Tag: United States News

Florida doctors worried DeSantis gives ‘fringe’ dermatologist a platform

[ad_1]

Now Ward is creating fresh controversy in the state’s medical community after appearing alongside Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis at several events, where Ward rejected Covid-19 vaccines and most pandemic-era mitigation efforts.
Ward’s views are aligned with DeSantis’ on Covid. The Florida governor has built a national reputation by rejecting Covid-19 mandates such as masking students and vaccinating children. DeSantis’ surgeon general, Joe Ladapo, has also come under fire from the medical community for questioning vaccine safety and warning men against taking the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Covid-19 vaccine.
DeSantis is using his opposition to Covid-19 restrictions and advocacy of medical “free speech” as a central pillar of his messaging strategy, and the issue is likely to play into a possible 2024 presidential run. The Republican has turned to Ward on several occasions as a validator of his positions.
Ward doesn’t hold any official position within DeSantis’ administration and does not advise the governor in an official capacity. DeSantis in March, however, appointed Ward to the Northwest Florida State College District Board of Trustees – a non-medical position.
DeSantis during a March press conference introduced the doctor as “one of the engines behind” the movement to allow doctors to speak freely without being reprimanded by medical regulators for controversial views.
“Politics has always been in medicine, no question, but the pandemic really exacerbated those issues,” said Marianne Udow-Phillips, founding executive director of the Center for Health and Research Transformation at the University of Michigan and a lecturer at UM’s school of public health. “The profession is deeply examining the issue,” she said. “There is tremendous worry. There is no question the profession is rethinking the issue, and taking a closer look at how misinformation spreads.”
Some universities are starting to include communications as an element of medical school curriculum, an area public health hasn’t prioritized in the past.
“There is tremendous worry,” Udow-Phillips said. “There is no question the profession is rethinking the issue, and taking a closer look at how misinformation spreads.”

Ward’s emergence as a central figure in DeSantis’ Covid-19 events has given rise to concern among many in Florida’s medical community, some members of which think Ward is, at best, misguided and, at worst, a dangerous font of misinformation. In interviews with POLITICO, nine members of the association expressed concern that Ward had been given a statewide platform. Each was granted anonymity because the FMA has a policy of its members not criticizing other members publicly.
Members of the group are leery about angering DeSantis, whom the organization endorsed for reelection in 2022. But some doctors said privately they are worried the governor is elevating a “fringe” perspective in the medical community.
Ward — and other medical professionals who are skeptical of vaccines and other protections like masks — says he simply wants to express his views without fear of reprisal. He also does not claim to be an expert on public health, a criticism frequently raised by critics who are concerned the governor is amplifying the views of a dermatologist without training in pandemic response.
“I am an advocate for free speech among medical professionals in public policy debate and with patients,” Ward said in a statement to POLITICO. “That is the only topic the governor’s office has ever asked me for my opinion or thoughts. At no time has the governor, his staff, the Surgeon General, or his staff asked me about my thoughts on any of the issues related to Covid-19, masks, lockdowns, or the shots.”
“I happen to agree with them, as do tens of thousands of physicians across this state who just re-elected Governor DeSantis, but calling me his ‘medical expert of choice’ would be a gross inaccuracy,” he said.
In a statement, DeSantis’ press secretary Bryan Griffin defended featuring Ward at the Tuesday event.
“We do not operate by popular political consensus, but by evidence,” he said. “We thank Dr. Ward for lending his time and expertise to our press conference to ensure medical freedom is preserved in Florida.”
DeSantis most recently featured Ward at a press conference last week in Panama City where he again asked lawmakers to pass a proposal making it harder to punish doctors for controversial public statements. Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed legislation that makes spreading medical misinformation a type of “unprofessional conduct” – the opposite of what DeSantis wants.
“Governor DeSantis supports the strongest free speech protections for physicians in America,” Ward said at the event. “I will be honored to be among the freest doctors, who take care of the freest patients, in the freest state in America.”
In 2021, Ward, on social media, encouraged parents to “train” their children to lie about their vaccine status and “game the system” by telling school officials they have already had Covid-19 to avoid quarantine if they were exposed. School officials publicly blasted the comments, which Ward later said he felt “regret” for making. DeSantis has also featured quotes from Ward in official press releases, and last summer appointed him to the board of Northwest Florida State College.
Ward, though, is not without his supporters. After POLITICO reached out to him for comment, about a half dozen FMA members reached out to POLITICO via email to defend the dermatologist.
“I have the privilege of practicing in the same community with Dr. Ward, and have shared numerous patients with him,” said Thomas Johnson, a Panama City oncologist. “He is an outstanding dermatologist, and contrary to your uninformed opinion, he is highly valued in our community, and has a great deal of support within the FMA, which is growing with time.
“Jon has been a strong voice of caution in our community and the state against this unprecedented medical tyranny regarding these COVD 19 vaccines and treatment of COVID 19,” Johnson added.
Many FMA members, however, see the free speech argument as cover to allow medical professionals like Ward to amplify politically-laced Covid-19 misinformation — even if it’s seen as far outside mainstream medical consensus.
“It is truly unfortunate that the pandemic and the vaccine have caused such a divide not only among our political parties but also within medicine,” a third FMA member said. “It has been a trying couple of years practicing medicine during this unprecedented time.”
[ad_2]
#Florida #doctors #worried #DeSantis #fringe #dermatologist #platform
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 26, 2023
J&K Govt Approves Rs 39 Cr Mega Project To Boost Commercial Floriculture

[ad_1]
SRINAGAR: Jammu and Kashmir Government has approved a mega Rs 39-crore project with an avowed objective of exploring the huge floriculture potential keeping in view the varied agro-climate and ecological conditions in the Union Territory for giving boost to flower production.
“The project is expected to provide direct employment to 2000 besides creation of 330 new enterprises”, Atal Dulloo, Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture Production Department said.
He said Jammu and Kashmir has long been known for its rich and diverse agri-ecozones, making it an ideal location for growth of a thriving floriculture industry. Abundantly endowed with natural wealth and scenic splendor, the UT is completely conducive for cultivation of a wide range of flowers. The aesthetic value of flowers, their increasing use in the social events and potential of generating more money are attracting prospective entrepreneurs towards floriculture industry.
Splendid gardens and parks in J&K are being enjoyed by the tourists from across the globe.
However, despite this potential, the sector has not been able to make a significant contribution to the horticulture economy in the region so far. The main reasons for this are the small number of growers and enterprises, lack of aggregation platforms and weak post-harvest and branding efforts. And, to fill up these gaps the J&K government recently approved this ambitious project to boost commercial floriculture in the region.
aromatic flower and bulb/seed production. It also aims to produce over 27 crore ornamental nursery plants and 4000 L of aromatic oils worth Rs 4.8 crore annually (from 5th year) and undertake skilling of 4000 growers in cluster mode. The total outlay of the project is Rs. 39.03 crore.
Overall, the new project represents a major step forward for the floriculture industry in J&K. With a focus on cluster-based area expansion, technology upgrades, post-harvest and marketing efforts, the project has the potential to help establish a sustainable and profitable floriculture industry in the region. It is hoped that this project will help to create new opportunities for growers and entrepreneurs, and will contribute to the overall economic development of J&K.
“Promotion of Commercial Floriculture in UT of J&K” is one among the 29 projects, which were approved by the Jammu and Kashmir administration after being recommended by the UT Level Apex Committee for holistic development of Agriculture and allied sectors in UT of J&K. The prestigious committee is being headed by Dr Mangala Rai, Former DG ICAR and has other luminaries in the field of Agriculture, Planning, Statistics & Administration like Ashok Dalwai, CEO NRAA, Dr. P. K Joshi, Secretary, NAAS, Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Horticulture Commissioner MOA & FW, Dr. H. S Gupta, Former Director, IARI, Atal Dulloo, Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture Production Department apart from the Vice Chancellors of the twin Agriculture Universities of the UT.

[ad_2]
#Govt #Approves #Mega #Project #Boost #Commercial #Floriculture
( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

January 26, 2023
Amid Snowfall : 74th Republic Day celebrated in Achabal, BDC Firdousa Akhter unfurled National Flag.

[ad_1]
Sheikh Nadeem
Anantnag: 74th Republic Day was celebrated with traditional fervor and enthusiasm in Achabal.
BDC Chairperson Firdousa Akhter, as a chief guest unfurled the national flag and takes salute.
On the occasion, various contingents from civil and police administration, including, SPDO Achabal, Mohd Rakeeb,BDC Vice President Mohd Maqbool Ganaie,BDO Achabal Hakeem Sajad Ahmad,ZEO Ghulam Hassan,SHO Achabal Sarfaraz Ahmad,BMO Achabal Akhtar Hussain,NT Achabal Manzoor Ahmad, PRI’s, Sarpanchs, Ward members, and Media persons were also present at the occasion.
Speaking on the occasion, Chief Guest BDC Firdousa in her address extended his Republic Day greetings to the people.
Addressing the gathering, the DDC Chairperson said that the nation is paying rich tributes to the leaders, freedom fighters and martyrs who made countless sacrifices for the freedom of the country. Glorifying their contributions, he said that it is the result of their supreme efforts that we are living in a free country.
Chairperson also deliberated on the ongoing development scenario of the Achabal Area and said that the area is touching new heights with active participation of people in government initiatives.
On this Occasion BDC Vice President Mohammad Maqbol Ganie also Highlighted the efforts besides achievements made by the district under various priority areas including education, healthcare, languishing, back to village, district capex, agriculture and allied sectors, women and youth empowerment, MGNREGA, JJM, water and electricity supply to Anganwadi Centers and schools, rural development, macadamization and road connectivity, Social Welfare, Nasha Mukt Bharat, Industries, self employment and creation of durable and sustainable assets.

The ceremony concluded with prize distribution for Employees from various departments,Media Persons were also felicitated for exemplary public service.
[ad_2]
#Snowfall #74th #Republic #Day #celebrated #Achabal #BDC #Firdousa #Akhter #unfurled #National #Flag
( With inputs from : roshankashmir.net )

January 26, 2023
Social media is a defective product, lawsuit contends

[ad_1]
It also could upstage members of Congress from both parties and President Joe Biden, who have called for regulation since former Facebook Product Manager Frances Haugen released documents revealing that Meta — Facebook and Instagram’s parent company — knew users of Instagram were suffering ill health effects, but have failed to act in the 15 months since.
“Frances Haugen’s revelations suggest that Meta has long known about the negative effects Instagram has on our kids,” said Previn Warren, an attorney for Motley Rice and one of the leads on the case. “It’s similar to what we saw in the 1990s, when whistleblowers leaked evidence that tobacco companies knew nicotine was addictive.”
Meta hasn’t responded to the lawsuit’s claims, but the company has added new tools to its social media sites to help users curate their feeds, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said the company is open to new regulation from Congress.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers, led by Motley Rice, Seeger Weiss, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, believe they can convince the judiciary to move first. They point to studies on the harms of heavy social media use, particularly for teens, and Haugen’s “smoking gun” documents.
Still, applying product liability law to an algorithm is relatively new legal territory, though a growing number of lawsuits are putting it to the test. In traditional product liability jurisprudence, the chain of causality is usually straightforward: a ladder with a third rung that always breaks. But for an algorithm, it is more difficult to prove that it directly caused harm.
Legal experts even debate whether an algorithm can be considered a product at all. Product liability laws have traditionally covered flaws in tangible items: a hair dryer or a car.
Case law is far from settled, but an upcoming Supreme Court case could chip away at one of the defense’s arguments. A provision of the 1996 Communications Act known as Section 230 protects social media companies by restricting lawsuits against the firms about content users posted on their sites. The legal shield Section 230 provides could safeguard the companies from the product liability claim.
The high court will hear oral arguments in the case of Gonzalez v. Google on Feb. 21. The justices will weigh whether or not Section 230 protects content recommendation algorithms. The case surrounds the death of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed by ISIS terrorists in Paris in 2015. The plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that Google’s algorithm showed ISIS recruitment videos to some users, contributing to their radicalization and violating the Anti-Terrorism Act.

If the court agrees, it would limit the wide-ranging immunity tech companies have enjoyed and potentially remove a barrier in the product liability case.
Congress and the courts
Since Haugen’s revelations, which she expanded on in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, lawmakers of both parties have pushed bills to rein in the tech giants. Their efforts have focused on limiting the firms’ collection of data about both adults and minors, reducing the creation and proliferation of child pornography, and narrowing or removing protections afforded under Section 230.
The two bills that have gained the most attention are the American Data Privacy and Protection Act, which would limit the data tech companies can collect about their users, and the Kids Online Safety Act, which seeks to restrict data collection on minors and create a duty to protect them from online harms.
However, despite bipartisan support, Congress passed neither bill last year, amid concerns about federal preemption of state laws.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who has proposed separate legislation to reduce the tech firms’ Section 230 protections, said he plans to continue pushing: “We’ve done nothing as more and more watershed moments pile up.”
Some lawmakers have lobbied the Supreme Court to rule for Gonzalez in the upcoming case, or to issue a narrow ruling that might chip away at the scope of Section 230. Among those filing amicus briefs were Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), as well as the states of Texas and Tennessee. In 2022, lawmakers in several states introduced at least 100 bills aimed at curbing content on tech company platforms.
Earlier this month, Biden penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal calling on Congress to pass laws that protect data privacy and hold social media companies accountable for the harmful content they spread, suggesting a broader reform. “Millions of young people are struggling with bullying, violence, trauma and mental health,” he wrote. “We must hold social-media companies accountable for the experiment they are running on our children for profit.”
The product liability suit offers another path to that end. Lawyers on the case say that the sites’ content recommendation algorithms addict users, and that the companies know about the mental health impact. Under product liability law, the lawyers say, the algorithms’ makers have a duty to warn consumers when they know their products can cause harm.
A plea for regulation
The tech firms haven’t yet addressed the product liability claims. However, they have repeatedly argued that eliminating or watering down Section 230 will do more harm than good. They say it would force them to dramatically increase censorship of user posts.
Still, since Haugen’s testimony, Meta has asked Congress to regulate it. In a note to employees he wrote after Haugen spoke to senators, CEO Mark Zuckerberg challenged her claims, but acknowledged public concerns.
“We’re committed to doing the best work we can,” he wrote, “but at some level the right body to assess tradeoffs between social equities is our democratically elected Congress.”
The firm backs some changes to Section 230, it says, “to make content moderation systems more transparent and to ensure that tech companies are held accountable for combating child exploitation, opioid abuse, and other types of illegal activity.”
It has introduced 30 tools on Instagram that it says makes the platform safer, including an age verification system.
According to Meta, teens under 16 are automatically given private accounts with limits on who can message them or tag them in posts. The company says minors are shown no alcohol or weight loss advertisements. And last summer, Meta launched a “Family Center,” which aims to help parents supervise their children’s social media accounts.
“We don’t allow content that promotes suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, and of the content we remove or take action on, we identify over 99 percent of it before it’s reported to us. We’ll continue to work closely with experts, policymakers and parents on these important issues,” said Antigone Davis, global head of safety at Meta.
TikTok has also tried to address disordered eating content on its platform. In 2021, the company started working with the National Eating Disorders Association to suss out harmful content. It now bans posts that promote unhealthy eating habits and behaviors. It also uses a system of public service announcement hashtags to highlight content that encourages healthy eating.
The biggest challenge, a spokesperson for the company said, is that the language around disordered eating and its promotion is constantly changing and that content that may harm one person, may not harm another.
Curating their feeds
In the absence of strict regulation, advocates for people with eating disorders are using the tools the social media companies provide.
They say the results are mixed and hard to quantify.
Nia Patterson, a regular social media user who’s in recovery from an eating disorder and now works for Equip, a firm that offers treatment for eating disorders via telehealth, has blocked accounts and asked Instagram not to serve up certain ads.
Patterson uses the platform to reach others with eating disorders and offer support.
But teaching the platform to not serve her certain content took work and the occasional weight loss ad still slips through, Patterson said, adding that this kind of algorithm training can be hard for people who have just begun to recover from an eating disorder or are not yet in recovery: “The three seconds that you watch of a video? They pick up on it and feed you related content.”
Part of the reason teens are so susceptible to social media’s temptations is that they are still developing. “When you think about teenagers, adolescents, their brain growth and development is not quite there yet,” said Allison Chase, regional clinical director at ERC Pathlight, an eating disorder clinic. “What you get is some really impressionable individuals.”
Jamie Drago, a peer mentor at Equip, developed an eating disorder in high school, she said, after becoming obsessed with a college dance team’s Instagram feed.
At the same time, she was seeing posts of influencers pushing three-day juice cleanses and smoothie bowls. She recalls experimenting with fruit diets and calorie restricting and then starting her own Instagram food account to catalog her own insubstantial meals.
When she thinks back on her experience and her social media habits, she recognizes that the problem she encountered isn’t because there’s anything inherently wrong with social media. It’s the way content recommendation algorithms repeatedly served her content that caused her to compare herself to others.
“I didn’t accidentally stumble upon really problematic things on MySpace,” she said, referencing a social media site where she also had an account. Instagram’s algorithm, she said, was feeding her problematic content. “Even now, I stumble upon content that would be really triggering for me if I was still in my eating disorder.”
[ad_2]
#Social #media #defective #product #lawsuit #contends
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 26, 2023
No Democratic Bench? Josh Shapiro and Wes Moore Are Ready To Step Up

[ad_1]

However, the more revealing presence on stage may have been that of somebody few recognized, Lt. Col. Jamie Martinez (Ret.). Martinez took the microphone to remind an audience that included Eric Holder, Chris Tucker and Cal Ripken that the 44-year-old Moore isn’t just a political phenom: he was also a fellow soldier from the 82^nd Airborne who led troops in Afghanistan.
Both new governors reached deep into their states’ past to evoke America’s promise and trumpet their own. Shapiro recalled William Penn’s credo of religious tolerance and Moore reminded his audience that while they stood just up the hill from docks where slaves were brought the inauguration was no “indictment of the past” but rather “a celebration of our collective future.”
If it all felt like a highly-choreographed preview of future ambitions, campaigns and perhaps swearing-ins, well, I wasn’t the only one with the same premonition.
“This won’t be the only inauguration with him we go to,” Holder told me as we waited for the festivities to get under way in Annapolis, saying of Moore that “he’s got that thing.”
As Democrats bemoan their political bench there’s a frequent glass-is-half-empty refrain about the most-often mentioned prospects waiting behind the 80-year-old in the White House: Kamala Harris can’t win a general election, Pete Buttigieg can’t win a primary and there’s no way Michelle Obama will run, will she?
I find it mystifying. And especially after the midterms.
Senators Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), an actual astronaut and the actual pastor of Martin Luther King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, paired their sterling bios with a demonstration of their electoral chops, winning in a pair of formerly red states that just now happen to pivotal presidential battlegrounds. In another show of strength, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer won re-election in Michigan, ever the Electoral College prize, by over 10 points.
And then there are the new three Democratic governors from the northeast, Shapiro, Moore and Maura Healey of Massachusetts, who all thrashed MAGA’fied Republicans, were all born after 1970 and all have law enforcement or military credentials.

Which of them would be willing to run, or viable if they did, should President Biden change course and not seek reelection is another story. But there’s no lack of traffic at the foot of that bridge the president promised he’d be to the next generation of Democrats.
Just beginning their governorships now, it may be too soon for Shapiro and Moore to run next year, and allies of both suggested to me they would be unlikely to run for president so soon.
Yet as I made my way around Harrisburg and Annapolis last week, I was struck by the air of expectations, or really the operating assumption, that both new governors would run for president.
“That was quite a speech,” Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) told me after Shapiro’s inauguration, failing to suppress her knowing smile as she said her longtime friend from the Philadelphia suburbs “has a good vision for the whole country.”
It all feels a bit familiar.
An aging Democratic leadership in Washington, a cadre of up-and-coming governors and the question is only when and who among this next generation seeks the presidency: in the 1980s, it was a group of Southerners, not northeasterners, that included Chuck Robb of Virginia, Jim Hunt of North Carolina, Richard Riley of South Carolina and then Louisiana’s Buddy Roemer, Mississippi’s Ray Mabus and, first in his class, Arkansas’s Bill Clinton.
Just as many of these governors benefited from the Reagan defense build-up, with federal dollars flowing to their states, the new crop of Democratic chief executives find themselves taking office with every governor’s favorite two words: budget surplus.
Between the spending on Covid relief, the infrastructure bill, the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS legislation, to say nothing of the $1.7 trillion government funding bill Congress passed in December, states are seeing a flood of money come from Washington.
Thanks in part to the aid, Moore and Shapiro will craft their first budgets with the chance to play Santa rather than the Grinch. Notably, though, what animates each of them is less any sort of spending wish list than a pair of non-ideological initiatives that just happen to be broadly appealing to general election voters.
For Shapiro, it was an executive order making it easier for Pennsylvanians without college degrees to work for the state and for Moore it’s his vow to offer young Marylanders a service year option after high school. Both know what sort of message these proposals send about their party, and themselves, at a moment Democrats are fending off charges of elitism.
The two are eager to reclaim patriotism, faith and family, which were all on display at their inaugurations, mostly vividly through the presence and participation of their children.
Shapiro, especially, can’t understand how Democrats get tripped up on these topics.
When I spoke to him at the Democratic Governors Association meeting shortly after his 15-point win, he said there should be a focus on what binds all Americans — “we cherish our democracy, we love our freedom and we embrace this country.”
Before I could even get to the education wars, he continued.
“And we should be teaching our kids about that,” said Shapiro. “We should be teaching them about the good and the bad. And we should be teaching them in a way that doesn’t pit one of them against each other but rather teaches them to love this nation, love one another even more.”
If you thought that was an echo of Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton, deftly decrying the false choices of our political culture, well, Moore had more of the same in his inaugural address.
“I know what it feels like to have handcuffs on my wrists,” he said, recalling a police encounter when he was only 11. “I also know what it’s like to stand with families and mourn the victims of violent crime. We do not have to choose between being a safe state and a just one. Maryland can and will be both.”
Such language, of course, prompts questions about the politics of the two men, how they’ll govern and position themselves for the future.
That will in part be shaped by the differences in their states. If a handful of special elections turn out as expected next month, Shapiro will find a one-seat Democratic House majority and a six-seat GOP Senate majority. Moore, on the other hand, enjoys Democratic supermajorities in both chambers of Maryland’s legislature.
Shapiro will have to negotiate to find consensus with Republicans while Moore must navigate his party’s factional disputes, between center-left and progressives.
Shapiro’s task will be easy enough when it comes to bolstering spending on vocational and technical education or hiring more police officers. Where he’ll be tested — and offer an insight into his long-term thinking — is on the question of whether Pennsylvania will remain in the northeast’s greenhouse gas compact, which caps CO2 emissions.
Shapiro dodged the question during the campaign, not wanting to alienate his party’s environmentalists or workers in the state’s energy industry.
“How he chooses to move forward or not I think will set a very, very significant tone for the outset of his administration,” the state’s Republican Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman told me about Shapiro’s decision.
Dispensing with any subtlety, Pittman said of the governor, “It’s no secret that his dream is to be President of the United States” and energy policy presents a crossroads for Shapiro: “govern in a purple state or whether he moves more toward the progressive base of his party.”
What was striking about my conversations with Pittman and Republican state Sen. Kim Ward, the Senate President Pro Tempore – besides their matter of fact assumptions about Shapiro’s ambitions – was how optimistic they were about being able to work together with a Democratic governor.
That’s partly because they see a fellow political animal – Shapiro was a congressional staffer before rising in elected office – and somebody who knows from deal-making.
It’s also because he’s reached out to them privately and put together a bipartisan cabinet, including Al Schmidt, the former Philadelphia elections official who became famous for defending his city’s ballot integrity after the 2020 presidential race.
“He doesn’t sound like he is going to govern from the far left,” Ward told me shortly after Shapiro’s inaugural speech.
When I asked the then-governor-elect at the DGA event what he sees as his legacy, he all but said as much, pointing to the GOP votes he won in the election.
“If I can show those Republicans that it wasn’t just a vote in an election but actually what they created was a new dynamic for governing, where I can actually get big things done with Republicans and Democrats together, that would be probably be the most important thing I can accomplish,” said Shapiro.
It may not sound like a recipe for winning a Democratic primary, but, then, 2020 demonstrated the party’s voters can be more practical-minded than ideologically driven.
While Shapiro is a known commodity to the Harrisburg crowd, Moore is a blank slate to much of Annapolis.
Last year’s election was his first bid for office and he has spent much of his professional life in New York City, as an investment banker at Citigroup and then as head of Robin Hood, the anti-poverty organization.
These connections were made clear by the presence at the inauguration of two well-known New Yorkers, former Mayor Bill de Blasio (who was in the audience) and Chelsea Clinton (who was in the second row on stage).
Yet just as in Pennsylvania, the Maryland Republicans in attendance made no attempt at arguing Moore was a left-winger pretending to be a centrist.
“I think he really, really is more of a moderate,” William Folden, a GOP state senator from Frederick County told me after Moore’s speech, pointing to the “grounding” impact of the governor’s military service.
While Shapiro is faced with a decision on the climate compact, Moore will quickly be confronted with whether, or how much, to constrain a Democratic legislature eager to pursue an expansive agenda after eight years of being held back by a Republican governor, Larry Hogan.
Though I’m not sure it’s wrangling with the mandarins of the Maryland General Assembly that Winfrey had in mind when she excitedly said “there’s so much more to come” for Moore because “he’s just getting started.”
It makes Tom McMillen wince.
McMillen is the former University of Maryland basketball great who, like Moore, went on to become a Rhodes Scholar. He later served in Congress from Maryland.
He’s fond of Moore, but as McMillen walked toward the inauguration last week he suggested the new governor should be more focused on the crabs of the Chesapeake more than the Clyburns of Carolina.
“He’s got to be a good governor,” said the old power forward, looking down from his 6’11” frame to offer a stern lesson from the past. “That’s how Clinton got defeated after his first term in Arkansas, Wes has got to stay very focused.”
[ad_2]
#Democratic #Bench #Josh #Shapiro #Wes #Moore #Ready #Step
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 26, 2023
Veterans of the Obama-era debt ceiling standoff on the current one: We may be doomed

[ad_1]
“There’s the potential for it to be very bad,” said Kamin, who did a stint as a top Biden economic staffer before returning to academia last year. “We’re back here, and there’s a real risk to the economy on the line.”
Kamin isn’t the only one struck by a foreboding sense of déjà vu. From the White House to Wall Street, a growing number of veterans of the 2011 debt ceiling crisis are again watching a story of bluster and brinkmanship play out — and are terrified this will be the time it ends with the country in financial ruin.
“It feels like there’s a desire to get closer and closer to the brink,” said David Vandivier, who was a senior Treasury official during the 2011 negotiations. “At a certain point, you don’t know where the line is.”
The parallels to the Obama-era stalemate are clear, as House Republican leaders vow to place restraints on a Democratic administration, while also trying to manage their troublesome conservative wing.
But unlike in 2011, Republicans are preparing to stare down the White House with no clear consensus on what they want in exchange for keeping the U.S. financial system afloat. The prevailing principle, instead, appears to be extracting a degree of political pain for President Joe Biden. And perhaps most worryingly — Democrats, economists and even some Republicans say — there’s little confidence that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has the influence to successfully steer his conference away from the brink.
“I wish I could look at this, having been through a bunch of these, and say there’s going to be a bunch of drama but this is how it gets resolved,” said Brendan Buck, an aide to then-GOP House Speaker John Boehner during the 2011 debt negotiations. “But I don’t know how this gets resolved. There are just huge obstacles here [that] I don’t think were quite as problematic in 2011.”
Or as Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) put it: “I think these people are nuts, and they’re serious.”
Dan Pfeiffer, a senior Obama aide during the 2011 showdown, said that of his entire time in the administration, he was never more scared than in the final days of that debt ceiling fight, “because it was very possible we were going over the cliff.”

For him, the similarities to now are obvious: a Democratic president unsure if the leader of the opposing party has the “clout” to get his conference on the same page. But the White House, at the time, felt Boehner understood and took seriously the dangers of default.
“Boehner may have been willing to put more of his ass on the line. He did intellectually and substantively understand why default was terrible,” Pfeiffer said. “I’m not sure that McCarthy understands that, that McCarthy cares, that McCarthy would value the full faith and credit of the United States over his own job.”
The U.S. has never intentionally defaulted on its debt, a track record that has made its Treasury securities a safe haven for investors globally and allowed the government to borrow money at low interest rates.
There is universal consensus that a debt ceiling breach would be a historic catastrophe. Interest rates would skyrocket and the stock market would tank. The economy would spiral into a recession, shaking consumer confidence and decimating the nation’s financial credibility on the world stage. The impact could ripple across the globe, prompting debt crunches in lower-income countries with foreign currency reserves held in a suddenly weaker U.S. dollar.
At the Treasury Department, officials would be forced to prioritize what payments it could make to bondholders — a logistical challenge the government has never attempted before, and one sure to invite blowback for funneling money to foreign investors while Social Security and other benefits go unfunded.
“You’re shaking the bedrock of the global financial system to the core,” said Mark Zandi, the longtime chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, who projects that just a few weeks of default would double the unemployment rate and wipe out $12 trillion in household wealth.
The severity of those consequences has so far offered some comfort on Capitol Hill and in company boardrooms, where the belief is that the cost of failure is so high that the parties can’t afford not to reach a deal. Since the 2011 standoff, Congress has raised or suspended the debt ceiling nine times, three of which came under former President Donald Trump.
“America’s not going to default on its debt. There are going to be a lot of stories and gnawing and gnashing of teeth in the media about what’s going to happen,” said McCarthy ally and former Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill).
Though the possibility of default is still several months away, Biden has signaled plans to meet with McCarthy on the issue, though the White House has said he will merely reiterate his current position that the debt ceiling is not subject to negotiation. In both the administration and Republican leadership, officials have begun privately gaming out endgame scenarios.
Democrats believe that cutting discretionary spending will prove deeply unpopular with the public once Republicans pinpoint the programs they’d slash. That, in turn, will force Republicans to moderate their demands. Within the GOP, there’s widespread belief the White House will eventually drop its “no negotiation” stance and seek a bipartisan resolution.
“The administration and the Senate needs to realize Kevin’s serious,” Davis said. “He’s serious about having this discussion [about spending cuts].”
The White House declined to comment for this article, though officials have previously said that while Biden won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling, he’s open to discussing broader fiscal policies.
McCarthy spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said the speaker looked forward to discussing a “responsible debt ceiling increase” with Biden, and added the White House should be open to negotiating “how we can put America on a sounder fiscal path by finally addressing irresponsible government spending.”
But whenever that meeting does happen, few expect Biden and McCarthy to find any common ground. The White House has shrugged off concerns about its spending, buoyed by what it sees as the successful role its trillion-dollar relief Covid-relief plan played in accelerating the economic recovery.
McCarthy, meanwhile, may struggle to find a set of spending cuts that can satisfy his own conference, much less win support across the aisle. Some Republicans have floated a range of proposals targeting programs like Medicare and Social Security, even as McCarthy and Trump have publicly dismissed the idea of touching entitlements.
Though the Republican party is focused on securing sharp funding reductions across government, there’s no agreement so far on how much or where exactly they should come from. Some, like Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), have questioned the need to raise the debt ceiling at all.
“It’s scary because with everything that McCarthy has given away to his right wing, he may have restricted his range of motion in ways that are going to be very dangerous,” said Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).
In the interim, many of the 2011 veterans have spent recent weeks emphasizing the gravity of the situation to anyone who will listen, fearful that every week that goes by without progress ups the odds of a disastrous outcome.
“This time,” said Zandi, “it feels different to me. It feels much more dysfunctional.”
[ad_2]
#Veterans #Obamaera #debt #ceiling #standoff #current #doomed
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 26, 2023
Biden’s next 2 years: A brutal war and a rough campaign

[ad_1]

Maintaining diplomatic ties with European allies, American officials have realized, will take on paramount importance as Russian president Vladimir Putin shows no signs of relenting despite repeated setbacks. The punishing conflict appears poised to last long into the foreseeable future — shadowing Biden’s likely reelection campaign and testing Europe’s resolve in the face of compounding economic woes.
“Putin expected Europe and the United States to weaken our resolve. He expected our support for Ukraine to crumble with time. He was wrong,” Biden said Wednesday. “We are united. America is united and so is the world.”
Yet, with Biden potentially weeks from announcing his reelection bid, a war with no end in sight threatens to loom over him on the trail.
Biden’s national security team — including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and national security adviser Jake Sullivan – are all remaining in their posts, for now. His incoming chief of staff, Jeff Zients, is preparing to take over his new job shortly after the State of the Union early next month.
Biden aides see the war as a winning 2024 issue for the president, who has framed the conflict as a battle for democracy.
Though Biden aides don’t expect the war to be one of the top issues heading into the next election, polling suggests that the public backs the president. A new Ipsos poll released this week shows that a majority of Americans favor keeping the weapons supply line to Ukraine open — while keeping the U.S. military off the battlefield.
In last year’s congressional lame duck session, the White House secured funding for Ukraine that should last for several months. Although the new GOP House majority has threatened to cut off or curtail future aid, the West Wing is already plotting to lobby mainstream Republicans to vote for future assistance.
“Opposing aid to Ukraine may help you win some votes in a Republican primary. But it’s still a terrible way to win votes in a general election,” said former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.). “To this day, there are a heck of a lot more Ukraine flags flying in my New Jersey district than Trump flags, even in the more conservative areas.”

Still, some senior congressional Democrats fear that conditions on the ground in Ukraine could eventually hurt Biden’s narrative.
They worry that if Russia makes gains, or if Ukraine simply fails to advance further by the fall, voters will wonder why the administration expended so much money, weapons and time propping Ukraine up at all. All the talk of standing up for democracy, they fear, will mean little if Kyiv is on the back foot while Moscow gains strength.
The tanks, therefore, represent the war’s short and long-term realities colliding.
Deploying the Abrams pried Leopard tanks from Germany, beginning their journey to Ukraine. The decision to send tanks comes as Russia is mobilizing more troops, safeguarding supply lines and refining their tactics. A new victory in Soledar on Wednesday put Moscow one step closer to seizing the strategic eastern city of Bakhmut.
Biden will have to, at once, manage a long-haul war and a two-year campaign. Senior administration officials aren’t too worried about the politics part. “Opponents are saying we’re doing too much or not enough. That suggests our approach is just right. We’re confident in our approach, and this is a debate we’re ready to have,” one of them said.
But the military components will be far more tricky to manage. American officials estimate that it could be many months, and potentially a year, to fully get Ukrainian troops to use the Abrams, signifying the expanding belief that the war will still be raging at that time. The German-made Leopards, however, could be in Ukraine within three months.
The more powerful vehicles may also, U.S. officials believe, help Ukraine to tilt the fighting in the east and mount its own counteroffensive.
But Russia still controls about 20 percent of Ukraine, and the officials believe the Ukrainian goal of retaking Crimea, which Russia took by force in 2014, remains unlikely and may deter Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from sitting across the table from Russian negotiators.
A prolonged war and a lack of clear progress could threaten to tear European unity apart and cause public support for Ukraine to fall on both sides of the Atlantic, administration aides fear.
For now, Biden’s decision to tie the Abrams transfer to Germany’s Leopards decision has kept the allies in lockstep.
German chancellor Olaf Scholz had been reluctant to unilaterally send the tanks, which can be deployed much more quickly than the Abrams.
For weeks, Washington and Berlin held secret talks, trying to push Scholz to send the tanks, which would also allow other European nations to deploy Leopards from their own arsenals. Poland, along with the Baltic States, stands closer to the fighting. They had said they would send their own tanks if Scholz approved, throwing a normally technical dispute into an open, bitter diplomatic melee.
Biden, meanwhile, moved on two tracks, according to two U.S. officials. He knew Ukraine needed Leopards on the battlefield immediately, but no one would see them on Ukraine’s muddy terrain unless he gave Scholz the political cover he needed. So after a final recommendation from Austin — whose Defense Department had previously called sending Abrams to Ukraine a bad idea — Biden moved to approve the tanks and linked the announcement with Scholz’s own declaration.
Scholz agreed to send his tanks Wednesday morning in Berlin. Hours later at the White House, Biden did the same.
“The Abrams tanks are not going to be in Ukraine in time for a spring offensive. So it seems we’re ready to commit to Ukraine for the long haul,” said Rachel Rizzo, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center. “But you can see the importance, too, of the U.S. role in managing the relationship with Germany and also Germany’s relationships with its European allies.”
Biden, who entered office determined to rebuild trust with transatlantic allies and was scarred by four years of Donald Trump’s treatment of Europe, has long backed Scholz.
When the new chancellor visited Washington last February, just ahead of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Biden defended Scholz from sharp questioning during a White House press conference over the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project that was nearly complete. And since the war began, he has made it a point of incrementally escalating the West’s involvement in the war, hand-in-hand with NATO allies.
“Scholz is afraid of escalation by Russia, and if it’s clear these German tanks are being sent with the U.S., then the U.S shares that risk,” said Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute, a think tank in Berlin, who warned that the next American election may change the support from across the Atlantic.
“Europeans should remember that the Biden administration will probably be seen as the last truly transatlantic minded administration. We’ll never have it as good as we have it with Grandfather Biden taking care of our needs, and that has to sink in in Europe.”
[ad_2]
#Bidens #years #brutal #war #rough #campaign
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 26, 2023
‘A Hard Sell’: Can Biden’s DOJ really shatter Google’s grip on digital ads?

[ad_1]

While ambitious, the latest Google case fits squarely under current antitrust law, said Bill Kovacic, a former Federal Trade Commission chair and current professor at the George Washington University Law School. “These aren’t strange concepts,” he said. “The case has a coherent story, and it’s zeroing on missed opportunities from the past.”
Kovacic led the FTC during its review of Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick, the ad tech company Google bought in 2007. DoubleClick was the initial centerpiece of Google’s then-burgeoning digital ad empire, and the FTC agreed at the time to let the deal through without conditions. The deal gave Google the ability to help websites sell ad space, as well as an exchange matching websites and advertisers. But in hindsight, Kovacic said he would have sought to block it. Separately from DoubleClick, the FTC also declined to bring an antitrust case against Google over some of the same conduct currently being scrutinized, but Kovacic left the FTC by the time that decision was made.
Kovacic said that had the FTC tried to block the deal in the late Bush or early Obama years, even if it ultimately lost, “we would not be having the same conversation we’re having now about whether antitrust regulators blundered so badly in dealing with tech.” Even an unsuccessful case would have sent a message to Silicon Valley that regulators were watching, and would have also given the public a better understanding of competition in complex tech markets, he said.
While Tuesday’s case was filed by the Biden administration’s antitrust division, led by progressive Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, it’s the continuation of work started under a department run by former Attorney General Bill Barr. It also largely tracks a case brought by Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in December 2020.
Tuesday’s lawsuit seeks to break up Google’s ad tech business, forcing divestitures of key components. Google owns many of the most widely-used tools that advertisers and publishers use to sell space and place ads online. It also owns AdX, one of the most widely used exchanges that match advertisers and publishers in automatic auctions occurring in the milliseconds it takes to load a webpage.
Both the DOJ and Texas-led cases accuse Google of conflicts of interest by working on behalf of publishers and advertisers as well as operating the leading electronic advertising exchange that matches the two, and selling its own ad space on sites like YouTube.
Google rejects the assertion that it’s an illegal monopolist. In a blog post published Tuesday, Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president for global ads, claimed the DOJ is ignoring “the enormous competition in the online advertising industry.” Taylor pointed to evidence suggesting that Amazon’s ad business is growing faster than Google’s, and suggested that Microsoft, TikTok, Disney and Walmart are all rapidly expanding their own digital ad offerings.
Not everyone agrees that the DOJ’s newest Google case falls squarely under traditional antitrust law. “The (Google) complaint alleges some traditional concerns like acquisitions and inducing exclusivity, and others like deception where there’s clear room to extend the law,” said Daniel Francis, a former deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition who’s now a law professor at NYU. “But it also includes some allegations, like self-preferencing, that — at least on traditional views — don’t seem to violate existing law.”

“To a generally conservative and skeptical judiciary, that’s going to be a hard sell,” he added.
Francis played a key role in shaping the FTC’s ongoing lawsuit to unwind Meta’s deals for Instagram and WhatsApp, which initially included allegations the company favored its products over rivals that rely on its platform, a practice known as self-preferencing. A judge threw out the self-preferencing allegations in the Meta complaint.
In addition to allegations that Google broke antitrust law by preferencing its own products over those of its competitors, the DOJ claims that instances where the company refused to conduct business with rivals also constitute antitrust violations. Tech platforms self-preferencing and refusing to work with rivals are both issues that lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted to address last Congress. While current antitrust law can be used to police such conduct, the cases are difficult and rarely brought by regulators. That makes for a challenging road for the DOJ and states — though that’s not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if it means greater insight into how federal courts may approach competition issues in the digital space.
Francis compared the new Google case to the FTC’s recent challenge to Microsoft’s takeover of video game maker Activision Blizzard, saying the former is much more on the outer bounds of antitrust law. While some questioned FTC Chair Lina Khan’s decision to bring the case, Francis said that complaint “asserts a traditional theory of harm: it’s just a bit light on details of how that theory applies.”
Given some of its more novel claims, Francis said the new Google case is likely to be instructive regardless of its outcome. “[T]his new case is going to teach us about the meaning of monopolization in digital markets,” Francis said.
It’s not so out there
Florian Ederer, an economics professor at Yale University who specializes in antitrust policy, disagreed with the notion that judges will scoff at the DOJ’s latest push. “It has a trifecta of antitrust concerns,” he said: allegations against Google’s business conduct in the digital market, evidence of a pattern of supposedly anticompetitive acquisitions and signs that Google sought to block emerging competitors.
In fact, Ederer specifically called out the FTC’s cases against both the Activision Blizzard deal and Meta’s purchase of virtual reality firm Within as closer to the boundaries of antitrust law, given that they are trying to preserve competition in markets that barely exist yet (cloud gaming and virtual reality, respectively). The FTC is “swinging for the fences’’ in those cases, Ederer said. Not so for the DOJ’s new ad tech case against Google, which Ederer said is “very economics-based.” It’s “not based on newfangled theories [such as] killer acquisitions,” he said, referring to the concept of companies buying competitors solely to eliminate a threat. Ederer himself is a proponent of such newfangled theories on killer acquisitions.
“That doesn’t mean it will be easy to win,” Ederer said. “It’s big, it’s ambitious, but it’s not a Hail Mary.”
No easy solution
Google is now facing five different antitrust lawsuits in the United States, including challenges to its internet search engine and its mobile app store. Those cases are in four different courts before four different judges. Two are set for trial later this year.
Each case is in a different federal circuit court before different judges as well, including the DOJ and Texas advertising cases (Texas is the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the DOJ is the Fourth Circuit), meaning different case law would apply to similar conduct.
Despite the lawsuits stretching back to 2020, Google has just begun its factual arguments in court, with motions to throw out the search-related cases. No judge has ruled on the underlying merits of any of the cases.
If the ad tech cases ever reached the point of divestiture, breaking up the business would be a difficult task that would likely take years, especially since Google will likely litigate each step, Ederer said. Plus, “Who is going to buy it that would not also run into antitrust hurdles?” Furthermore, figuring out remedies for Google’s separate but related search and mobile business at roughly the same time tees up even more hurdles, he said. “It’s really unprecedented.”
In an effort to settle the DOJ case, Google offered to separate its advertising business from the rest of the company, while still keeping it under the Alphabet parent company. But that was rejected by the government, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
It will take years for the myriad Google cases to make their way through U.S. courts, Kovacic said. “And of course Google is being chased around by a whole host of foreign governments as well. There’s a form of regulatory swarming taking place,” he said.
In Europe, Google is facing the Digital Markets Act, which when fully enforced in 2024 will make much of the conduct challenged in the various U.S. lawsuits illegal, full stop. EU regulators also have their own ongoing antitrust investigation of Google’s advertising business.
“It’s a tremendous distraction from running the company, even for one with Google’s resources,” Kovacic said. “If you are Google, you begin to wonder what is the way out of this swamp?”
[ad_2]
#Hard #Sell #Bidens #DOJ #shatter #Googles #grip #digital #ads
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 26, 2023
Here is how Ruben Gallego believes he can win Arizona’s Senate seat

[ad_1]

The congressman thinks fears that the left’s vote will be cannibalized are greatly misplaced. As he sees it, Sinema, who was a Democrat until last month, will instead fracture the vote on the right.
“Let’s be clear about one thing. Sinema is not going to split the Democratic vote,” Gallego told POLITICO. “She’s even more unpopular with Democrats than she is with Republicans, and actually has a better chance of taking votes away from their side if they nominate another MAGA candidate — which they likely will.”
That Gallego has grappled with these voter permutations underscores how unusual and unpredictable the Arizona Senate race already is. It also reflects the complexities of the campaign he must run.
As a progressive in a state where registered Democrats are outnumbered by Republicans and independents alike, he risks being squeezed on both sides in a general election between two other candidates. Assuming he wins the Democratic nod, he also won’t know who his Republican opponent is until the GOP primary takes place in August 2024, unless one candidate clears the field. And Sinema herself has not yet revealed whether she will run for reelection or step aside.
Gallego’s advisers said they are operating under the assumption that either scenario could happen. The congressman hasn’t wasted any time attacking Sinema, though — a move that at this stage is almost certainly geared more towards raising money than winning over voters. In a fundraising email this week, he wrote that “Sinema has used her position of power to help those who already have it all” and “has stood in the way of raising the minimum wage.”
Sinema’s party switch and defense of the filibuster has made her an unpopular figure among liberals across the nation, and Gallego’s campaign announced that it raked in more than $1 million from upwards of 27,000 donations in the first day-and-a-half after he entered the race. The key question is whether that enthusiasm will translate into a mass exodus of Arizona Democratic voters away from the senator. Many Republicans in the state are banking on the opposite.
“Sinema has been a Democrat for her entire career,” said Corey Vale, an Arizona-based GOP strategist who is advising Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, who is considering a bid for the Senate. “It’s hard to conceive of a scenario where she doesn’t get a significant portion of Democrats to support her even though she is now running as an independent.”
Though the general election is nearly two years away, Gallego’s advisers are beginning to roughly sketch out what his unorthodox path to victory could look like. They believe that Gallego, who is running to be Arizona’s first Latino senator, would generate excitement among Democratic voters in addition to benefiting from the high turnout of a presidential election.

“Ruben can build on the winning coalitions assembled by Mark Kelly and Katie Hobbs, while improving turnout/margins with Latinos, young people, Native Americans, veterans, and the working class,” said Rebecca Katz, a top strategist for Gallego, referring to the Arizona senator and governor who won in a likely tougher climate for Democrats in 2022.
Gallego’s team argues that he can also win over a significant chunk of the independent vote, much of which, they say, is Latino. According to an analysis of the voter file by the campaign, about 40 percent of Latinos in Arizona are registered independents. And his advisers think his authenticity and experience as a Marine combat veteran on the House Armed Services Committee will appeal to independent voters.
“When Washington talks about independents, they don’t tend to think of Latinos, but there’s actually a large Latino independent streak, people who feel like the Democratic Party hasn’t spoken to them in a long time,” said Gallego. “We can get those voters.”
As for attracting Republican voters, Gallego vows to campaign in conservative areas and his advisers believe that his military background will resonate. But his team is also making the calculation that a far-right Republican will win the primary, and that that person will split much of the GOP vote with Sinema should she run for reelection.
John LaBombard, a former Sinema aide, said that Arizona “has never elected statewide a progressive partisan or a liberal firebrand,” whereas Sinema has proven that she can win competitive races with the votes of independents and even some Republicans.
“I worry about an untested candidate,” he said, “and I think that’s probably a similar calculus that the Democratic Party nationally writ large is also sort of grappling with.”
Along with Lamb, GOP candidates who are reportedly eyeing the seat include former unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, failed 2022 Senate nominee Blake Masters, Rep. Juan Ciscomani, and businesswoman Karrin Taylor Robson, who lost to Lake in last year’s GOP gubernatorial primary.
On the Democratic side, Rep. Greg Stanton said recently that he is taking a pass on running, a boon to Gallego. Another possible Democratic contender is Tucson Mayor Regina Romero.
A spokesperson for Sinema declined to comment for this story, pointing to the senator’s recent statements that she is currently not focused on campaign politics.
Given how early in the cycle it is, polling on the Arizona Senate race has been scant. But a December poll by Morning Consult showed that Sinema is one of the most unpopular senators in the country, and that a larger percentage of Republicans (43 percent) said they approved of her than Democrats (30 percent) after she changed her party registration. Forty-two percent of independents approved of her, while 43 percent disapproved and 15 percent said they didn’t know or had no opinion.
Andy Barr, a Democratic consultant who is a veteran of Arizona campaigns, acknowledged that Democrats in the battleground state are concerned about the possibility of the Democratic vote being split between Sinema and Gallego.
“Are people nervous about it? Yes,” he said. “But we live in a state of nervousness.”
At the same time, Barr, who has worked for Gallego in the past but is not involved in the Arizona Senate race, said he believes it is unlikely that Sinema will get many votes from Democrats if she runs for the Senate again.
“I don’t think that there’s going to be a lot of like Democratic ticket splitting,” he said. “I think the question is, how close can [Gallego] get to zeroing out Kyrsten’s vote among Democratic voters? Obviously she’s going to get some, but there was real vitriol toward her before she left [the party], and I think that’s only gotten worse.”
Barrett Marson, an Arizona-based GOP strategist, said that Gallego’s challenge is running as a progressive in what is still a conservative state. Both Sinema and Kelly campaigned as independent-minded candidates in their winning elections and were not chest-thumping liberals, he said.
But the absence of a Democratic primary may allow Gallego to forgo some of the hard appeals he would otherwise have to make to progressives and instead allow him some time to burnish his credentials with independents and even Republicans. And Marson conceded that the GOP has serious challenges in the Senate race as well.
“A traditional conservative Republican who is out there campaigning on the economy, on border security, on reducing inflation would easily win the Senate seat,” he said. “The problem will be to get that person across the primary finish line. At this particular time, as recently as just this past August, we’ve seen former President Trump still has a hold on the Arizona Republican primary voter.”
[ad_2]
#Ruben #Gallego #believes #win #Arizonas #Senate #seat
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 26, 2023
Opinion | The GOP’s Strange Budget Strategy

[ad_1]

George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism was an implicit rebuke of Newt Gingrich’s bomb-throwing majorities that tried to balance the budget at all costs. Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again populism was a rejection of Paul Ryan’s debt-obsessed majority that hoped to move the goal posts on entitlement reform.
The problem is that Ryan was right about the substance and Trump is right about the politics, and that dilemma — in a nutshell — is why the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio is nearly 100 percent and is projected to keep climbing.
Like the ne’er-do-well occasionally convinced to scrub up and show up at church on a Sunday, the GOP experiences spasms of fiscal rectitude, followed by longer bouts of going along with the usual Washington practice of devil-may-care fiscal blowouts.
The party is waging a generational effort … once every 10 years or so. It is showing great staying power … in between the times it barely talks about the issue at all.
It had looked like GOP fiscal hawks had either all molted into big-government populists, or at least were happy to associate themselves with that flock. So it’s been some comfort to anyone concerned about spending that the House Republican backbench has sounded almost indistinguishable from the GOP conference back in the tea party heyday of 2011.
Of course, Republican budget hawks would have more credibility if their passion and commitment didn’t seem contingent on — with some honorable exceptions — a Democrat being in the White House. They obviously could have more influence, if they were gutsy enough to exercise it, over a President Trump or DeSantis than they can ever hope to have over a President Biden.
That said, Republicans never want to spend as much as Democrats do (although they want to cut taxes more), and the dynamic in Washington in recent years meant that if the GOP wanted to relieve depleted defense accounts, they had to give Democrats the non-defense spending that they wanted.
Now, the barely comprehensible levels of pandemic-era spending over the last three years, when Washington has run more than $7 trillion of budget deficits, should be enough to give anyone pause.

As the economist Herb Stein famously said, if something can’t go on forever, it will stop. No one can know how long we can go on with the debt on the current trajectory without baleful consequences — it could be 20 years, it could be 20 months. Prudence suggests that we should avoid finding out.
And that inevitably means squeezing the entitlements that Trump — the party’s past president and perhaps future nominee — says shouldn’t be cut by a penny.
If the federal budget consisted only of discretionary spending, it’d be in decent enough shape.
With some upward jags — the war on terror, the financial crisis — both domestic and defense discretionary spending are down as a percent of GDP from their levels in the 1980s.
As budget maven Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute points out, mandatory spending is where the action is.
In 1965, mandatory spending was 34 percent of total federal spending; in 2022, it was 71 percent. Social Security and Medicare alone are now 34 percent of the budget.
In 2032, Social Security, health entitlements and interest costs are projected to account for 86 percent of the increase in spending over 2008 levels, according to Riedl. The growing Social Security and Medicare shortfalls will account for almost all of the growing deficit over the next 10 years. (The 2017 GOP tax cuts contribute to the projected deficits going forward, but only marginally.)
The scale of the challenge means that Republicans are unlikely to produce any plan to balance the budget in 10 years, certainly not one without huge magic asterisks.
Making some progress against spending this year during the debt ceiling fight would be welcome. But — with a hostile press, a divided party (many Senate Republicans aren’t on board with brinkmanship) and markets that will flip out if the limit isn’t extended on time — the GOP’s expectations for the showdown should be realistic.
Still, the debt limit is a natural point of leverage. Republicans are fooling themselves if they think it’s going to unlock a new era of austerity, but the White House is delusional if it thinks it can refuse to negotiate at all.
Republicans should seek limits on discretionary spending (although it’s tricky because now is not the time to cut back on defense spending during a time of geopolitical challenge from Russia and China); push some technical, not particularly important savings on entitlements; and embrace the TRUST Act that would create bipartisan committees to at least get the conversation going on how to keep Social Security and Medicare from going insolvent and/or overwhelming the budget.
If this seems small beer compared to the Budget Control Act adopted during the debt showdown in 2011, it should be remembered that the law’s caps quickly eroded and then disappeared entirely.
More important than what happens over the next few months is whether the party can nominate and elect a president in 2024 who, unlike Bush or Trump, is in sympathy with the fiscal conservatism of House conservatives.
Even that won’t be a magic bullet, since the public will still need persuading that medium-term changes to Social Security and Medicare don’t represent a clear and present threat to its well-being.
Otherwise, even what a decade or so ago would have seemed an embarrassingly modest goal — keeping the debt at roughly 90 percent of GDP — will be out of reach.
Ronald Reagan quipped that the deficit was big enough to take care of itself. Now, it’s big enough that no single high-stakes battle or act of Congress is going to tame it. Fiscal hawks have to be in for the long haul.
[ad_2]
#Opinion #GOPs #Strange #Budget #Strategy
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 26, 2023