But an initial fight was over the bill’s statement of purpose. It initially said that said the measure was designed to “preserve the purity of the ballot box” — a phrase “drafted specifically to disenfranchise Black voters following the Civil War,” Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchía told bill sponsor Rep. Briscoe Cain (R).
Repub Liz Cheney is facing removal fro her leadership roll of the House Republicans because she will not drop to her knees for deposed dictator Donald……her replacement after the vote will mostly like be a coward named Stefanik……
More on this spineless Trump sycophant……
GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik has emerged as a leading contender to replace Liz Cheney in the No. 3 spot among House Republicans, and on Thursday she helped strengthen that case on her own behalf during an interview with Steve Bannon. Coverage:
The 36-year-old New York congresswoman stressed her support for Donald Trump during the interview, a stark contrast with Cheney’s continued criticism of him, notes CNN. Asked about party strategy for the 2022 elections, she said that her “vision is to run with support from the President and his coalition of voters,” referring to Trump.
“We are going to run as an alternative to the Biden agenda,” she added. “This is also about being one team. I’m committed to being a voice and sending a clear message that we are one team, and that means working with the President (again, referring to Trump) and working with all of our excellent Republican members of Congress.” (Cheney, on the other hand, says the party is at “turning point” and must reject Trump’s claims that Joe Biden stole the election.)
Trump himself has endorsed Stefanik as a replacement for Cheney in the leadership post, notes the AP. The House could vote next week on ousting Cheney, a move backed by the top two House Republicans, Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise. “The careers of Cheney and Stefanik are seemingly racing in opposite directions, as if to contrast the fates awaiting Trump critics and backers in today’s GOP,” writes Alan Fram.
So who is Stefanik? The Wall Street Journal has a profile, noting that when she won office six years ago, she was one of the youngest women ever elected to Congress. She rose to national attention with her defense of Trump in the first impeachment hearing, specifically because of her sparring with Democrat Adam Schiff. Stefanik also has reportedly been pondering a run for governor in New York, though this new wrinkle of a potential move up the GOP leadership ranks changes things.
The Washington Post also has a profile of the Harvard grad, noting that she was a campaign adviser to Paul Ryan before running herself. But Stefanik “no longer wants to be identified with the traditional conservatives who served as her mentors,” writes Paul Kane. “Instead, she wants to be placed squarely in Trump’s ‘America First’ movement.” The ideological shift mirrors that of her district in northern New York.
The CNN piece says Stefanik was largely viewed as a moderate before her embrace of Trump. That might be why the conservative Club for Growth voiced its disapproval of her to replace Cheney. Stefanik “is NOT a good spokesperson for the House Republican Conference,” says the group in a tweet. “She is a liberal with a 35% CFGF lifetime rating, 4th worst in the House GOP. House Republicans should find a conservative to lead messaging and win back the House Majority.”
Liz has cajones and her replacement will be a spineless worthless lump of manure that will say anything to get ahead.
But let’s take a closer look at Stefanik…..
The issue: The Hill frames this as a “loyalty test” revolving around Donald Trump. The former president likely “sealed the contest” for the leadership post by giving Stefanik his strong support, write Mike Lillis and Scott Wong. She has likewise been one of Trump’s most vocal supporters over the past year. The problem is that her voting record is far more moderate than Cheney’s on policy issues.
The critics:Politico echoes the above, with Tina Nguyen writing that “MAGAworld” in general does not like Stefanik, even if Trump himself does. Figures including Lou Dobbs, Ann Coulter, and popular MAGA news and opinion sites have loudly expressed their displeasure with Stefanik in recent days. Groups such the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks similarly weighed in. The latter cited her “dismal” 37% voting record by the group’s standard.
Example: Stefanik “is the identity of a swamp creature, and she has probably the most liberal voting record of anybody who represents a strong Republican district,” says Ryan James Girdusky, author of the National Populist newsletter.
Countering: Longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon (who interviewed Stefanik on Thursday) is strongly in her camp, along with the president. “You’ve got (Josh) Hawley in the Senate and Stefanik [in the House],” he says. “You’ve got to look at the journey.” The Hill reports that Stefanik is privately telling people she has the leadership post locked up, and CNN quotes an anonymous conservative activist on why: Cheney may have the better voting record, but “Elise satisfies the litmus test that she is pro-Trump. And that’s all that counts these days in our coalition.”
Summing up: At the conservative-leaning Hot Air, Allahpundit compares Stefanik to Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, also of New York. Both started out as moderates but shifted as their constituencies did. Gillibrand went left and Stefanik right, “turning from establishmentarian to Trumpist.” Sure, groups such as FreedomWorks have a right to be ticked about Stefanik’s voting record, but it doesn’t matter because of Trump’s endorsement. “Only one person in this party gets a vote and he’s cast it. The debate is over.”
These are the very same GOP that called Dems ‘Stalinists’….does anyone else see how pathetic these twats are?
Country means nothing to the GOP….governing means nothing to republicans…..and this person is in a leadership role.
Nothing says a strong country by letting MORONS run it!
Looks like all predictions were a bit off this time around.
The new unemployment report for April is out, and the takeaway number didn’t come close to meeting expectations. Details:
The number: Employers added 266,000 jobs in the month, even though analysts had expected roughly 1 million, reports CNBC. The outlet characterizes the figure as a “huge letdown.” What’s more, the March increase of 916,000 was revised downward to 770,000.
The rate: The unemployment rate rose from 6% to 6.1%. Though a disappointment, that’s down from a record-high 14.8% last April, notes the Wall Street Journal.
2 reasons: The AP sees the disappointing hiring figure as a sign that employers are struggling to find people to fill openings. Supply-chain problems also may be limiting what businesses can do, per the Journal.
Bright spot: The leisure and hospitality industry saw the biggest gain with 331,000 new hires, though that still leaves the industry 2.9 million jobs short of pre-pandemic levels. Those gains were offset by losses in other sectors, including manufacturing, retail, and temping in general.
A blip? At MarketWatch, Jeffry Bartash suggests that the April figures will likely end up being a “temporary blip” in the recovery. “Falling coronavirus cases and massive federal stimulus have turbocharged the economy and job openings have surged,” he writes. The US remains poised “for a summer of strong growth.”
These figures are not good….but why is this?
Maybe it is because the unemployment benefits are too generous? (This is a GOP talking point)……
The new monthly jobs report came in way below expectations on Friday, with employers hiring 266,000 people in April instead of the 1 million or so expected by analysts. The report has reignited a familiar political debate amid the pandemic, with those on the right arguing that President Biden’s relief package is so generous that it encourages people to stay home instead of getting a job. Defenders of the aid, however, say it’s not that simple. Coverage:
Chamber’s view: The US Chamber of Commerce on Friday came out firing after the unemployment report, reports CNBC. “The disappointing jobs report makes it clear that paying people not to work is dampening what should be a stronger jobs market,” it says. The chamber urged lawmakers to end “the weekly $300 weekly supplemental unemployment benefit,” asserting that 25% of those receiving it are making more money than they did when working.
Not so fast: The argument that extra benefits encourages people to stay home has been circulating for a while, and last month in the Los Angeles Times, business columnist Michael Hiltzik argued that it doesn’t hold water. “Economists have consistently debunked the idea that unemployment insurance benefits suppress job searching,” he writes. Those who say otherwise are citing anecdotes, not data, he adds.
Other factors: Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal dug into the issue of employers struggling to find workers, and the story cited a number of factors based on surveys. For one thing, people are afraid of getting COVID, especially in high-traffic places such as bars and restaurants; others cite child-care issues, because businesses are opening faster than schools.
One example: But the story notes that the extra unemployment benefits appear to be playing a role as well. The story quotes a concert promoter who wants to return to work in his own field and is avoiding taking other jobs because his $750 in weekly benefits makes that possible. “I really enjoyed what I did,” he says. “If the government is going to pay you to stay home, you’re going to do that unless that job you really want comes along.”
Biden vs. McCarthy: Expect the issue to intensify. Biden himself defended his rescue package on Friday in the wake of the jobs report, notes the Hill. “Help is here and more help is on the way and more help is needed,” he said. In contrast is this tweet from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. “Today’s jobs report is a disappointment—just like President Biden’s plan to burden families with more taxes & more debt,” he wrote. “While Dems trap people in a cycle of fear & pay them NOT to work, it’s clear the best thing to do is end the crisis-era policies & get Americans back to work.”
Eye on the states: States may make their own moves. Montana, for example, plans to start offering bonuses to people who return to work, reports KRTV. It also plans to opt out early of the federal program that provides extra benefits—by the end of next month instead of September.
The arguments against the benefits are just outright BS…..has anyone tried living on $300 a week?
Personally I would listen to nothing the Chamber has to say….why?
They support all the voter suppression initiatives….for me that makes them the enemy…..and no one that I would consider reliable source.
So far most of the ‘owners’ of business that have a personnel problem and those that notoriously pay lower wages.
Think about this…the jobs that no one wants are the lower paid jobs…..why return to work for $200 a week when you can stay home and make $300?
I think this is a prime example that the minimum wage needs raising and quickly.
People would return to work if they were paid a living wage.