Oct. 9, 2020
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
Pelosi Punishes Blue States by Failing to Act on Covid Relief
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to, in the least, move on those items where there is already agreement is punishing her own constituents.
Video: Biden's ‘Pack the Courts’ Scheme Similar to Pelosi’s ‘Until it Passes’ Blunder
Joe Biden says we just have to wait until he is elected to hear his opinion on court packing. Sound familiar? Go back to 2010 for another example of when that tactic was used.
Why Biden’s Threat to Pack the Supreme Court Matters
After Joe Biden and Kamala Harris dodged debate questions about “packing the courts,” Biden, when pressed further finally said, "You'll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over.”
Cartoon: Shut Door Policy
Joe Biden’s Shut Door Policy.
Video: ALG Minute: Trump 2-for-1 Jobs & Security
President Donald Trump has made it clear. He is keeping his promise to put America first. The latest example is in the area of energy independence.
ALG in the Washington Examiner: Trump turned tables on Pelosi with relief bill reboot, allies say
“The president never stops negotiating, and he basically told Pelosi that he’s no longer going to negotiate on her terms,” said Rick Manning, president of the pro-Trump conservative group, Americans for Limited Government.
Pelosi Punishes Blue States by Failing to Act on Covid Relief
By Robert Romano
It has been more than six months since the COVID-19 state-led lockdowns began, and although 14.1 million out of 25 million jobs lost have been recovered since labor markets bottomed in April, several federal programs that were created or expanded in the CARES Act are beginning to expire or already have.
The small business forgivable loan program, the paycheck protection program, which directed $525 billion to 5.2 million small businesses, supporting up to 50 million jobs, expired on Aug. 8.
Funding for critical industries including airlines just ran out at the end of September.
And for those who lost their jobs in March, regular unemployment benefits have already run out and pandemic unemployment assistance will run out by December.
All the more inexplicable is both the House and Senate agree in principle on extending all those provisions to a certain extent, as well as sending more checks to the American people in the way of tax credits. Both have bills that do just that.
The difference is the House bill, goes much, much further. It originally had a $3.3 trillion price tag. That was knocked down to $2 trillion.
The Senate bill, the HEALS Act, gets all that done at $1 trillion: it extends unemployment, it sends the checks, it extends small business relief and it takes care of the airlines.
Why not just pass the Senate bill and leave the rest to the election for the American people to decide? It’s inexplicable. All they need to do is extend a few of these critical programs to keep momentum in the recovery as the economy gets back on its feet.
We’re not out of the woods yet.
In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) refusal to, in the least, move on those items where there is already agreement is punishing her own constituents.
As of August, 7.6 million additional Americans were unemployed compared to 2019 as a result of the state-led Covid lockdowns. 5.1 million of whom live in states with Democratic governors. Meaning, two-thirds of the jobs left to still be recovered are in Blue States.
In the household survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 879,000 Americans left the labor force in September as their unemployment benefits ran out.
Still, President Donald Trump sounded hopeful that something could come together, telling Fox Business’ Maria Baritromo, “Well I shut down talks two days ago because they weren’t working out. Now they are starting to work out, we’re starting to have some very productive talks.”
Pelosi should hope the talks are productive. No President has flipped the House in running for a second term since 1948, when Harry Truman did it after taking over for the late Franklin Roosevelt in 1945.
But Trump could be in a position to do it again, with only 21 seats to gain for Republicans to regain a majority.
If the American people get wind of the fact that all of the most important items needed for the struggling economy are already agreed to, but Pelosi is the one holding it up, those House seats could suddenly come under significant pressure to make a deal.
Perhaps House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) should begin circulating a discharge position for the HEALS Act. Pelosi is holding the labor market recovery hostage.
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.
Video: Biden's ‘Pack the Courts’ Scheme Similar to Pelosi’s ‘Until it Passes’ Blunder
Why Biden’s Threat to Pack the Supreme Court Matters
By Catherine Mortensen
After Joe Biden and Kamala Harris dodged debate questions about “packing the courts,” Biden, when pressed further finally said, "You'll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over.”
Biden is playing games with the American people on what could be the most consequential issue of the election and here is why this matters.
Presidents are constitutionally bound to fill vacancies on the courts including the Supreme Court which has been set to nine justices since 1869. It is expected that they will nominate judges who share their views on the constitution. Naturally, these presidential appointments can have far-reaching impacts on the nation.
What is not normal, expected, or natural is to “pack the court.” Packing the court is a different thing altogether. It is when a president attempts to increase the number of judges on any given court in order to get a desired political outcome.
“Packing the court” was coined by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and was a slang term for the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.
Roosevelt sought to reform the number of Supreme Court justices in an effort to obtain a favorable ruling for the New Deal legislation.
The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the Supreme Court – up to a maximum of six – for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and six months.
Roosevelt’s bill went nowhere. The public and Congress rejected it, seeing it for what it was, a power grab. No president has ever tried it since. At least not with the Supreme Court.
However, during the Obama-Biden Administration, Senate Republicans accused the White House and Senate Democrats of trying to pack the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This court is often referred to as the second highest court in the land because it hears important cases concerning the federal government.
In 2013, The 11-panel court had three vacancies which Obama sought to fill. But Republicans pointed out that the court did not handle enough cases to warrant 11 judges and sought to reduce the number to 9.
Republican leaders tried to make the case that “the most underworked appeals court in the country should not be manipulated by the president and his political allies to advance their agenda.”
According to an October 2013 Senate Republican Policy Committee memo, an unnamed D.C. Circuit Court Judge said, “I do not believe the current caseload of the D.C. Circuit or, for that matter, the anticipated caseload in the near future, merits additional judgeships at this time. ... If any more judges were added now, there wouldn’t be enough work to go around.”
That same memo noted, “Senate Democrats and their allies have been quite clear: they are pushing to make more appointments to the D.C. Circuit -- not because they are needed, but because they want judges who will rubber-stamp the President’s agenda.”
Ultimately, the Obama-Biden Administration succeeded in appointing four judges to that court in which Democrats now hold sway.
This matters because the D.C. Circuit has sole responsibility for deciding cases having to do with the balance of powers of the branches of government and decisions made by government agencies affecting issues such as health care, national security, and energy development.
“In 2013, when Obama attempted to pack that court, his administration had a problem,” explained Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government. “There were a number of disputes involving the power of the executive branch that were headed to the federal district court of appeals, and that court was philosophically evenly divided. Fearing that the courts would curtail their power, the Obama-Biden team schemed to add three left leaning judges to the district court of appeals. They sought to guarantee that the executive branch would win all legal challenges.”
The fact that Biden has been involved in what looks like court packing in the past, should concern every American. If he is allowed back into the White House, and his party gains control of the Senate, he could very likely abolish the filibuster in order to push through a Roosevelt-type scheme to politicize and pack the Supreme Court.
Catherine Mortensen is the Vice President of Communications at Americans for Limited Government.
Video: ALG Minute: Trump 2-for-1 Jobs & Security
Click here to view larger image online.
ALG in the Washington Examiner: Trump turned tables on Pelosi with relief bill reboot, allies say
“The president never stops negotiating, and he basically told Pelosi that he’s no longer going to negotiate on her terms,” said Rick Manning, president of the pro-Trump conservative group, Americans for Limited Government. “His tweets are telling the public what Pelosi was walking away from: extended unemployment benefits for people who need it and support for small businesses being destroyed by the lockdown.”
Click here to read full story.
