Thursday, April 15, 2021

Stop Biden’s tax hikes!

Allow me to be blunt. Tax hikes are coming. It's not a matter of if they will arrive. It's a matter of when and how much...

Wednesday, April 7, 2021

Fwd:


Sent: Wed, Apr 7, 2021 11:17 am

Here's The Far-Left's Plan To Take Over Every Federal Court Over Republican Objection

Progressives have long advocated packing the Supreme Court, but a recent plan proposed by far-left judicial activists calls on Senate Democrats to add hundreds of new federal judges to the lower courts through the procedural tactic of reconciliation.
Yale Law School professor Samuel Moyn and Take Back the Court director Aaron Belkin sent a memo March 29 to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and other top Senate Democrats in favor of expanding federal appellate and district courts through reconciliation.
Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure that allows the Senate to pass legislation affecting the budget — including taxation and spending measures — with only a simple majority and no filibuster option.
Senate Democrats previously used reconciliation to pass the COVID-19 relief package in early March without a single Republican vote. Democrats are reportedly considering reconciliation once again to push through President Joe Biden's infrastructure plan. (RELATED: Senator Admits Democrats Will Use Procedural Tactic To Pass Infrastructure Bill Without Republicans)
One hurdle court-packing advocates must overcome is the Byrd rule. Proposed by the late Sen. Robert Byrd in 1985, the rule was formally incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act in 1990 with the intention of preventing senators from abusing reconciliation by adding "extraneous" issues into budget-related legislation.
The Byrd rule grants the Senate parliamentarian, a strictly nonpartisan official, authority to determine whether measures in a reconciliation bill satisfy the six criteria imposed by the rule. A statutory measure expanding the federal courts would specifically have to pass the "merely incidental" standard.
The "merely incidental" standard upholds that non-budget measures can not be included in reconciliation if they do not have a direct impact on the budget, or if its impact is "merely incidental" and not an intended effect of the measure, according to a Heritage Foundation legal analysis of the Byrd rule.
Determining whether a non-budget item meets the standard is often difficult because the Byrd rule does not specify what "merely incidental" means and its interpretation has historically varied depending on the Senate parliamentarian, the Heritage Foundation noted.
The standard was notably used to strike down a proposal to repeal Obamacare's individual mandate when Republicans considered tax reform in 2017, according to The Washington Post. The Senate parliamentarian determined that eliminating the individual mandate was "merely incidental" as it did not intentionally affect the budget.
Instead of eliminating the individual mandate outright, Senate Republicans changed the penalty for violation to zero. This change affected the federal government's tax policy, thus satisfying the "merely incidental" standard, while still effectively ending the individual mandate.
Moyn and Belkin argued in their memo to Senate Democrats that adding 250 lower court judges satisfies the "merely incidental" standard because the proposal would cost an estimated $209 million to $382 million in mandatory government spending, based on data from the United States Courts' congressional budget request for 2021.
It is unclear if current Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough would support the radical proposal. She notably struck down a $15 federal minimum wage proposal from the COVID-19 relief package last month under the Byrd rule. (RELATED: Liberals Call On Biden Administration To Overrule Senate Parliamentarian, Put $15 Minimum Wage In Relief Package)

Friday, April 2, 2021

Fwd: When valid IDs are required

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, Apr 1, 2021 8:01 pm
Subject: Fwd: Fw: When valid IDs are required




Monday, March 29, 2021

A Great Opportunity Society

                                                                  
    
 
           

Click here to open a plain text version of this email                Click here to forward this email              Click here to open this e-mail in its own browser window


imageimage

Thursday, March 25, 2021

The Morning: Five facts about gun violence

Among them: the filibuster is pro-gun.

Good morning. We look at five key facts about gun violence — and the politics of the issue.

A memorial in Boulder, Colo., for the victims of this week’s deadly shooting.Stephen Speranza for The New York Times

‘We know which laws work’

It’s a dismal ritual of American life: A mass shooting occurs — sometimes more than one, in quick succession. The country mourns the victims. And nothing changes.

I expect the same will happen following the killings in Atlanta and Boulder, Colo. But it is still worth taking a few minutes to lay out the basic facts about gun violence. The key one is simply this: The scale of gun deaths in the United States is not inevitable. The country could reduce the death toll, perhaps substantially, if it chose to.

1. The toll approaches pancreatic cancer’s

When gun violence is counted as a single category — spanning homicides, suicides and accidents — it kills about 40,000 Americans a year.

That’s far behind the country’s biggest killers, like heart disease (about 650,000 annual deaths) or Alzheimer’s (about 125,000). But it is broadly comparable to the toll from many well-known causes of death, including an average flu season (35,000), vehicle accidents (39,000), breast cancer (42,000), liver disease (43,000) or pancreatic cancer (45,000).

2. More guns mean more deaths

Republican members of Congress often claim otherwise. After the Boulder shootings, John Thune of South Dakota, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican, dismissed calls for restricting gun availability, saying, “There’s not a big appetite among our members to do things that would appear to be addressing it, but actually don’t do anything to fix the problem.”

But there is overwhelming evidence that this country has a unique problem with gun violence, mostly because it has unique gun availability.

By The New York Times | Sources: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Small Arms Survey, World Bank

It’s not just that every other high-income country in the world has many fewer guns and many fewer gun deaths. It’s also that U.S. states with fewer guns — like California, Illinois, Iowa and much of the Northeast — have fewer gun deaths. And when state or local governments have restricted gun access, deaths have often declined, Michael Siegel of Boston University’s School of Public Health says.

“The main lesson that comes out of this research is that we know which laws work,” Siegel says. (Nicholas Kristof, the Times columnist, has written a good overview, called “How to Reduce Shootings.”)

3. Mass shootings aren’t the main problem

They receive huge attention, for obvious reasons: They are horrific. But they are also not the primary source of gun violence. In 2019, for example, only about one out of every 400 gun deaths was the result of a mass shooting (defined as any attack with at least four deaths). More than half of gun deaths are from suicides, as Margot Sanger-Katz of The Times has noted.

Still, many of the policies that experts say would reduce gun deaths — like requiring gun licenses and background checks — would likely affect both mass shootings and the larger problem.

4. Public opinion is complicated

Yes, an overwhelming majority of Americans support many gun-regulation proposals — like background checks — that congressional Republicans have blocked. And, yes, the campaign donations of the National Rifle Association influence the debate.

But the main reason that members of Congress feel comfortable blocking gun control is that most Americans don’t feel strongly enough about the issue to change their votes because of it. If Americans stopped voting for opponents of gun control, gun-control laws would pass very quickly. This country’s level of gun violence is as high as it is because many Americans have decided that they are OK with it.

5. The filibuster is pro-gun

Gun control is yet another issue in which the filibuster helps Republican policy priorities and hurts Democratic priorities. On guns (as on climate change, taxes, Medicare access, the minimum wage, immigration and other issues), Republicans are happier with the status quo than Democrats. The filibuster — which requires 60 Senate votes to pass most bills, rather than a straight majority of 51 — protects the status quo.

If Democrats were to change the filibuster, as many favor, it isn’t hard to imagine how a gun-control bill could become law this year. With the filibuster, it is almost impossible to imagine.

The latest news:

THE LATEST NEWS

The Virus
Politics
A father and daughter from Honduras at the border with Mexico in El Paso this month.Daniel Berehulak for The New York Times
Other Big Stories
A ship wedged in the Suez Canal.Suez Canal Authority, via Associated Press
  • A container ship nearly a quarter-mile long has been stuck in the Suez Canal in Egypt since Tuesday evening, blocking a vital shipping lane.
Opinions
  • Could a “seatbelt safety” approach help reduce teen suicides? Pamela Morris of N.Y.U. asks in a Times Op-Ed.
  • Republicans supported voting rights until they learned they do better when fewer people vote, Eleanor Clift writes in The Daily Beast. Jamelle Bouie, a Times columnist, disagrees: 2020 proved that the party can compete even in high-turnout elections, he argues.
  • Republicans’ structural advantages in the Senate mean that abolishing the filibuster may deepen, not fix, minority rule, David French argues in Time magazine.
Morning Reads
Kermit the Frog’s “The Rainbow Connection” is now part of the National Recording Registry.Atlantic

Timeless Tunes: The Library of Congress designated 25 recordings as “audio treasures worthy of preservation for all time.” Among the picks: a song by Kermit the Frog.

Lives Lived: Jessica McClintock dressed generations of women in calico, lace and beribboned pastiches known as granny dresses. Her clients included Vanna White and a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham for her 1975 wedding to Bill Clinton. McClintock died at 90.

If you’ve found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

ADVERTISEMENT

ARTS AND IDEAS

Ben Napier with the former tennis player Martina Navratilova on HGTV’s “Ben’s Workshop.”HGTV

Can HGTV survive streaming?

Over 26 years, HGTV has built an empire out of passive watching: While people fold their laundry or scroll through social media, they keep the network’s home-improvement shows on in the background. The only cable networks that have larger average audiences are CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. But the rise of streaming — which leads people to make more deliberate viewing decisions — presents a threat to the network.

“HGTV is a splendid, crenellated house in a neighborhood built on quicksand and termite tunnels,” Ian Parker writes in The New Yorker. “The latest streaming-video subscriptions have been sold on the promise of content that is remarkable.” HGTV, as Parker notes, “is low-budget and unassuming.”

In response, the network is trying to make splashy shows that are “special and different and intriguing,” one HGTV executive said, while still offering “comfort television.” Among the concepts discussed: a birdhouse-building competition; a show that mixes renovation and dating; and a program on which the rapper Lil Jon helps people remodel their homes, with the working title of “Torn Down for What.”

HGTV is now part of the Discovery+ streaming platform, which is tiny compared with Netflix and Disney+. But HGTV’s value also lies in the size of its library, which includes hundreds of episodes of popular shows like “House Hunters” and “Fixer Upper.”

PLAY, WATCH, EAT

What to Cook
Linda Xiao for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Monica Pierini

Transform store-bought gnocchi by pan-frying them with tomatoes and mozzarella.

What to Read

“Francis Bacon: Revelations,” by Mark Stevens and Annalyn Swan, offers a comprehensive account of the painter’s life. “Where Bacon went, a story followed,” Parul Sehgal writes in a review.

What to Watch

This week brings the series finale of “Superstore,” a delightful, smart sitcom about working-class life.

Late Night

The hosts discussed the ship in the Suez Canal.

Now Time to Play

The pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was function. Here is today’s puzzle — or you can play online.

Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Frequent flier (five letters).

If you’re in the mood to play more, find all our games here.

Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — David

P.S. Priya Krishna, a food writer who previously worked at Bon Appétit, is joining The Times, where she will write and appear on NYT Cooking’s YouTube channel.

Today’s episode of “The Daily” is about the vaccine rollout. On “Sway,” Glennon Doyle discusses misogyny, the power of apologies and more.

Lalena Fisher, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Sanam Yar contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

The Morning Briefing newsletter is now The Morning newsletter. You received this email because you signed up for the newsletter from The New York Times, or as part of your New York Times account.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018