Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba slammed the EU on Thursday for failing to “implement its own decision” to jointly purchase ammunition for Ukraine as the bloc’s members spar over how to enact the plans.
“The inability of the EU to implement its own decision on the joint procurement of ammunition for Ukraine is frustrating,” Kuleba said on Twitter, marking a considerable change in tone from Kyiv toward the club it hopes to join.
EU leaders agreed last month on the idea to band together and draw money from a communal pot to help deliver Kyiv up to 1 million shells in the next 12 months as Ukraine fights off Russia’s invasion. But negotiations have hit an impasse at the ambassador level over how to spend the €1 billion set aside for joint contracts.
Kuleba said this was a test of the EU’s ability to make crucial new security decisions and whether the bloc truly has “strategic autonomy” — echoing the favorite term used by French President Emmanuel Macron when he recently stirred up controversy by saying Europe must not become “America’s followers.”
The main point of contention in the ammunition purchase talks revolves around how much to restrict the money to EU manufacturers, and whether to include companies in places like the U.S. and U.K.
France has been leading the charge to keep the money within the bloc, while others, including Poland, fear that Europe’s defense industry may not be up to the task of delivering 1 million shells to Ukraine in the promised timeframe of 12 months.
Talks will likely continue next week, meaning EU foreign ministers won’t have a deal in hand when they meet on Monday in Luxembourg to discuss the war.
“For Ukraine, the cost of inaction is measured in human lives,” Kuleba said.
[ad_2]
#Frustrating #Ukraine #slams #failing #deliver #ammo #plan
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
The legislation would also bar the Biden administration from moving forward with a new income-driven repayment plan that cuts monthly payments for most borrowers and shortens the timeline to loan forgiveness for some borrowers.
In addition, the GOP plan would permanently prohibit the Education Department from issuing any significant regulation or executive action that would increase the long-term cost to the government of operating the federal student loan programs.
Such a sweeping prohibition would imperil efforts by the administration to provide additional relief or benefits to student loan borrowers. That would include any backup option for canceling large amounts of student debt if the Supreme Court rejects Biden’s student debt relief plan in the coming months.
Key context: The provisions are among dozens of policy changes and spending caps that House Republicans included in their 320-page legislation to raise the debt limit by $1.5 trillion or until March of next year, whichever comes first.
Republicans have argued that they want concessions from the administration that lower the federal deficit and reduce spending in exchange for their votes to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.
McCarthy said he hopes to pass it in the House next week. But the proposal stands no chance of passing the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Biden swiftly dismissed McCarthy’s proposal as a nonstarter. “That’s the MAGA economic agenda: spending cuts for working and middle class folks,” Biden said of the plan on Wednesday. “It’s not about fiscal discipline, it’s about cutting benefits for folks that they don’t seem to care much about.”
The border bill and Mayorkas impeachment already faced heavy skepticism from a coalition of GOP centrists that’s showing no signs of fading. Centrists have raised fears that the immigration plan goes too far in limiting asylum claims, while also blanching at conservative demands to take the historic step of impeaching a Cabinet official.
Though neither House GOP effort has a chance at success in the Democratic-controlled Senate, a failure to get border security measures through the one chamber of Congress they control would mark a significant stumble for Republicans on an issue highly important to their base.
“I am confident leadership will not bring anything to the floor that does not have the votes to pass. … However long that takes, that’s what you want,” said Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), a vocal critic of the Judiciary Committee’s bill.
Criticism from purple-district Republicans amounts to a political tee-ball pitch for Democrats, who are all too happy to cite their GOP colleagues in making their case against the immigration legislation.
“This bill has no chance of being enacted into law, and most of its provisions cannot even pass on the House floor because of opposition from Republicans,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), his party’s top member on the Judiciary panel.
In a nod toward Gonzales, Nadler added that Republicans “should heed the advice of one of their own.”
While the intra-GOP fight has blasted to the forefront, given the Judiciary Committee’s advancement of the border security bill Wednesday, Gonzales remains locked in a monthslong public spat with Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who has vocally pushed more conservative immigration measures.
Though Roy’s bill isn’t in the Judiciary package, pieces of the committee’s proposed changes to asylum laws closely reflect sections of the Texas Republican’s plan.
Many Republicans defended the Judiciary Committee bill, arguing it was needed to push back against more than two years of Biden administration policies and, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) added, “to restore the successful Trump policy.” Republicans argue the border influx was much more manageable under the former president, when the Trump administration placed drastic limits on migrants’ ability to claim asylum.
Meanwhile, Democrats aren’t making it easy for Republicans to pass the legislation, offering a slew of potential changes that could appeal to skeptical centrists.
The first Democratic amendment would have stripped out so-called e-verify requirements, which require that certain businesses check the citizenship status of their employees — a bid to turn agriculture-minded Republicans like Reps. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.) against the broader bill.
That failed in the Judiciary Committee along party lines. A second amendment from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that would have delayed the implementation of the e-verify mandate also failed.
“I’m surprised that this bill is in here, frankly. … It’s never been able to pass on the House floor,” Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said.
The immigration package is likely to clear the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday without getting tangled in GOP infighting, in part because the panel is stocked with conservatives. But what can clear that panel, Republicans acknowledge, isn’t automatically reflective of what could get 218 votes on the House floor.
And Republicans have set an ambitious goal to clear legislation through the chamber by the middle of next month.
In the meantime, the House Homeland Security Committee will hold a vote on its own border bill next week. The Rules Committee is then expected to merge the two proposals, allowing Republicans to make more changes before a final product gets to the floor.
The Homeland Security panel had initially been expected to hold a vote on its proposal this week, but that was delayed by Mayorkas’ scheduled testimony. And Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the panel’s chair, reportedly told donors this month that he believed his committee was making the case for Mayorkas’ impeachment — a move that would require near-total House GOP unity to succeed.
Republicans have so far rolled out two impeachment resolutions against Mayorkas, and neither has won over even close to a majority of the House GOP conference.
One, from Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), currently has 42 cosponsors, while a separate resolution from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) has 32. Democrats, and some GOP lawmakers, have warned that their colleagues are equating a policy disagreement — namely, that Mayorkas isn’t appropriately handling increased migration levels — to a high crime or misdemeanor.
“I was dismayed to see that, speaking to a group of campaign contributors last week about today’s hearing, the chairman said, and I quote, ‘Get the popcorn, it’s going to be fun.’ I think that tells Americans all they need to know,” said Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Green zeroed in on the GOP’s argument for impeachment, telling Mayorkas that “you have not secured our borders, and I believe you’ve done so intentionally.”
[ad_2]
#House #GOP #plows #ahead #risky #immigration #plan
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The introduction of that plan and Biden’s speech demanding a debt limit hike with no strings attached represented significant steps in a standoff with major financial and political implications. The debt limit clock is ticking, with experts predicting the U.S. could default as early as June.
The House GOP proposal would raise the debt limit by $1.5 trillion, or through March of next year — whichever comes first — ensuring Biden has to relitigate the issue with House Republicans before voters pick the next president. It also cuts federal funding by $130 billion in the upcoming fiscal year, turning back discretionary spending totals by about two years.
Actually passing the bill is likely to prove complicated, however — rank-and-file Republicans aired internal frustration about the path forward during a closed-door conference meeting this week. But already, McCarthy is seeking to put the onus on Biden and top Democrats to make the next move in the debt limit standoff.
“They have no more excuse to refuse to negotiate,” the speaker said on the floor after privately briefing Republican lawmakers. “President Biden has a choice: come to the table and stop playing partisan political games, or cover his ears, refuse to negotiate, and risk bumbling his way into the first default in our nation’s history.”
The president and speaker haven’t communicated on the looming debt crisis since February, prompting McCarthy’s bill proposal and subsequent planned vote next week. The GOP plan aims to repeal a swath of clean energy tax credits, in addition to yanking back tens of billions of dollars that Democrats included for IRS enforcement in their signature tax, climate and health care bill last year. The proposal would also end Biden’s pause on student loan payments and interest, block his student loan forgiveness plan and increase work requirements for “able-bodied adults without dependents” receiving SNAP benefits.
It would also claw back unspent pandemic aid, ease permitting requirements for energy projects and overhaul other welfare requirements, including for Medicaid.
Biden began speaking just minutes after the plan’s introduction. But in his remarks, he still accused McCarthy of advancing a plan that would benefit only the wealthy and major corporations and vowed to reject GOP attempts to roll back his administration’s accomplishments in exchange for averting a financial catastrophe.
“They’re in Congress threatening to undo all the stuff that you helped me get done,” he said. “You and the American people should know about the competing economic visions of the country that are at stake right now.”
The White House has repeatedly dinged McCarthy for delaying a release of a budget proposal that would theoretically outline the Republican goals for slashing the federal deficit. That budget plan now appears indefinitely on ice as the speaker presses ahead toward passage of his debt-limit offer.
The news late last week that McCarthy would issue a debt-limit proposal rather than a budget prompted a flurry of strategizing inside the administration ahead of its unveiling, as officials gamed out options for a response. But McCarthy’s decision to stock the plan with a wish-list of conservative priorities — combined with doubts over whether it could win enough GOP support to pass the House — left Biden officials unconvinced there’s any reason to budge off their current hardline stance.
“They say they’re going to default unless I agree to all these wacko notions they have,” Biden said, singling out McCarthy for risking a default that would leave the nation “devastated.”
McCarthy said he would use passage of his proposal, which includes deregulatory and energy moves beyond spending cuts, to keep pushing for a sit down with Biden. The 320-page debt-limit package was strategically sponsored by House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), who would naturally be the lead sponsor of the traditional budget resolution Democrats have been pressuring House Republicans to unveil and approve.
The White House, however, insists there is nothing Republicans can offer that will convince them to compromise over the debt limit. Biden officials in recent days have worked to maintain a united front among Democrats on Capitol Hill, warning that a debt ceiling negotiation would set a dangerous precedent.
Biden personally called Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries on Tuesday to stress that there would be no negotiation, a Democratic aide said.
The White House also distributed two memos to congressional Democrats this week detailing support from economists and business leaders for a clean increase, as well as polling showing broad opposition to the cuts included in the GOP bill.
Democratic senators quickly made clear that Republicans’ opening offer is doomed if it reaches the upper chamber.
“There are no policy concessions that should ever be attached to avoiding default — it doesn’t matter which policy concessions they are,” said Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, adding that Senate Democrats remain “100 percent” behind that stance.
Still, Democrats’ universal panning of the GOP proposal masked growing urgency among lawmakers to make progress toward a resolution. Budget forecasters now predict the nation could hit its borrowing limit earlier than expected. The approaching deadline has motivated a bipartisan group of House moderates to try to craft a potential fallback compromise, while sparking broader speculation across the Hill over the potential for a short-term extension that might buy Congress more time.
McCarthy has vowed to push through his legislation, blasting the upper chamber on Wednesday for what he portrayed as legislative laziness.
The Senate “named March maple syrup month and then yesterday they congratulated UConn on winning the national championship. It’d be interesting if the Senate ever does anything,” the speaker said.
But on Wednesday, Biden indicated that the proposal would have no effect on the White House’s own set of demands.
“Take default off the table, and let’s have a real, serious, detailed conversation about how to grow the economy, lower costs and reduce the deficit,” he said.
Olivia Beavers and Caitlin Emma contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Biden #rejects #McCarthys #debtlimit #plan
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
McCarthy has made targeting these adults, who generally don’t have children in their household, central to his efforts to shrink welfare programs as he tries to balance competing demands from various wings of the GOP caucus. Republicans who represent swing districts President Joe Biden won in 2020 are wary of going too far in tightening restrictions, prompting an outcry from some voters. At the other end of the party spectrum, conservatives are pushing McCarthy to pursue much stricter limits on SNAP and other federal assistance programs.
Given Republicans’ slim majority, McCarthy can only afford to lose four GOP votes in the House, leaving him and his team with very little room for error.
The speaker and his allies have yet to share a final debt limit bill with fellow Republicans. A spokesperson for McCarthy’s team didn’t respond to a request for comment about the plan.
Several members stood up during the House GOP Conference meeting Tuesday and called for McCarthy to go even further on his proposals to expand work requirements, according to two people in the room who were granted anonymity to discuss internal caucus matters.
“Yeah, I don’t think that’s an appropriate conversation for this debt ceiling conversation at this point,” said Republican Rep. Mike Garcia (Calif.), who represents a district Biden won.
Garcia said he supports McCarthy’s effort to expand work requirements for food assistance for “able-bodied” people of working age who “can get a job.”
“Now, if once employed, you still fall into those demographics, whether it’s age or whatever it is, and you’re still needing assistance for food stamps, then I’m supportive of that as well,” Garcia said.
“The conversation has been not to impact those with dependents, and not certainly single moms,” said Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.), who represents a Biden district and is being targeted by Democrats in 2024. “I just want to see what they’re actually proposing.”
Democrats, however, warn McCarthy’s proposed spending cuts in the debt limit talks would slash other key food aid — including programs with strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. More than one million low-income moms, babies and young children would lose access to baby formula and food benefits, while another million largely home-bound seniors would lose access to food through the meals on wheels program, according to the Biden administration.
Senate Republicans have been generally skeptical of the House GOP effort to shrink food aid via the debt limit talks. And, as McCarthy and House GOP leaders try to push for a final vote before the end of the month, some key GOP members like moderate Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) are starting to suggest Republicans could drop the SNAP plans from the debt limit bill, and leave it for upcoming negotiations on the farm bill.
“I’ll let the speaker and the chairman wrestle with that,” Bacon said, referring to House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.). Thompson agreed that he’d rather the fight over SNAP work requirements be left to the farm bill. “But I don’t have control over the debt ceiling,” he added.
Republican leaders are looking to reassure vulnerable members about the scope of their SNAP proposal. Senior Republicans have been telling members that work requirements for able-bodied adults without young children at home are popular in swing states, pointing to a non-binding ballot initiative in Wisconsin that advised the state legislature to require “able-bodied, childless adults” to “look for work in order to receive taxpayer-funded welfare benefits.” The measure passed with 80 percent approval.
“This is popular with the American people,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), a top McCarthy ally. “It’s smart policy that reduces debt and has a long term effect on our workforce and economy.”
Senate Democrats, however, firmly rejected talk of new SNAP restrictions on Tuesday, arguing what the House GOP describes as targeted measures will still hit millions of vulnerable people.
“Let’s be clear, this is a non-starter,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).
Stabenow, a member of Democratic leadership and the chair of the Agriculture Committee that oversees SNAP, noted in a brief interview that there’s already “stringent” work requirements in place for the program, set to return in July after a pandemic pause, including the “able-bodied” group.
“Frankly, I don’t think they understand that,” said Stabenow. “And we’re certainly not gonna tie it to whether or not we default.”
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently told House Agriculture members who oversee SNAP that the “able-bodied” group of low-income Americans without dependents receiving assistance is “mostly male and mostly homeless,” including homeless veterans. People who have just aged out of foster care are also in the group. This population of SNAP recipients tends to have lower education levels, as well.
Vilsack also highlighted recent research that shows tightening work requirements “didn’t impact the earnings or employment opportunities” for recipients. “So in other words, you can talk about restraining that, but it’s not going to do what you think it’s going to do,” Vilsack told lawmakers.
As a former governor of Iowa, he also argued the move would ultimately “hamstring” governors’ ability to respond to disasters and other crises — since current SNAP exemptions are designed to help provide food to the most vulnerable low-income Americans in areas with high unemployment. Republicans argue Democratic governors exploit that exemption.
Molinaro said Tuesday he also wants blue states, like New York, to “make sure those [SNAP] dollars get to the people who are most vulnerable.”
Asked whom he considers “the most vulnerable,” Molinaro replied: “That’s a great question.”
“Let me see what they’re proposing and then I’ll take a look at it.”
[ad_2]
#McCarthys #controversial #plan #shrink #food #aid
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The people briefed on the matter cautioned that the plan’s specifics are not yet final and could still change. An HHS spokesperson did not immediately comment on the details of the program.
The administration, for example, has yet to finalize contracts with vaccine makers Moderna and Pfizer to purchase additional shots for the program. It is also still building out a distribution network to continue administering vaccines and treatments to the uninsured.
But HHS has set aside as much as $1.1 billion for the program, with the hope that it will keep Covid care free for uninsured adults through at least the summer of 2024, the people briefed on the matter said. Much of that money would go toward purchasing new vaccines in the fall, when drugmakers are expected to update their shots, and paying its distribution partners to administer them.
The stockpile for the uninsured will likely be small, given the lack of continued demand for the vaccine. Fewer than 40,000 people are now getting vaccinated per day as the pandemic recedes in people’s minds, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the lowest rate since the Covid shots became widely available.
Officials have estimated they probably have enough of the antiviral Paxlovid on hand to cover future demand for the treatment from the uninsured.
The population that would qualify for free care would also be somewhat limited. There are about 30 million adults without health insurance, though that number could grow as pandemic-era protections expire and more people lose their Medicaid coverage. A separate, pre-existing federal program will continue providing free vaccinations for uninsured children.
Still, the program has taken on heightened importance within the administration amid scrutiny of its plans to hand off major responsibilities tied to a pandemic still killing more than 1,300 a week, according to the CDC.
Officials are particularly eager to avoid reports of low-income Americans going without Covid treatments because they can’t afford to pay out-of-pocket prices likely to reach hundreds of dollars per dose.
Top health officials, including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Dawn O’Connell, are slated to appear Wednesday before Congress to discuss their priorities for the coming year.
Both Moderna and Pfizer are planning to charge at least $110 per dose for their vaccines on the private market, though they argue much of that cost will be covered for those who have insurance.
And while the companies have pledged to make the shots free for the uninsured through “patient assistance” programs, Biden officials remain skeptical they will be structured in a way that makes the vaccines easily accessible.
“We are going to have a plan to make sure that uninsured Americans continue to get access to vaccines and treatments for free,” White House Covid response coordinator Ashish Jha said in March on the “In the Bubble” podcast. “This is a really important goal, and we have set aside money to make sure we can meet that goal.”
[ad_2]
#Biden #administration #developing #plan #Covid #vaccines #uninsured
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
House Republicans’ internal frustrations go beyond their long-stalled debt limit talks with President Joe Biden. The conference is near its breaking point over a contentious border bill that has exposed divisions between hardline conservatives and politically vulnerable purple-district members. Then there are the simmering tensions that no GOP lawmaker wants to talk about — the evident disconnect between the speaker and his budget chief, as well as chatter over the elevation of a new McCarthy lieutenant with a vast portfolio.
House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), who appeared to diverge from McCarthy last month on the GOP’s plans for its fiscal blueprint, said as he entered Tuesday’s morning meeting that “I hope we’re focused on our mission.” Arrington added pointedly: “We don’t need distractions. We need to unify.”
And he got his wish that McCarthy not bring up any behind-the-scenes drama before the rest of their colleagues. Talk of McCarthy-Arrington discord did not come up at the private conference meeting, according to six lawmakers in the room.
Instead, Republicans focused on presenting a unified front on the debt limit as they prepare for a new, more urgent phase of their political jostling with the Biden White House. The fact that no internal rifts got rehashed on Tuesday morning is a positive sign for McCarthy, who has almost no room for error on his debt plan given his four-vote majority.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a close McCarthy ally, dryly summed up the meeting’s tone: “It’s a chorus of unity and sunshine.”
Inside the room, according to one attendee, McCarthy ticked through a brief slideshow laying out the basic principles of his fiscal plan — which includes a passel of deregulatory and energy provisions as well as steep federal spending cuts in exchange for a one-year lift to the nation’s debt ceiling.
One major part of Tuesday’s private GOP conversation centered on whether leaders should try to pay down the national debt by repealing elements of Democrats’ marquee tax, climate and health care measure passed last year, including funding for new IRS enforcement and green tax incentives.
Many GOP lawmakers have demanded party leaders make those moves, though some aides and budget experts say it’s unclear whether they would yield any real savings. McCarthy addressed that topic by laying out pros and cons in his slides, per the meeting attendee who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Some of McCarthy’s closest advisers projected confidence that they would have enough support in a conference. Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), a confidant of the California Republican, simply said “yes” to reporters who asked if the speaker would get a majority.
Other Republicans, however, are preparing for the prospect that McCarthy’s plan fails to get enough traction within the conference.
At least one member, first-term swing-district Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), raised the idea of a separate discharge petition as a Plan B approach if the threat of an economically disastrous debt default began to loom over members.
As he left Tuesday’s meeting, though, Lawler insisted that he backs McCarthy’s plan: “The speaker has put forth a plan and I support it.”
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), one of McCarthy’s harshest critics in the past, said leadership doesn’t yet have the votes because members haven’t seen the full plan on paper.
“We still have to resolve major questions like the dollar amount, and the duration, and the policy concessions we are seeking from the Senate. So it couldn’t possibly have 218 votes, because it doesn’t even exist,” Gaetz said, adding that he won’t “prognosticate the end-zone dance before we draw the game plan.”
Those flashing yellow lights haven’t stopped McCarthy allies from bullishly predicting that a bill could be ready for a floor vote next week. Republicans close to leadership privately said text could be released as soon as Wednesday or Thursday — with some expecting the House to put off its next recess until passage of a debt plan that stands no chance of becoming law.
Yet in order to write that bill, GOP lawmakers still have to settle crucial questions like whether to lift the ceiling by a specific dollar amount and when the fight might come up again next year.
“Some had a few little tweaks they’d like to see to it. But I think, in general, everyone is supportive of it,” Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) said, adding that “everyone’s got good ideas. They are all supportive of the general idea and program that the speaker laid out.”
Meanwhile, an immigration fight is about to compete with the debt for the House GOP’s attention.
Republicans will formally kick off work on border security, with the Judiciary Committee slated to vote on an immigration package Wednesday and the Homeland Security panel set to follow with its own bill next week. But months after leadership initially vowed action within the first few weeks of the year, there are few signs that the GOP is any closer to a bill that can pass the House.
Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who discussed the issue alongside the GOP-helmed Congressional Hispanic Conference earlier Tuesday, warned that the Judiciary Committee proposal isn’t ready for “prime time.” Gonzales, who’s taken a public stand against conservatives pushing for a strident border bill, pledged not to be sidelined by his party’s right flank.
“In this Congress, five votes is 100,” Gonzales said, referring to the ease with which only a handful of Republicans can derail a bill on the floor, given the party’s slim majority.
And even as House Republicans publicly brushed off reports of contention within their upper ranks, some leaders are hearing hush-hush questions about McCarthy’s confidence in his own team.
Some rank-and-file members, reading reports of internal strife, started asking leadership “‘This is terrible, is this true?’” said one senior House Republican, who requested anonymity to speak frankly.
“It’s not true,” this senior Republican added.
[ad_2]
#McCarthy #muscles #vote #debt #plan #doesnt #exist
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
In Washington, the 77-year-old Brazilian leader issued a call to battle: The left needed to build its own transnational network, Lula said, to fight for its political values and take on crises like economic deprivation and climate change.
Far-right leaders like Trump and Bolsonaro in the Americas had sought each other out and found fellow travelers in European hardliners like France’s Marine Le Pen and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. No comparable club has existed on the left. In Lula’s view it was time for that to change.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Lula wanted to mobilize left-leaning forces against “an international network of right-wing people and movements” that is seeking to “take over democratic countries.”
“He really was appealing to us, asking the Progressive Caucus to build something that can counter that,” Jayapal recalled.
An initial step may come later this year, with a possible trip to Brazil by congressional progressives. Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a leading House liberal who also met with Lula, said the Brazilian president urged lawmakers three times to visit.
Khanna said he had asked his staff to explore other international forums where U.S. progressives should make their presence felt.
Lula’s exhortation represents an overdue challenge for the U.S. left. For all the influence they have exercised on domestic policy, left-wing Democrats have not yet managed to articulate a distinctive transnational agenda.
That has been a missed opportunity.
It is not that progressives do not care about the rest of the world. They just tend to engage it as a scattered array of flashpoints and pet causes, without telling a more universal story about the struggles of the 21st Century.
In Washington, many progressives have embraced President Joe Biden’s chosen narrative about a grand contest between democracy and autocracy, while lamenting the gulf between Biden’s rhetoric and his tolerance of strategically useful tyrannies like Saudi Arabia. Yet they have made only fitful attempts to lay out an overarching left-wing agenda that starts with change in the United States and extends across the larger world.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has made the most developed effort, calling in 2018 for an “international progressive front” against oligarchs, despots, and multinational corporations. But his chief role these days is chairing the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — a powerful post focused on the U.S. economy.
Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to Sanders, said there was a “growing sensibility on the left” about engaging more consistently with partners in other countries, “not only in South America but in the Global South.” The moment appears right, he argued, for progressives to make their case for a transnational politics anchored in traditionally left-wing economic ideas.
But U.S. progressives do not currently have a rich network of relationships abroad to draw on.
“It’s an area where the left in particular needs to do a much, much better job,” Duss said.
It is easy to overstate the global influence of the U.S. right. Trump-linked provocateurs like Steve Bannon can barge into other countries, declare the dawn of a new age of ultra-right nationalism and generate anxious coverage in the mainstream press. But it has been harder for these forces to win power and govern. Trump’s endorsements in foreign elections have not amounted to much.
Earlier this year, my colleague Zoya Sheftalovich reported that panic about Bannon-style meddling had receded in Europe: Věra Jourová, the vice president of the European Commission, recalled a sense of fear after 2016 that a character like Bannon might help ignite a continental movement. “It didn’t happen,” Jourová said.
Still, there has been political value for extreme conservatives in thinking of themselves in global terms. It has helped them identify trends and cultural attitudes that have driven elections across national boundaries — anger about the Syrian refugee crisis, fear of China, resentment toward big tech — and sharpen a common vocabulary for discussing them.
On an intangible level, it has given a once-marginalized group of ideologues a certain esprit de corps that can translate into what Americans call swagger.
Lula, who previously served as Brazil’s president from 2003 to 2010, may be uniquely positioned among foreign leaders to summon the U.S. left to the barricades.
Even before his return to power, Lula occupied a special place in the imagination of U.S. progressives: a populist crusader in one of the world’s largest democracies, a defender of the Amazon, an outspoken American leftist through the era of George W. Bush. His imprisonment in 2018, the result of a questionable corruption prosecution, made him a political martyr.
There is an aesthetic component to his appeal to progressives that helps obscure other inconvenient realities, like his equivocal view of Russian’s invasion of Ukraine.
Consider the images from Lula’s last candidacy, showing a roaring leftist fighter campaigning through destitute neighborhoods and greeting ecstatic crowds from an open-top car. These are scenes unknown to U.S. voters in our time. To many progressives, they look like the best version of politics.
Lula’s imprisonment strengthened his long-distance relationship with left-leaning lawmakers in Washington, who took up his cause. Sanders led the effort, repeatedly calling for Lula’s release during his own presidential campaign. Upon his release, the Brazilian politician singled out Sanders for thanks.
“I hope American workers will make you US president,” Lula wrote to Sanders on Twitter.
He continued expressing gratitude in Washington this year, meeting with Sanders and thanking him and other progressives for their support. When Lula sat down with union leaders, he was effusive. “He wanted to thank the labor movement for standing with him,” said Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers.
With labor officials, too, Lula urged a transnational mobilization. He pressed them to lead a “fight about working people and about lifting up their economic aspirations, their living wages,” as well as protecting the Amazon, Weingarten said.
In his meeting with congressional progressives, Khanna said Lula described a certain form of progressive politics — focused on economic advancement for the working class and fighting climate change — as the antidote to a mood of despair that feeds authoritarian politics.
“One of the interesting insights he had was that there was a movement, not just in Brazil but around the world, of anti-politics,” Khanna said, “and that people have so lost faith in organizing and political activity, they have bought into the narrative that everything is corrupt, everything is broken and politics doesn’t matter.”
The solution, according to Lula, was a “hopeful, aspirational politics” that gives voters confidence “that you can improve people’s economic conditions,” Khanna said.
In some respects that sounds like a figure from closer to home: Joe Biden.
The U.S. president and Lula have some deep policy disagreements, most of all on Ukraine. For now, they have muted their differences to present a united front against homegrown forces of autocracy and insurrection. At the White House, each hailed the other as a champion of democracy.
When I contacted Lula’s spokesman, José Crispiniano, about his meetings in Washington, he shared a statement emphasizing Lula’s admiration for Biden: “He was impressed and satisfied with the commitment of President Biden with unions and workers.” He declined to comment on Lula’s remarks about building up the global left.
Biden and Lula are similar in another important way. They are both longtime national leaders who led left-of-center coalitions to victory in part because they were resilient against right-wing attacks that might have felled any candidate less familiar to voters.
Brazil’s finance minister, Fernando Haddad, who joined Lula in D.C., made that point to congressional progressives. “He said no one other than Lula could have won,” said Khanna. According to Haddad, only Lula was capable of overcoming the avalanche of bile and disinformation directed at his candidacy.
There is no guarantee in either country that a leftist or center-left message can succeed with another messenger.
That, too, is a warning and a challenge to progressives.
[ad_2]
#Lulas #Plan #Global #Battle #Trumpism
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
In November, Biden told reporters his intention “is to run again,” making clear it was his plan regardless of the midterm election results. Then in February, first lady Jill Biden told The Associated Press there’s “pretty much” nothing left to do but make the announcement.
“How many times does he have to say it for you to believe it?” the first lady said.
Even with Biden’s repeated reassurances, the 80-year-old president’s hesitancy to give the all-clear has left the Democratic Party in a state of limbo, as other potential presidential aspirants and major donors quietly develop a Plan B while publicly supporting Biden.
But just as Biden has done, his inner circle continues to insist privately that he will run, with top advisers Anita Dunn, Jen O’Malley Dillon and Mike Donilon effectively overseeing the campaign-in-waiting. As POLITICO reported in late February, Biden’s advisers have also taken steps to staff a campaign and align with a top super PAC, Future Forward.
With Democrats’ better-than-expected midterms performance and no real primary challenge threat, there’s little urgency to announce. Waiting to give the official signoff also allows Biden to avoid having to report fundraising totals and other paperwork that comes along with a formal announcement.
On the Democratic side, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and son of Robert F. Kennedy, filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission last week to run. Self-help author Marianne Williamson formally kicked off her campaign in March.
Republicans are also lining up. Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations, launched her campaign in February, while Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are both widely expected to launch respective 2024 bids. But former President Donald Trump, who announced his run for the White House in November, is still seen as the leading GOP challenger, using his recent indictment to raise money.
With news surrounding Trump’s arraignment last week, the White House stuck to the no-comment script, leaning into the opportunity to contrast Biden’s “focus” on the American people with the noise around his predecessor.
[ad_2]
#Biden #Roker #plan #running #reelection
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Aden: Yemen government officials have gathered in Saudi Arabia to discuss a comprehensive three-year peace plan to end the country’s prolomged civil war, a diplomat said here.
“Saudi Defence Minister Khalid bin Salman held a meeting on Thursday with Rashad Al-Alimi, chairman of Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council (PLC), and other high-ranking Yemeni government officials in Riyadh, during which he presented the kingdom’s plan for peace in Yemen,” the diplomat told Xinhua news agency late Friday.
The proposed plan, which is based on a series of back-channel negotiations between Saudi Arabia and the Houthi militia in Muscat for the past few months, has three main stages that will be implemented over a period of three years, he said, adding the Yemeni officials have already shown their initial support for the plan.
The first phase of the plan, according to the source, is “a six-month truce between warring factions in Yemen, during which hostilities will cease and efforts will be made to rebuild trust and lay the groundwork for peace”.
The second phase would entail a dialogue to address key issues and grievances among the various Yemeni factions and reopen the closed roads, airspace and seaports.
The third stage would be a two-year transitional period during which a new and inclusive government would be established, paving the way for long-term stability and peace in the country, according to the official.
A truce agreement between the Yemeni government and the Houthi rebel group is likely to be announced in the coming days, the official added.
Meanwhile, another Yemeni government official confirmed to Xinhua that Muhammad Al Jaber, the Saudi Ambassador to Yemen, along with an Omani delegation, is planning to meet Houthi leaders in Sanaa to discuss the “the final arrangements” of the truce.
Oman and the UN have mediated previous rounds of negotiations between the Yemeni government, Saudi Arabia, and the Houthi rebels.
Muscat’s role has been crucial in facilitating talks and maintaining good relations with both parties.
Yemeni observers hope that the proposed peace plan will be a viable solution to the ongoing conflict and alleviate the country’s humanitarian crisis.
The UN has been working to broker a political solution to the conflict, but previous attempts have failed due to a lack of trust between the warring parties and continued violence on the ground.
Yemen has been embroiled in a devastating civil war since 2014, with the Houthis fighting against the internationally-recognised government.
The Saudi Arabia-led coalition intervened in the conflict in support of the Yemeni government in 2015.
