. The deal was an outright rejection of the 2011 Budget Control Act, passed with support from the tea party movement, which placed strict caps on both domestic and military discretionary spending. The deal sets spending at about $324 billion above the spending caps in the 2011 law. Additionally, the deal includes $77 billion in cuts to mandatory spending programs as offsets.

The deal was heavily supported by Democrats who were eager to end the threat of sequestration which in their view prevented the government from investing in important domestic priorities. Some Republicans and President Trump backed the deal due to the large increase in military spending which they believe is necessary for military readiness. However, many conservative Republicans who ran multiple campaigns on the issue of fiscal responsibility and the need to cut spending lambasted the deal, saying it needlessly increases the debt and goes back on their promises to voters.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) heavily criticized Republicans who supported the deal and pondered that the deal signaled the end of the Tea Party. Sen. Paul proposed an amendment that would cap spending at low levels and pass a balanced budget amendment, but it was rejected by the Senate. The House of Representatives passed the deals by a vote of 284-149, buoyed mostly by support of Democrats and Republican defense hawks. The Senate passed the measure by a vote of 67-28 with most of the opposition from Republicans upset about the cost. Washington seems unconcerned about the deficit and continues on a path to fiscal unsustainability.

Obamacare Again in Legal Jeopardy

http://www.politico.com

As the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama’s controversial landmark achievement, reaches ten years of age, it cannot escape numerous legal challenges that have threatened its existence. This health care law also known as Obamacare has narrowly been upheld in two Supreme Court cases. The most notable was the case NFIB v. Sebelius which was decided in a 5-4 decision. The plaintiffs in the case argued that the individual mandate section of the law which requires all Americans to buy health insurance or face a fine was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress’s power under the interstate commerce clause.

However, in a surprise decision Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals, declaring that the individual mandate is within Congress’s power because it is merely a tax. Roberts’s narrow decision is being used in a new lawsuit Texas v. Azar which is making its way through federal courts. A coalition of Republican controlled states led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing the federal government, saying that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

These states argue that when Congress zeroed the fine of the individual mandate in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, the individual mandate could no longer be constitutional. Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the entire law must be declared unconstitutional. In a surprise move, the Justice Department refused to defend the law and agreed with the states that large portions of Obamacare are unconstitutional. A coalition formed by the House of Representatives as well as Democratic controlled states like California rushed to defend the law from this legal challenge.

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Judge Reed O’Connor agreed with Texas and its coalition of states; he declared that because the individual mandate is now unconstitutional, the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is also unconstitutional. However, his decision would not become effective pending an appeal to the 5th Circuit of Appeals.

The case finally has had a hearing before a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The three judges were Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George Bush appointee, Judge Carolyn Dineen King, a Jimmy Carter appointee, and Judge Kurt Engelhardt, a Donald Trump apointee. The two Republican appointed judges immediately seemed critical of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Judge Elrod followed the logic of Judge O’Connor, the district court judge, and Judge Engelhardt was skeptical of the House of Representatives’s standing in the case. Judge King did not ask any questions.

Democrats and supporters of Obamacare became worried by the skepticism of the Judges to their arguments and many court observers believe that the 5th Circuit is poised to either declare Obamacare unconstitutional or say that those appealing have no standing to do so. Republicans in Congress, while critical of the law, have not created any health care plans that could be implemented if the court declares the law unconstitutional and would rather not return to the issue that deeply fractured their party in 2017.

The country is anxiously waiting for the decision from the 5th Circuit which will undoubtedly have a profound impact on the lives of millions of Americans. If the law is declared unconstitutional, health care will become an even more prominent issue before the 2020 elections and the Supreme Court will be forced to weigh in again on the constitutionality of the health care law once again.

Shutdown Showdown

http://www.abcnews.go.com

For the last 19 days, Democrats and President Trump have been locked in a tense showdown over reopening the government. Despite initially throwing his support for a series of bills to reopen the government, President Trump changed his mind and decided that he would shut down the federal government if her did not get money for his promised border wall. There have been tense negotiations but neither side looks like they are willing toccata, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers without pay in limbo.

The week before the Congress winter recess the Senate passed a series of bills to fund the government that the President initially pledged to support. However, after many Senators left town, the President announced that he would not support a funding bill without money for the wall, hindering the ability to pass the bills in the House. Republicans tried to pass a funding bill with wall money which was also defeated. With no solution, Congress left Washington only to postpone their issues for a few weeks.

The last week Republicans and Democrats have repeatedly failed to come up with a solution to fund the government. Speaker Pelosi has said that she will never allocate funds for a border wall while the President will not support a bill without funding for a physical barrier on the southern border. In an attempt to increase public support for the wall, President Trump delivered a public address laying out his reasoning for building a wall of the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration. Democratic leaders Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer delivered a response, reiterating their position that no negotiations over border security shall begin until the government is reopened.

Frustrated by the lack of progress, President Trump has contemplated declaring a national emergency and redirecting money from the military to build the wall. Many legal experts doubt that this plan will past muster in the courts, but it is viewed by many as the best political option for Trump because he can appear like he is fighting to keep his promise while reopening the government. However, expansion of executive power is similar to those of President Obama Republicans criticized and decried as weakening the separation of powers. With no resolution in sight, the country anxiously waits for the government to reopen and provide certainty to their everyday lives.

Nancy Pelosi as Speaker? Not Certain Anymore

http://www.vanityfair.com

When Election Night 2018 ended, it seemed like a certainty that Nancy Pelosi would be speaker in the upcoming Congress. She successfully led the Democratic Party to gain close to 40 seats in the House of Representatives and proved herself to be a successful fundraiser for candidates across the country. She was speaker from 2007-2011 and served as minority leader since then. Her legislative prowess is well documented as she is credited for getting Obamacare through Congress in 2010. However, she is facing a slew of House Democrats who might have the power to topple her.

Nancy Pelosi maintains a narrow margin if she wishes to be elected Speaker because she must hold 216 votes of her own Democrats on the floor of the House of Representatives. 16 Democratic representatives including Rep-elect Ben McAdams (D-UT), Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY), and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) have signed onto a letter announcing that they will oppose Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House. Additionally, there are many freshman Democrats who ran their campaigns promising not to vote for Pelosi but have not signed the letter, so they do not jeopardize future relationships. These persons include Reps. elect Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI).

Finally, nine Democrats from the moderate bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus including Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL) said they are withholding their votes for Pelosi unless she agrees to Break the Gridlock Rules that would encourage bipartisanship and help pass bills that are supported by moderates of both parties. Interestingly, Nancy Pelosi’s road to victory might lie with Republicans. Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY), member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, said he would vote for Pelosi if she agreed to the Break the Gridlock rules. President Trump seemed to endorse this idea on Twitter when he threw his support behind Pelosi.

However, Pelosi’s legislative power and knowledge of her caucus cannot be underestimated in her fight to solidify the votes to elect her Speaker. Already, she has flipped Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) by letting her chair a House Subcommittee and Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) by promising to prioritize infrastructure spending and expanding Medicare. As the House Leadership election approaches, it will be interesting to see how Pelosi will try to persuade her opposition to support her and whether her effort will ultimately be successful. If she does not have the votes, a new leader will have to emerge,  something that is entirely unclear right now. Overall, this fight for the Speakership will have a significant impact on the political discourse in the coming years.

 

Countdown to the Midterm Elections

http://www.nitty-grittynews.com

The midterm elections are just over 3 weeks away and campaign season is in full swing. Voters are being bombarded by incessant political ads on cable and the internet as well as being mailed frequent political mailers. Candidates and incumbent congressmen and senators are home in their districts trying to mobilize their bases and win over swing voters. Political tensions are high between Republicans and Democrats who are trying to support their respective candidates.

In the House elections, Republicans are on defense defending dozens of vulnerable districts giving Democrats an opportunity to take back the House of Representatives. Many voters are upset over the Trump administration and the GOP attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare. In particular, Republicans are struggling to win over college educated suburban voters who are particularly dissatisfied with the Trump presidency. Democrats are targeting the 25 seats that are held by Republican incumbents but were won by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections.

In the Senate elections, Democrats are on defense because 10 Democratic Senators are up for reelection in states that President Donald Trump in 2016, including 5 states where Trump won by over 10%. Republicans are trying to pick up seats in states like Missouri, North Dakota, Florida, and Indiana while trying to hold on to seats where Democrats have a chance to pick up in Tennessee, Nevada, and Arizona. Republicans have recently been bolstered by the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh whose confirmation fight has increased Republican interest in the Midterm elections.

Overall, Democrats have all the advantages: higher fundraising, higher enthusiasm, and a national sentiment that is in opposition to President Trump and the Republican Party. Democrats are likely to gain dozens of seats in the House and likely take back the House. However, due to the unfavorable map, Republicans will probably gain seats in the Senate. No matter the results of the election, the next Congress will be more gridlocked than ever with hyper partisanship and ideological extremism dominating the Congress. However, the results of the election will be very interesting to watch and see how it affects the future of the nation.

Despite Pleas from the International Community, Trump Pulls out of Iran Deal

http://www.pbs.com

Last week, President Donald Trump pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal in a fulfillment of one of his core campaign compromises. The deal, considered one of the landmark achievements of the Obama Administration, has been continuously criticized by Republicans in Congress and during the 2016 campaign by then candidate Donald Trump. Despite the pleas of US allies such as France and Germany, the Trump administration decided to pull the United States out of the agreement because in the President’s view, the deal is not strict enough on controlling Iran’s nuclear ambitions and does not touch other worrying actions of Iran such as its support of terrorist groups and its ballistic missile program. President Trump has the support of President Netanyahu of Israel who claims to possess evidence that Iran lied to the international community prior to the formation of the deal and views Iran as a threat to Israel’s existence. President Trump hopes to rally the international community to make a new stricter nuclear deal with Iran that he would consider acceptable.

Democrats and some Republicans in Congress have expressed concern that withdrawal from the deal will allow Iran to again begin to enrich uranium and pave the way for a creation of nuclear weapons destabilizing the Middle East region by creating a nuclear arms race. Adversaries of Iran in the Middle East such as Israel and Saudi Arabia have pledged to expand or create nuclear weapons programmes to counter the threat of Iranian power. Democrats in particular view the withdrawal as dangerous to world peace and just another example of President Trump dismantling former President Obama’s legacy. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) both previously opposed the passage of the Iran Nuclear Deal in the US Senate in 2015 but now criticize the withdrawal because they say while the deal is not perfect, it must be kept in place in order to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran. Critics of President Trump’s action say that the withdrawal hurts the world’s perception and trust of America’s word.

The withdrawal is furthering tensions with European allies who are already upset with Donald Trump over the imposition of tariffs on their steel production. By reneging on the deal, the United States can once again place sanctions on businesses that deal with Iran. Many of these companies in danger of imposed sanctions include German car maker Volkswagen and French energy giant Total who have recently entered contracts with the Iranian government after the Nuclear Deal allowed financial transactions to be resumed with Iran.  

America’s withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal presents a risk for the Trump administration because this decision can create unforeseen possibilities about the future. The White House does not know precisely how Iran will respond to the economic pressure it will endure from US sanctions or how the deal’s end affects the future of cooperation between Europe and the United States on pressing international issues. President Trump is taking a gamble in foreign affairs in exchange for political gain. While his decision can end up successful by pressuring the international community to pursue a stronger deal, it poses additional risks that can result in further conflict in the Middle East or a collapse in similar nuclear negotiations with North Korea. However regardless of the outcome, President Trump is charting America and the global community on a path toward uncertainty.

Bipartisan Spending Deal

http://www.npr.org

After months of Continuing Resolutions and short term spending gaps, Congress finally agreed on a bipartisan deal to fund the government for fiscal year 2017. Republican and Democratic leadership in Congress agreed on spending levels for defense and domestic spending that was hundreds of billions over the levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act of 2011. Many defense hawks in the Republican Party believed that the defense sequester had negatively impacted the readiness of the US military and pushed for large increases in defense spending over the previous caps. Democrats, however, insisted on spending parity and pushed for a similar increase for domestic social programs. Both parties came to agreement on the caps and over the past months have been engaged in negotiation on what the money will be spent on and what other pieces of legislation should be included in the omnibus bill.

After a series of tense negotiations, the parties failed to reach an agreement on a stabilization passage for Obamacare and a resolution for DACA recipients. President Donald Trump had rejected an offer by Democrats for $25 billion of border wall money in exchange for a path to citizenship for 1.8 million young illegal immigrants. Other points of tension in the spending debate is whether money should be provided to support the Gateway project to create a tunnel between New York City and New Jersey as well as provisions regarding funding for Planned Parenthood and abortion. Some important funding provisions in the bill are billions in funding for infrastructure and money to help combat the opioid crisis.

The funding bill was vehemently opposed by fiscal conservatives such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as well as prominent conservative media personalities Fox News Anchor Tucker Carlson and author Ann Coulter. Many conservatives believe that this bill is an example of overspending in Washington when there already is a debt crisis. Many have cemented the Republican party’s departure from policies of fiscal restraint and austerity under the Obama administration. However, the omnibus bill passed both houses of Congress with comfortable bipartisan majorities. While it was widely believed that President Trump would sign the bill, the president released a tweet criticized the bill and pondered whether he should veto it. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis called the president urging him to sign the bill in order to bolster the military. In the bill signing ceremony, the president listed his grievances will the omnibus and blasted Congress for irresponsible spending and the GOP for not pursing conservative policies. While this fiscal year was just resolved, the next budget and spending deal is needed to be made in the near future.