Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images -
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), left, House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.)
and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) attend a rally on the steps of the
U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority strongly suggested Wednesday that a key portion of the landmark legislation protecting minority voting rights is no longer justified and that the time had come for Southern states to be freed from special federal oversight.
At stake was Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which even challengers credit with delivering the promise of political inclusion to minority voters and eventually leading to the election of the nation’s first African American president.
With the voting rights case and an upcoming decision about whether universities may consider race in their admission policies, the court is poised this term to render a powerful verdict on the progress the United States has made in remedying its history of discrimination and the role government may play in what is left to do.
Next month, in another pair of major civil rights cases, the justices will consider the right of same-sex couples to marry and the government’s recognition of those unions.
The sharp ideological differences that mark the court have rarely been on display more than in Wednesday’s dramatic and at times tense oral argument, which played out before a courtroom filled with political leaders such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and civil rights activists such as Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.
The justices’ questioning of the lawyers was so intense that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. allowed the session to run into overtime.
Section 5 of the law requires nine states, mostly in the South, and jurisdictions in other states to “pre-clear” any changes in voting laws with federal authorities.
Justice Antonin Scalia said Congress’s decision in 2006 to reauthorize the law was not the result of a studied decision but of a “phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Politicians, he said, are afraid to vote against something with the “wonderful” name of the Voting Rights Act.
The liberals on the court defended the reauthorization, saying Congress amassed overwhelming evidence of a continued need for Section 5, which covers Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, as well as Alaska and Arizona, plus parts of seven other states.
“I don’t know what they’re thinking exactly,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said of the nearly unanimous majorities in Congress that reauthorized Section 5. “But it seems to me one might reasonably think this: It’s an old disease, it’s gotten a lot better, a lot better, but it’s still there.”
The court in 2009 considered whether extending Section 5 was constitutional. The justices decided that case without a definitive answer but sent an unmistakable message to Congress that the court was dissatisfied with the formula used to determine which states were covered by Section 5.
In the 2009 case, Roberts wrote that such an imposition on state sovereignty must be justified by current needs. “The statute’s coverage formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions,” he wrote for seven other justices. Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have found the reauthorization unconstitutional.
Congress took no action after that decision, and there were signs Wednesday that conservatives on the court had lost patience. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote when the court is ideologically split and is a strong supporter of federalism, said the current situation leaves Alabama under “the trusteeship of the United States government.”
He also criticized the use of the formula, which originally was based on measures such as literacy tests and voter registration percentages, to determine which states Section 5 covers.
“If Congress is going to single out separate states by name, it should do it by name,” Kennedy said. “Congress just didn’t have the time or the energy to do this; it just reenacted” the existing formula.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called the Voting Rights Act “one of the most successful statutes that Congress passed in the 20th century ” but nevertheless said the selection of jurisdictions covered by Section 5 makes no sense today.
Comparing jurisdictions that are covered with those that are not, he questioned whether discrimination is “a bigger problem in Virginia than in Tennessee, or it’s a bigger problem in Arizona than Nevada, or in the Bronx as opposed to Brooklyn.”
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who along with Debo P. Adegbile of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund was defending the law’s reauthorization, was bluntly asked by Roberts: “Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?
Verrilli said the government was not making that claim but instead was arguing that Congress had found that Section 5 was still needed in those jurisdictions and, in doing so, was relying on a formula that the court had found constitutional in four previous examinations.
The law was being challenged by Shelby County, Ala., a growing suburb south of Birmingham. The county was represented by Bert W. Rein, a Washington lawyer who said today’s Alabama bears “no resemblance” to the state that earned its spot on the 1965 list.
But the liberal justices were armed with statistics. “You’re objecting to a formula, but under any formula that Congress could devise, it would capture Alabama,” said Justice Elena Kagan, citing findings that a greater proportional number of violations of the act occur in the South.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it was a recent violation by a town in Shelby County that led to the current case. “Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?” she asked.
Although the discrimination of 1965 may no longer be present, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “the discrimination continues in other forms.”
The question of deference to Congress provoked the most dramatic moments. When Scalia said that the 98-0 Senate vote for reauthorization was evidence that lawmakers had not seriously considered the issue, Kagan took the unusual step of addressing him directly.
“Well, that sounds like a good argument to me, Justice Scalia,” she said. “It was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation.”
Addressing Verrilli, Scalia repeated his concern that extending the voting rights law is “not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.”
Verrilli disagreed, saying, “We are talking about the enforcement power that the Constitution gives to the Congress to make these judgments to ensure protection of fundamental rights.”
Kennedy suggested several times that another part of the law, which applies to the entire nation, is enough to prevent discrimination.
The symbolic significance of Section 5 could make the court reluctant to strike it down entirely. Instead, the justices could keep the section but declare that the formula used in selecting the covered states is outdated and must be revisited. Proponents of the law say that would effectively doom Section 5, because it would be so hard to get a new formula through a partisan and polarized Congress.
President Obama has led the way on forcing government to
live within its means through a balanced approach that protects key
priorities and ensures that everyone pays their fair share. In August,
President Obama signed into law a bipartisan agreement that kept our
nation from defaulting and achieved significant deficit reduction,
including a down payment on reform of about $1 trillion, by reducing
discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy
since Dwight D. Eisenhower was President while protecting critical
investments critical to our long-term competitiveness. And under this
agreement, Congress must pass another $1.5 trillion in deficit
reduction, or trigger massive cuts to domestic and defense spending,
providing an incentive for both sides to come together. The agreement is
consistent with the President’s values of achieving meaningful deficit
reduction in a common-sense balanced manner, in which low-income and
middle-class families do not bear the entire burden, in which the most
fortunate Americans pay their fair share, and in which cuts are spread
across both the security and non-security sides of government.
The Budget Control Act locks in historic spending discipline, balanced between domestic and Pentagon discretionary spending. Highlights include: Brings domestic discretionary spending to its lowest level since Eisenhower:
As part of the down payment on deficit reduction the President signed
this August, domestic discretionary spending will be brought to its
lowest level as a share of the economy since Dwight D. Eisenhower was
President. At the same time, the President has insisted that these cuts
include both domestic and defense spending, and has made clear that they
cannot threaten our long-term competitiveness or our commitments to the
most vulnerable – for example, by ensuring that historic expansions of
Pell Grants are maintained. Saves more than $900 billion over 10 years by imposing long-term spending restraint:
The Budget Control Act mandates historic levels of spending cuts—nearly
$1 trillion—done in a way that will not harm the economic recovery. The
cuts are balanced between domestic and Pentagon spending, and protect
critical initiatives like aid for college students; Protects core investments from deep and economically damaging cuts:
President Obama is adamant that in order to fundamentally rebuild our
economy, we have to out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of
the world, tapping the creativity and imagination of our people. We have
to take responsibility for our deficit, but we need to continue
investing in what makes America stronger and cutting what doesn’t. The
Budget Control Act allows us to continue investing in innovation,
infrastructure and education. Saves $350 billion from the base defense budget: For
the first time since the 1990s, defense spending will decline. The
Budget Control Act puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense
budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the
outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will
reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security. Protects the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants:
Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award
by $819 to a maximum award $5,550 per year, helping over 9 million
students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific
protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be
sufficient funding for the President’s commitment to making college more
affordable for all Americans. Protects low-income and middle-class families from shouldering the sole burden of deficit reduction:
The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the
sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class
families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican
Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to
our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go
without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would
have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement
mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare
benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and
civilian and military retirement.
And, the President has proposed to go beyond this down payment and is
proposing important reforms to mandatory programs saving hundreds of
billions of dollars. He has called on the Joint Committee on Deficit
Reduction to enact these reforms. Highlights include: Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid: President Obama
is recommending a series of reforms that build on the historic savings
in the Affordable Care Act. Overall, these proposals will save $248
billion in Medicare over 10 years and $73 billion in Medicaid and other
health programs—and more than a trillion dollars in deficit reduction in
the second decade. They accomplish this in a way that does not shift
significant risks onto the individuals these programs serve, slash
benefits, or undermine the fundamental compact they represent to our
Nation’s seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income
families. Even though these reforms can and will save money, they also
will strengthen these vital programs and ensure that they are robust and
healthy to serve Americans for years to come. Reforms to other mandatory programs throughout the budget:
The President is proposing $257 billion in cuts and reforms to a wide
range of mandatory programs from Federal retirement to agricultural
subsidies, reform of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, new
program integrity initiatives, and getting rid of unneeded Federal real
estate property to reduce the deficit.
Democrats nominate Robin Kelly in Illinois special election
Posted by Sean Sullivan on February 26, 2013 at 9:14 pm
Former state representative Robin Kelly. (M. Spencer Green/AP) In a victory for gun-control advocates led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former state representative Robin Kelly won the Democratic nomination in Illinois’ 2nd District special election Tuesday, defeating former congresswoman Debbie Halvorson, whose positions on guns had come under consistent attack from opponents.
The Associated Press called the race for Kelly, who led Halvorson 56 percent to 20 percent, with six in ten precincts reporting. Fourteen other Democrats competed for the nomination.
Kelly’s victory makes her the overwhelming favorite to win the special general election that will be held in the spring. The 2nd District, which includes Chicago’s South Side and extends southward into the suburbs, leans heavily Democratic.
“With her success tonight, Robin Kelly took one more step toward joining the ranks of a freshman class of Members defined by unprecedented diversity and unmatched determination to get the job done on behalf of the American people,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in a statement. “We look forward to welcoming her to Congress and to the Democratic Caucus.” Caucus.”
The election was triggered by the resignation of Jesse Jackson Jr., who last week admitted in court to misusing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of campaign funds. The special general election for Jackson’s old seat will be held on April 9.
A super PAC formed by Bloomberg, one of the nation’s leading gun control advocates, spent about $2.5 million to defeat Halvorson and boost Kelly, a hefty sum for a House race. Halvorson, who served one term in Congress from 2009-2011, previously received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, which Bloomberg’s PAC noted in its ad campaign against her.
“This is an important victory for common sense leadership on gun violence, a problem that plagues the whole nation,” Bloomberg said in a statement Tuesday night. “And it’s the latest sign that voters across the country are demanding change from their representatives in Washington — not business as usual. As Congress considers the president’s gun package, voters in Illinois have sent a clear message: we need common sense gun legislation now. Now it’s up to Washington to act.”
Part of the district Halvorson previously represented lies in the 2nd District, a result of the decennial redistricting process. Being a well-known white candidate in a field with many African American contenders, Halvorson looked like a front-runner at the outset of the campaign.
The many black candidates, including Kelly, would stand to split up much of black vote, the thinking went, leaving Halvorson well-positioned to win with plurality support. But Kelly’s momentum, spurred by the outside spending for her and against Halvorson, prevented the former congresswoman from making a return trip to Capitol Hill.
The campaign unfolded against the backdrop of a city plagued by gun violence. Chicago hit the 500-homicide mark last year for the first time since 2008. Kelly consistently underscored her support for stricter gun control measures in the race.
Halvorson said in the campaign that she opposes a federal ban on assault-style weapons, but favors requiring universal background checks for gun purchases. Kelly, by comparison, said she supported both provisions.
A winter storm dumped snow and slush on the Chicago area Tuesday, apparently depressing turnout for an election that wasn’t expected to attract many voters in the first place. Early estimates projected turnout to be less than 20 percent.
The race for the GOP nomination remained competitive late Tuesday, with a trio of candidates within five points of each other with nearly eight in ten precincts reporting.
Gun debate is changing the Democratic Party
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
It's unclear if the tragic shooting at Connecticut's
Sandy Hook Elementary School -- as well as the subsequent ones across
the country -- will lead to passage of gun-control legislation in
Congress. But they might have had this immediate result: transforming
the politics and focus inside the Democratic Party, at least in
solid-blue districts and states.
Look no farther than Tuesday's upcoming Democratic special congressional primary in Illinois to fill Jesse Jackson Jr.'s vacant seat in the Chicago area, where Cook County Chief Administrative Officer Robin Kelly has become the front-runner, thanks in large part to the issue of guns.[Kelly won Tuesday night 56% to 20% she whooped Havorson]
"Robin Kelly has spent her career fighting to get deadly weapons off our streets," goes one of her TV ads. "In Congress, Kelly will keep taking on the NRA, fighting to ban assault weapons and outlaw high-capacity ammunition clips."
A super PAC funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
Independence USA, has spent more than $2 million in the race to both
endorse Kelly and knock two of her opponents with strong gun-rights
records, including former Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson (the only white candidate running in this multi-candidate field).
"In
the race to replace Jesse Jackson, watch out for Debbie Halvorson. When
she was in Congress before, Halvorson got an 'A' from the NRA," argued
an Independence USA TV ad, adding: "Debbie Halvorson -- when it comes to preventing gun violence, she gets an 'F.'"
Another ad by the group goes, "In the race for Congress, the big issue -- fighting gun violence. Debbie Halvorson and Toi Hutchison both earned an 'A' from the NRA. They can't be trusted."
(Hutchison
has since dropped out of the race and has endorsed Kelly, providing
more evidence that Kelly is the candidate to beat on Feb. 26.)
While
this is just one race occurring in a city that has been plagued by gun
violence, next week’s special primary highlights three important points:
1. The National Rifle Association has become anathema to many Democratic voters.
That’s especially true in the wake of the organization’s combative
public relations campaign after the Newtown shootings, which included
the NRA invoking President Barack Obama’s daughters in an advertisement attacking the president.
According to last month’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, just 20
percent of Democrats had a favorable view of the NRA, versus 57 percent
who had an unfavorable view. (That’s compared with 64 percent of
Republicans and even 49 percent of independents who hold a favorable
view of the organization.) In past Democratic primaries, an NRA
endorsement was either a badge of honor or something that at
least wasn't viewed as a major liability. That may not be true anymore,
at least in congressional districts like this one in Illinois.
2. Bloomberg’s organizations have become a countervailing force.
Mark Glaze, the executive director for another Bloomberg organization,
Mayors Against Illegal Guns, argues that one of the biggest reasons why
gun-control laws have been weakened over the past decade is because “the
NRA has been the only game in town.” But as the Illinois race has
proved, Bloomberg’s groups are willing to spend millions in races on
behalf of candidates supporting gun control. (Interestingly, the NRA has
not spent money in this particular Democratic primary.) As one
Democratic strategist tells First Read, “Candidates no longer have to
fear the NRA mobilizing disproportionate force against them. They just
need some backup.”
3. But does this apply outside of urban areas? That could be
the biggest question moving forward after Tuesday’s race. While the NRA
is unpopular with Democrats and while Bloomberg’s group have displayed
their muscle, does that also hold true in places like West Virginia
(where Democrats will be competing to replace retiring Sen. Jay Rockefeller)
or even in Iowa (which has open Senate and House seats in 2014)? “West
Virginia and Illinois will always be different,” Glaze says, noting that
states like West Virginia have “more hunting, more guns, and less
crime.” He adds, “That creates a different political dynamic.” Indeed,
the NRA is running newspaper ads in states like Arkansas, Louisiana, and
North Carolina -- where Democratic senators are running for re-election
next year -- opposing the Obama administration’s gun-control proposals.
Public Affairs Event Jan 17, 2013 Tags: Gun Control, Violence 58 minutes 617 views Open Phones Call-In Jan 17, 2013 Tags: Gun Control, Violence 1 hour, 0 minutes 87 views Newsmakers with Senator Patrick Leahy
News Conference Feb 5, 2013 Tags: Gun Control, Violence
GOP fears Obama will jilt them on immigration
By Michael O'Brien, Political Reporter, NBC News
A
recurring fear has colored Republicans’ attitude toward the current
immigration reform debate in Congress: President Barack Obama has no
actual interest in reaching a deal, and is instead pursuing the issue to
exacerbate the GOP’s problems with Hispanic voters.
Yet all of
the evidence so far – whether in his speeches and or his relations with
Congress – suggests he and his administration clearly want a deal that
he could sign into law.
Politics, of course, play an undeniable
role in the renewed effort to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws,
especially given that Obama won more than 70 percent of the Latino vote
in the 2012 election. Consequently, Republicans who had previously
resisted any legislation that offered a pathway to citizenship for the
nation’s some 11 million undocumented immigrants have now reversed
course.
Isaac Brekken / AP
In
this Jan. 29, 2013, file photo, President Barack Obama speaks about
immigration reform Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2013, at Del Sol High School in Las
Vegas.
“The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens
and we realize that there are many issues on which we think we are in
agreement with our Hispanic citizens but this is a preeminent issue with
those citizens,” Arizona Sen. John McCain, a Republican member of the
bipartisan Senate group working toward an immigration accord, said
bluntly upon the introduction of that proposal’s framework.
But
Republicans have warily engaged the new debate over immigration with
active fears that the president’s true intentions on immigration are
half-hearted, at best.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s established
himself as an outspoken conservative after just a couple of months on
the job, was only the latest Republican to give voice to that fear.
“I
don’t believe President Obama wants an immigration bill to pass,
instead I think he wants a political issue,” he said in a speech on
Wednesday, according to a report by the Houston Chronicle. ”His
objective is to push so much on the table that he forces Republicans
walk away from the table because then he wants to use that issue in 2014
and 2016 as a divisive wedge issue.”
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa talked about immigration policy,
saying that the “time is now” for reform. It was noted that President
Obama vowed to push for comprehensive immigration reform in his second
term and various Republicans had been raising the issue. He said
Congress should be able to tackle immigration reform while still
debating gun safety laws and dealing with sequestration and not
defaulting on its bills. Following his remarks, Mayor Villaraigosa
answered questions submitted by members of the audience on topics
including illegal immigration, the defense budget, President Obama’s
cabinet picks, and his own political future.
It’s a fear that many of Cruz’s fellow elected Republicans appear to share.
“The
question that many of us are asking, Republicans and Democrats, is he
looking to play politics or does he want to solve the problem?”
Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the former GOP vice presidential nominee,
asked during his Jan. 27 appearance on NBC's “Meet the Press” preceding
Obama’s major policy speech on immigration.
Republicans carefully
watched that speech with concerns that Obama would eventually demagogue
immigration. The president generally did the opposite; he used the
speech to carefully embrace the bipartisan Senate talks, while warning
that the administration would have its own backup plan at the ready for
congressional consideration should the Senate talks fail. He further
embraced a bipartisan speech in prime time, during his State of the
Union address.
“As we speak, bipartisan groups in both chambers
are working diligently to draft a bill, and I applaud their efforts,”
Obama said. “So let’s get this done. Send me a comprehensive immigration
reform bill in the next few months, and I will sign it right away.”
But
Republicans’ concerns that Obama will jilt the GOP on immigration very
much inform the work toward a comprehensive reform law, and help explain
part of the reason why the politics of the issue are so fraught.
When
a draft of the White House’s immigration reform proposal leaked over
the weekend, Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who is helping
negotiate the Senate plan, pronounced it dead on arrival in Congress.
“It’s
a mistake for the White House to draft immigration legislation without
seeking input from Republican members of Congress,” Rubio said in a
statement.
AOL
Co-Founder Steve Case talks about the economy explains why he thinks
comprehensive immigration reform may be the solution to attracting and
keeping the brightest minds from around the world in America.
Rubio’s
scorching statement was also intended to maintain credibility with
conservatives, whose support – or, at least, tolerance – of an
immigration overhaul the Cuban-American senator’s worked to win.
(And,
for his part, Obama said that the leak was but a hiccup. “It certainly
did not jeopardize the entire process,” he told an Univision affiliate
in Texas. “The negotiations are still moving forward.”)
But as Republicans tread carefully toward an immigration agreement,
they might also keep in mind the political skin Obama has put at stake
with this issue.
For as ballyhooed as Obama’s 44-point advantage
over Republican nominee Mitt Romney among Hispanic or Latino voters has
been, the president had to quell frustration among Latino voters about
his failure to pursue immigration in his first term. He faced some of
his toughest questioning of the campaign on that very issue during a
town hall last September with Univision’s Jorge Ramos, who pointedly
accused Obama of breaking his promise to bring up an immigration reform
bill during his first year in office. Latino activists have repeatedly
criticized Obama for overseeing a record pace of deportations during his
first term.
What’s more, Obama basically premised his plea for
Latinos’ votes on the premise that, if they helped re-elect him,
immigration reform would finally be achievable.
“What I’m
absolutely certain of is if the Latino community and the American
community that cares about this issue turns out to vote, they can send a
message that this is not something to use as a political football, that
people’s lives are at stake, that this is a problem that we can solve
and historically has had bipartisan support,” Obama said in the same
Univision forum.
That’s to say: if immigration reform fails during
Obama’s second term, there will be more than enough political fallout
to spread around.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Boehner blasts Senate Democrats for inaction
By Carrie Dann, NBC News
House Speaker John Boehner addresses the ongoing sequester standoff on Capitol Hill.
Echoing
the frustration of lawmakers throughout Washington hoping for a
last-minute swerve to avoid impending budget cuts, House Speaker John
Boehner, R-Ohio, used some PG-13 phraseology Tuesday to urge the Senate
to action.
"We have moved a bill in the House twice," Boehner said
at a press conference Tuesday. "We should not have to move a third bill
before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something."
The refrain of urging Senate action comes from Boehner just four days before the sequestration cuts are slated to kick in.
President
Barack Obama will travel to Newport News, Va. this afternoon to
highlight the cuts' effect on the region's shipbuilding community. He
will be joined by the area's Rep. Scott Rigell, a Republican.
The White House's road trips to warn of the sequester's impact have drawn criticism from foes.
"He
has traveled over 5000 miles the last two weeks, and we challenge him
travel a mile and half and come to Capitol Hill," said Rep. Cathy
McMorris Rogers of Washington on Tuesday. "Sit down with Harry Reid and
urge the Senate Democrats to take action."
Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images
House
Speaker John Boehner takes a reporter's question during a press
conference following a meeting of the Republican Conference at RNC
headquarters on Feb. 26 on Capitol Hill.
Boehner said Obama's event this afternoon will reduce the nation's military to a campaign "prop."
"I
don't think the president is focused on finding a solution to the
sequester," he said. "The president has been traveling all over the
country, today by going down to Newport News in order to use our
military men and women as a prop in yet another campaign rally to
support his tax hikes."
First Thoughts: GOP's weak position on the sequester
GOP’s weak political position on the sequester… Just look at the polls, the lack of compromise, and the message… That said, Democrats have their own sequester problems, too… Rick Scott accepts Medicaid expansion… Look who’s coming to CPAC -- almost everybody… And when it comes to politicians, almost nothing surprises us anymore. See the Pete Domenici story.
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower, NBC News
Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, addresses the media following a Republican Conference meeting on Feb. 5, 2013 at the Capitol. From left are: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., Conference Vice Chairman Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., Rep. Susan Brooks, R-In., and Conference Chairman Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash.
*** GOP’s weak position on the sequester: Yesterday we asked this question about the political back-and-forth regarding the looming automatic budget cuts that are set to take place on March 1: What if the sky doesn’t fall? But here’s the opposite question: What if it does? And if that’s the case, Republicans stand to pay the steepest political price. It’s not even close right now. For starters, look at the numbers from the first two national polls taken after the State of the Union. The new USA Today/Pew poll: “President Obama starts his second term with a clear upper hand over GOP leaders on issues from guns to immigration that are likely to dominate the year… On the legislation rated most urgent — cutting the budget deficit — even a majority of Republican voters endorse Obama's approach of seeking tax hikes as well as spending cuts.” Also in this poll, the president’s approval rating is at 51%, while the approval for congressional GOPers is at 25%. And here’s Bloomberg’s poll: “… Obama enters the latest budget showdown with Congress with his highest job- approval rating in three years [55%] and public support for his economic message, while his Republican opponents’ popularity stands at a record low [35%].” So these are the numbers when the White House’s P.R. campaign to avert the sequester has only begun and before the expected layoffs and furloughs.
*** Where’s the compromise? Besides the polling numbers, Republicans find themselves in a weak position -- politically -- because they’ve yet to propose ANY kind of compromise that recognizes they don’t control the White House or the U.S. Senate. By contrast, Obama has offered up entitlement cuts (chained CPI for Social Security is apparently still on the table), and he has indicated a willingness to make additional cuts to Medicare (he said so in the State of the Union). But Republicans are refusing to budge on any tax revenues (via closing loopholes, etc.), even though House Speaker John Boehner offered them up during the fiscal-cliff debate. “House Republicans, shrugging off rising pressure from President Obama, are resolutely opposing new tax increases to head off $85 billion in across-the-board spending reductions, all but ensuring the cuts will go into force March 1 and probably remain in place for months, if not longer,” the New York Times says. Interestingly, Karl Rove has proposed a sort of compromise for House Republicans to offer: “pass a continuing resolution next week to fund the government for the balance of the fiscal year at the lower level dictated by the sequester—with language granting the executive branch the flexibility to move funds from less vital activities to more important ones.” In other words, force the Obama administration to choose which programs and entities get funded. Of course, this comes with political risk as many Republicans will fear that the Obama administration will essentially fund what he wants at the expense of programs or projects important to Republicans.
*** A muddled message: In addition to the GOP’s poll numbers and its inability to propose a compromise, a third Republican shortcoming in this sequester debate is the message. Conservative writer Byron York sums the problem of House Speaker John Boehner describing the looming cuts as a policy “that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more,” but isn’t earnestly trying to avoid it. “Could the GOP message on the sequester be any more self-defeating?” York asks. “Boehner could argue that the sequester cuts are necessary as a first — and somewhat modest — step toward controlling the deficits that threaten the economy. Instead, he describes them as a threat to national security and jobs that he nevertheless supports. It’s not an argument that is likely to persuade millions of Americans.” As we’ve pointed out in the past, if a party’s opinion writers -- like York and Rove -- are arguing that the party isn’t pursuing a wise course, you’re typically losing the debate.
*** Democrats have their own sequester problems: Of course, none of this is to say that Obama and the Democrats have handled the sequester politics swimmingly. The same polls that show Obama’s approval rating above 50% could easily fall during this latest fiscal standoff. What’s more, the public isn’t engaged in this battle like it has been in previous ones. (Per that USA Today/Pew poll, “barely a quarter have heard a lot about the scheduled cuts, while about as many have heard nothing at all.) And as the New York Times notes, senior Senate Democratic aides complained that the Obama White House should have demanded a better way to handle the sequester during the fiscal-cliff negotiations. “In late December, as the White House and Senate Republicans closed in on a deal to head off a far larger wave of automatic tax increases, Senate Democrats had urged the president and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to hold out for a better deal on the automatic spending cuts.” But if the sequester sky does fall, Republicans hold the weaker hand. And Democrats -- this DCCC video targeting House Republicans is an example -- are on the offensive.
*** Rick Scott accepts Medicaid expansion: Beyond the upcoming sequester, the other big political story today is Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) saying that his state will accept Medicaid expansion under the federal health-care law. While other GOP governors have refused the expansion (like Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell yesterday), Scott’s decision is significant because -- as Politico writes -- he’s “the biggest symbol of grudging Republican acceptance that Obamacare is the law of the land.” More from that article: “Scott had campaigned against the health legislation even before he began running for office, and Florida led the 26 states that fought it in court.” So Scott, who’s facing a VERY difficult race for re-election next year, isn’t just simply a conservative governor of a swing state; he’s the guy who spent MILLIONS of dollars to stop the health-care law. There’s an interesting pattern developing, and one that isn’t that surprising: Just about any Republican governor in a blue or purple state that Obama carried (or nearly carried) seems to finding a way to compromise on health care, either in setting up exchanges or on Medicaid. The lone exception is McDonnell, but he’s NOT running for re-election and the next election he faces may be with Republican primary voters in 2016.
*** Look who’s coming to CPAC: Yesterday, we also learned -- via NBC’s Sarah B. Boxer -- that Mitt Romney will be addressing CPAC next month, which will be his first public (and political) speech since his concession to Obama on Election Night. And Romney’s participation begs this question: Just who isn’t coming to CPAC? Not only will potential 2016ers (like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan) be addressing the conservative confab, but so will folks many Republicans have moved on from (like Romney and Sarah Palin). The only prominent Republican we can see who won’t be addressing CPAC appears to be New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. This is all a recognition of how mainstream CPAC, which used to be considered the anti-establishment wing of the party, has become.*** Nothing surprises us anymore about politicians: Lastly, we mention this story because it’s proof that NOTHING -- and absolutely nothing -- surprises us about politicians anymore. “Former New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici told the Journal on Tuesday he fathered a son outside of his marriage over 30 years ago, revealing a secret kept for decades. Statements given to the Journal by Domenici and the son’s mother, Michelle Laxalt of Alexandria, Va., identified the son as Adam Paul Laxalt, a Nevada lawyer. Michelle Laxalt formerly was a prominent government relations consultant and television political commentator in Washington, D.C. She is a daughter of former U.S. senator and Nevada Gov. Paul Laxalt,” who served with Domenici in the U.S. Senate. A little history lesson on Laxalt for our younger readers: He was essentially Ronald Reagan’s best friend in the U.S. Senate (almost on the ticket if you believe some reports back in 1980). And Domenici was a real possibility to be Bush 41’s VP in 1988.
On the road, Obama again warns of coming 'pain' without budget fix
By Carrie Dann, NBC News
As
Republicans decry a White House "road show" and cabinet officials
continue to sound the sequester alarm, President Barack Obama said
Tuesday that - even if Congress gives him greater flexibility to target
coming budget reductions - rapid cuts without new revenues will still
inflict "pain" on the national economy.
"The problem is, when
you're cutting 85 billion dollars in seven months, which represents over
a 10 percent cut in the defense budget … there's no smart way to do
that," he said in a speech in the ship-building community of Newport
News, Va.
Obama's address at a shipbuilding plant came hours
after House Speaker John Boehner used blunt language to urge Senate
action on a budget fix, saying the upper chamber's members should "get
off their ass" to avert the sequester.
In Virginia, Obama warned
that the current across-the-board cuts will be particularly damaging for
jobs along the state's defense-industry-rich coastline.
President
Obama speaks to a group of workers at Newport News Shipbuilding in
Virginia, highlighting the devastating impact the sequester will have on
jobs and middle class families.
"These cuts are wrong,
they're not smart, they're not fair," he said. "They're a self-inflicted
wound that doesn't have to happen."
The backdrop of Newport News
Shipbuilding offered a visual aide for the president, who lamented how
fiscal scuffles on the Hill have caused uncertainty in the private
sector.
The overhaul of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, which is
currently docked nearby , has been put on hold due to economic
uncertainty surrounding not only the cuts but also the funding of the
government which is due to run out at the end of March.
Obama blamed the impasse on Republican unwillingness to compromise on tax reform measures that would raise additional revenue.
"Too
many Republicans in Congress right now refuse to compromise even an
inch when it comes to closing tax loopholes and special interest tax
breaks," he said. "And that's what holding things up right now."
The president was joined on the trip by the area's Rep. Scott Rigell, a Republican.
Rigell
told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to the event that --
although many in his party say the GOP should accept no more
revenue-raising proposals from Democrats -- he has advised his
Republican colleagues against resisting measures like closing tax
loopholes.
"I don't think that's a wise position and I don't hold that value," he said.
The
trip to Virginia -- a swing state -- comes amid complaints from the GOP
that Obama is "campaigning" on the road rather than addressing the
solution to the coming budget slashes.
"He
has traveled over 5000 miles the last two weeks, and we challenge him
travel a mile and half and come to Capitol Hill," said Rep. Cathy
McMorris Rogers of Washington on Tuesday. "Sit down with Harry Reid and
urge the Senate Democrats to take action."
In his comments Tuesday
morning, Boehner placed blame squarely on Senate Democrats for failing
to propose a fix. "We have moved a bill in the House twice," Boehner
said at a press conference. "We should not have to move a third bill
before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something."
Republicans
also slammed the White House this week for "scaring" Americans by
overstating the consequences of the cuts, which would total $1.2
trillion over 10 years.
That push from administration officials
continued Tuesday, with Attorney General Eric Holder warning bluntly
that the sequester will make the country "less safe."
"We’ll do
the best that we can to minimize the harm that actually occurs as result
of the sequestration, but the reality is there is going to be harm.
There is going to be pain," he told a meeting of state attorneys general
in Washington D.C. "The American people are going to be less safe."
Charles Dharapak / AP
President
Barack Obama speaks about automatic defense budget cuts during a visit
to Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls
Industries, Tuesday, Feb. 26, in Newport News, Va.
Newly-minted
Secretary of State John Kerry, traveling on his first foreign trip in
his new post, told embassy staff in Berlin that he sympathizes with
their confusion about Washington's machinations.
"We face tough
budget choices, and I know you sometimes scratch your heads - because I
do it at home - and say what the hell are those guys doing or not doing
as the case may be, and it's frustrating," he said. "And I get it."
And
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano summed up her own feelings
about the budgetary staring contest Tuesday with a literal slap to the
forehead.
"You know, I've been in government and public service a
long time-- 20 years actually," she said, after burying her head in her
hands. "I have never seen anything like this." NBC's Shawna Thomas and Frank Thorp contributed to this report.
NBC/WSJ poll: Public says GOP less interested in unity than Obama is
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
With the automatic across-the-board spending cuts set to begin on Friday, Americans are split over whether President Barack Obama is emphasizing unifying the country or taking a partisan approach, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticizes President Barack
Obama's handling of the looming budget cuts facing U.S. agencies.
But by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, respondents conclude that the Republican Party is emphasizing partisanship more than unity.
In
the poll, 48 percent say Obama is pursuing a path to unify the country
in a bipartisan way, while 43 percent say he's taking a partisan
approach that doesn't unify the country.
By
comparison, 64 percent say the Republican Party is taking a partisan
approach, versus 22 percent who say it's focused on unity.
As for
the Democratic Party, a plurality of respondents -- by a 49 percent to
37 percent margin -- think it is emphasizing partisanship more than
unity.
The full NBC/WSJ poll -- which was conducted Feb. 21-24 of
1,000 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1
percentage points -- comes out beginning at 6:30 pm ET.
A year after killing, Trayvon Martin's father says parents will 'never move on'
MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts talks to Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, parents of Trayvon Martin, and their attorneys Benjamin Crump and Darryl Parks.
Trayvon Martin in an undated handout photo released by the Martin family.
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News
The
father of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager shot to death in
Florida last year, said Tuesday that the family will “never move on” and
will fight to make sure his memory “won’t be tainted by this whole
situation.”
On
the anniversary of his son’s killing, Tracy Martin also said that
lawmakers across the country must take a hard look at gun laws and who
should get gun permits. He cited not just his son’s death but the
elementary-school massacre in Newtown, Conn.
“Why would you need a semiautomatic weapon to be hunting? That’s senseless,” Tracy Martin said on MSNBC.
George
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch volunteer, is charged with
second-degree murder in Martin’s death. Zimmerman, who is of white and
Hispanic descent, has pleaded not guilty and says he shot Martin in
self-defense after Martin attacked him.
The case ignited a debate
over race and gun rights in the weeks after the shooting. It became a
rallying point for activists protesting what they said was the targeting
of an unarmed black youth because of his race.
Zimmerman’s trial is scheduled to begin June 10.
Martin’s
parents will hold a candlelight vigil in New York on Tuesday to mark
the anniversary of his death as part of what they call a “Million Hoodie
March.” Martin was wearing a hoodie the night he was killed.
The
vigil will be at 6 p.m. in Union Square in Manhattan. An online flier
for the event organized by the Trayvon Martin Foundation says there will
be a moment of silence for Martin and “and all victims of senseless gun
violence.” Other remembrances are planned across the country.
Tracy
Martin said on MSNBC that “as parents of a slain child, we never move
on. And we’ll do our best to keep it in the media and to keep people’s
attention.”
He added: “We don’t expect Trayvon to be the top story
every day. He’s definitely the top story in our life. We took a vow to
make sure that his honor and his legacy won’t be tainted by this whole
situation.”
Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said that the family is holding up “fairly well” and relying on one another. Editor's note: George Zimmerman has sued NBCUniversal for defamation, and the company has strongly denied his allegations.
Senate confirms Hagel for defense secretary
By Michael O'Brien, Political Reporter, NBC News
The Senate voted to confirm former Sen. Chuck Hagel as President Barack Obama's next secretary of defense following weeks of dogged opposition by Republican senators to their erstwhile colleague.
The Senate voted 58 to 41 to formally confirm Hagel, on the heels of a procedural vote earlier in the day that cleared the way for Tuesday afternoon's final vote.
That earlier vote dispensed with a filibuster that Senate Republicans had waged for a week and a half against Hagel, whose confirmation was delayed by Republicans past the President's Day recess in order to allow for more time to dig into the former Nebraska senator's background.
A number of Republican detractors — including Sens. John McCain, Ariz., Lindsey Graham, S.C. and Kelly Ayotte, N.H. — reversed their votes on Monday in order to allow the Hagel nomination to move forward.
The Senate voted 71 to 27 to move forward with Hagel's nomination, clearing the 60-vote threshold needed to end the GOP filibuster. A handful of the Republicans who allowed Hagel's nomination to come to a final vote ultimately voted against confirmation.
In the end, Obama was able to win confirmation for Hagel, his choice to succeed outgoing Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon. But not before Republicans were able to drag out the confirmation fight and, in the process, ding Hagel, their onetime GOP Senate colleague from the Cornhusker State.
Republicans had fought strenuously to defeat Hagel, accusing him at points of harboring hostilities toward Israel, and sympathies for the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
Tied into Hagel's nomination as well have been Republicans' long-running effort to ding Obama and his administration over their handling of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters Former Senator Chuck Hagel testifies during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination to be Defense Secretary, on Capitol Hill in Washington, in this January 31, 2013, file photo.
"What has their filibuster gained my Republican colleagues?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked on the Senate floor. "Twelve days later, Senator Hagel's exemplary record of service to his country remains untarnished."
Reid added: "Senate Republicans have delayed for the better part of two weeks for one reason and one reason only: partisanship."
Hagel didn't necessarily help his cause during a combative confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Republicans aggressively questioned Hagel on a variety of matters during the Jan. 31 hearing.
Even still, Democrats held firm in their backing for the former Nebraska senator, helping to move his nomination forward. Republicans, though, managed to buy themselves more time — they said, to more fully investigate Hagel's background — by waging a filibuster against the nomination on Feb. 14.
Democrats angrily protested the delay, especially as current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta planned to leave the job, as dangerous and unprecedented. Republican opponents of Hagel, though, said at that time that they would drop their objections to holding a confirmation vote after last week's recess.
Former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., moved a step closer to becoming the nation's next defense secretary after the Senate voted Tuesday to end debate on his nomination, and move toward a final confirmation vote.
Hagel's nomination cleared a key threshold in a midday vote on Tuesday, ending a week-and-a-half-long delay forced by Republicans who object to their former colleague's nomination.
The Senate voted 71 to 27 to move forward with Hagel's nomination, clearing the 60-vote threshold needed to end the GOP filibuster. Several Republicans who'd previously voted to block Hagel reversed their votes, and allowed him to move toward confirmation.
The vote all but ensures Hagel's confirmation, since only a simple majority of senators are needed in that vote, and Democrats — who all backed former Republican senator — all back Hagel. That vote on final confirmation could come as soon as Tuesday evening.
Tuesday's vote brings the bruising fight over Hagel's nomination near to its conclusion.
Republicans had fought strenuously to defeat Hagel, accusing him at points of harboring hostilities toward Israel, and sympathies for the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Tied into Hagel's nomination as well have been Republicans' long-running effort to ding President Barack Obama and his administration over their handling of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
"What has their filibuster gained my Republican colleagues?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked on the Senate floor. "Twelve days later, Senator Hagel's exemplary record of service to his country remains untarnished."
Reid added: "Senate Republicans have delayed for the better part of two weeks for one reason and one reason only: partisanship."
Hagel didn't necessarily help his cause during a combative confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Republicans aggressively questioned Hagel on a variety of matters during the Jan. 31 hearing.
Even still, Democrats held firm in their backing for the former Nebraska senator, helping to move his nomination forward. Republicans, though, managed to buy themselves more time — they said, to more fully investigate Hagel's background — by waging a filibuster against the nomination on Feb. 14.
Democrats angrily protested the delay, especially as current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta planned to leave the job, as dangerous and unprecedented. Republican opponents of Hagel, though, said at that time that they would drop their objections to holding a confirmation vote after last week's recess.
Jack Lew gets Senate green light in a 71-26 vote just as economy faces potentially severe budget cuts.
How bad will the cuts really be? No one really knows. The dire warnings the reflect a lot of guesswork.
The New Jersey governor says he has bigger things to worry about than not getting invited to the conservative confab. 
A think tank releases a statement on her nomination to head EPA... but the White House hasn’t yet given her the official nod.
West Virginia teacher moves are not a result of sequestration, local officials explain.
Protesters with a giant pink pig want defense cuts without sequestration
