February 6, 2024

Tuesday, February 6, 2024. Annette’s News Roundup.

I think the Roundup makes people feel not so alone.

To read an article excerpted in this Roundup, click on its blue title. Each “blue” article is hyperlinked so you can read the whole article.

Please feel free to share.

Invite at least one other person to subscribe today! https://buttondown.email/AnnettesNewsRoundup

______________________________________

Joe is always busy.

One way President Biden has proved to be special is that he drills down in a real way, to uncover the problems of real people. This leads him to actions which lower costs for hardworking Americans.

One example is the burden of drug prices. The answer is $35 for insulin. Or those annoying, hidden fees banks and other businesses attach to your purchases without permission.

Here is one more case.

Watch Hakeem Jeffries here 👇 praising the President.

___________________________________________

The Border Bill.

The supply and demand of bipartisan compromise.

After months of negotiating, Sens. James Lankford (R-OK), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) on Sunday released their $118 billion package aimed at increasing border security and providing aid to Ukraine and Israel.

The full piece of legislation be found here. If you don’t want to sift through 370 pages of legislative text, though, it can be helpful to consult the summaries put out by the bill’s co-authors. Often, when bipartisan deals like this are put together, each of the Senate offices that had a hand in the negotiations will release identical summaries of the bill, a sign that the sponsors are (literally) on the same page, united in mission and purpose.

However, in this case, each of the Senate authors released markedly different summaries of the measure — providing us an unusually transparent glimpse into how both Lankford and Murphy will attempt to sell the legislation to their parties.

I. A tale of two summaries

For one thing, Lankford only released a synopsis of the border security provisions in the bill; you could read his entire summary, or his statement announcing the deal, without ever knowing that the same package would provide $60.6 billion in aid to Ukraine, $14.1 billion to Israel, $10 billion to Ukrainian and Palestinian civilians, and $4.83 billion to allies in the Ind-Pacific.

Lankford’s summary does, however, highlight the fact that the package would end the practice of “catch and release” (by requiring supervision or detention of all migrants processed at the border) and greenlight $650 million in funding to build new border wall. Murphy’s summary neglects such details.

The package also contains changes to parole authority, which is used by presidents to allow otherwise inadmissible migrants into the country for humanitarian reasons. The measure would not institute an annual cap of how many people can be offered parole or stop presidents from offering parole to entire classes of people at once, as some Republicans had called for. But it would sharply limit the president’s power to offer parole to migrants who arrive by land, largely narrowing the authority to those who arrive at airports.

In Murphy’s telling, this “protects the president’s parole authority”; in Lankford’s, this would “stop the daily flagrant abuse” of parole power.

Both Murphy and Lankford note one of the package’s most prominent provisions: the creation of a new Border Emergency Authority, which would allow the Department of Homeland Security to completely close the border to new entries if daily migrant encounters exceed 4,000 for several days straight — and would require closing the border if daily encounters exceed 5,000 for several days. (The number of migrant “encounters” includes all migrants who are apprehended at the border without a passport, green card, or visa. There were more than 302,000 such encounters at the southern border in December 2023, which averages to nearly 10,000 a day.)

Lankford’s summary details the exact threshold at which the emergency authority would kick in, noting that it has been met “every week but one in the past four months.” Murphy’s summary does not.

Murphy’s outline notes the limits on the authority: it will only be able to be used a certain amount of days each year; some asylum applications will still be processed during such emergencies; the authority will sunset after three years. Lankford’s briefing leaves those caveats out.

Lankford notes that the authority is “even stronger than the Title 42 Authority used during the Trump Administration because it also includes new legal consequences” for anyone who repeatedly tries to cross the border during an emergency period. Murphy doesn’t mention that.

We could go on like this for quite some time. Murphy notes the new pathway to citizenship for Afghan allies, the new right to counsel for asylum seekers, the 250,000 new family and work visas; Lankford boasts that the standard for asylum would increase and that those who do not meet it would be removed in “days or weeks, not years.” Both senators note that the asylum process would be sped up, from years to six months. Lankford stresses in all-caps that “THE NEW BORDER SECURITY BILL DOES NOT INCLUDE AMNESTY OF ANY KIND.” Murphy brags that the bill does not feature the “adoption of [an] impossible asylum standard.” Both are correct.

II. Half a loaf is better than none

What can we take away from this exercise? Clearly, there are portions of the deal that Murphy and Lankford are each proud of. And there are portions that each would rather hide from.

In other words: it was a compromise. And now the authors of that compromise, having both made tough choices and offered hard concessions, are doing what has to be done to spin it to their colleagues as a victory — work that begins with the one-sided bill summaries we just read through. (True to her independent status, Sinema’s summary is an interesting blend of the two outlines.)

Early signs show that the dealmakers have their work cut out for them. On the right, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has declared the bill “dead on arrival” in the House, while Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) termed the measure a “betrayal,” because it is not tough enough on border entries. On the left, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) said the deal’s immigration provisions were “unacceptable” while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced opposition to the Israel funding.

The extremes of both parties have lined up in opposition, as is so often the case with compromises. Sinema has said that, if this bill passes, it will be a “middle-out” process. But the congressional middle has, of course, shrunk in recent years — and includes lawmakers who fear the loudest voices in their parties. It is a sign of today’s Washington that the “middle,” in this case, includes pillars of the capital like President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — all of whom support this agreement — and still, that might not be enough to get the deal past the disproportionately-noisy border hawks on the right and immigration activists on the left.

Nobody will view the deal as perfect, but the alternative — for either side — is not a better agreement; it is nothing. In a world where most legislation requires 60 Senate votes, Republicans are unlikely to get another deal this tough on illegal immigration; Democrats are unlikely to receive an agreement that includes these kinds of legal immigration expansions.

“Now, senators must make a decision,” Sinema said in a statement. “Pass our package and solve the crisis or accept the status quo, do nothing, and keep playing politics while our system breaks and our communities continue to suffer.”

Despite many attempts, and the current system’s many flaws, Congress has chosen “do nothing” for nearly 40 years now, since the last major immigration reform bill was passed in 1986. This is an opportunity to do something — something half-a-loaf, perhaps, but still something consequential on an issue many Americans are more concerned about than any other.

III. Supply and demand

The first Senate vote on this bill, which will be Wednesday, will thus be a key test of Congress’ capacity to legislate instead of bloviate on pressing issues.

Americans are highly skeptical that this capacity persists in the modern era. A Pew Research poll last September found that 86% of Americans believe “Republicans and Democrats are more focused on fighting each other than on solving problems.” 84% said that members of Congress “do a bad job” at working with members of the other party.

But voters miss something when they only cast the blame on lawmakers for these failures.

Clearly, the modern dearth of major bipartisan legislation is partially a supply-side issue: the supply of compromise-oriented legislators has declined, as I’ve written previously. But it’s also a demand-side issue: Americans say, in that Pew poll and others, that they want more bipartisan agreements — but they don’t always show it in their votes.

For proof, look no further than Lankford, who has been censured by his state GOP for his role in the border negotiations, and Sinema, who has been run out of the Democratic Party for her centrist stances, despite the fact that she has played a key role in historic agreements on infrastructure, gun control, same-sex marriage, and now immigration.

Sinema, for one, is currently mulling whether to seek a second term. Per the Washington Post, her team’s considerations revolve around a central question: “In today’s hyperpartisan environment, do voters value elected officials who bring both sides together to deliver legislation?”

“If she is able to get a border security deal across...she will have accomplished something that hasn’t been done in 30 years as a first-term senator,” a consultant familiar with her deliberations told the Post. “But do voters even care?”

Often, they signal they do not, with primary electorates rewarding party orthodoxy — even though, in a 51-49 Senate and 219-212 House, crossing the aisle is the only way for lawmakers to get things done, which voters claim to want.

Contrary to the beliefs sketched out in that Pew poll, Democratic and Republican members of Congress actually do work together quite a bit: in just the past few months, deals on everything from paid leave to AI have been introduced. But these deals don’t always receive floor votes, partially because lawmakers fear backlash from their voters. Counterintuitively, productivity has become the real political risk; stalemate is rarely punished.

The Lankford-Murphy-Sinema deal is in the proud tradition of American compromises — dating back to the Constitution itself — that thrill no one, but move the ball forward regardless. This one will receive a floor vote, at least in the Senate; it will be up to lawmakers to cast a “yea” or “nay,” but up to voters to make the choices that incentivize such compromises in the future.

Otherwise, members of Congress will receive a clear message for the next time the possibility of a substantive, bipartisan deal is dangling in front of them: Don’t even try. It isn’t worth it. (Gabe Fleisher, Wake up to Politics)

Both #3 in House leadership Steve Scalise (left) and Speaker Mike Johnson have proclaimed the border bill dead in the House.

Are they just trying to stop the Senate from passing the bill? If it passes the Senate, it will get to the House and there just might be the votes needed.

Touch to watch 👇Majority leader Senator Schumer talk about this bill.

McConnell weighed in too.

And, of course, Trump, who owns the Republican Party.

BTW, the President has promised to close the border as soon as a signed bill is sent to him.

—-

One more thing on a side note - how wacky US immigration policy has been and currently is.

A DACA recipient — one of the Dreamers caught in political swirl - may be elected to office.

______________________________________

On Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument at 10 am ET as to whether the 3rd section of 14th Amendment bars Trump from ballots.

You can hear it too.

An audio feed of the argument will be live-streamed on the Court's website. The Court will also post the audio later in the day and make transcripts available that afternoon.

States, in general,have their own rules as to qualifications on their ballot.

Colorado and Maine have ordered Trump’s removal from their ballots. In both of those states, the decision is stayed pending further judicial review.

______________________________________

Continuing Honor to #BlackHistoryMonth

A birthday we missed.

Rosa Parks Feb. 4, 1913 - October 24, 2005.

—

From Dr. Deborah Jenkins.

___________________________________________

You are due some music. #Grammys2024

Tracy Chapman and Luke Combs - Fast Car.

Tracy Chapman's "Fast Car" is now #1 on iTunes for the first time since its release nearly 36 years ago.

—

Joni Mitchell, 80, singing her ballad “Both Sides Now” - her first-ever performance on the Grammys.

Her health.

“I had polio at the age of 9. My spine was twisted up like a train wreck. I couldn't walk. I was paralyzed. Forty years later, it comes back with a vengeance,” Mitchell explained in 1995, referencing the fact that, like 60 percent of polio patients, she was experiencing post-polio syndrome. “It's like multiple sclerosis. It means your electrical system burns out and your muscles begin to atrophy. It means impending paraplegia. I have to guard my energy. Just like the bunnies in those battery commercials. I'm the one that's about to keel over. I'm not the one that's going and going."

“Another recurrent health issue that Mitchell has had to battle is the little-known skin condition Morgellons disease. Those with the issue report feeling as if something is stinging or crawling on their skin.”

“The singer-songwriter did have a brain aneurysm in 2015. On March 31, 2015, she was found unconscious and unresponsive in her home after suffering a brain aneurysm rupture. Her recovery from the incident was hard going, requiring her to undergo physical therapy and daily rehabilitation.”

All from Parade.

—

Taylor Swift, right, who won the her 13th and 14th Grammy for ‘best pop vocal album’ and ‘album of the year’ for her album, “Midnights,” posed with Phoebe Bridgers, Julien Baker and Lucy Dacus of boygenius.

A side bar.

Taylor Swift and the Profound Weirdness of MAGA.

Hatred makes people gullible and foolish. That’s a key lesson of the MAGA right’s deeply strange turn against Taylor Swift and her boyfriend, the Kansas City Chiefs’ star tight end Travis Kelce. In fact, that’s a key lesson from this entire sorry era in American political and cultural life.

There’s nothing new about partisan anger at celebrities. And Swift has dabbled in politics. In 2018 she endorsed the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, over the Republican Marsha Blackburn, and in 2020 she endorsed Joe Biden for president. Kelce, for his part, appeared in ads for the Pfizer Covid vaccine. By MAGA’s calculation, between them the couple express the most infernal combination of affiliations — Democrats and vaccines.

Moreover, “shut up and sing” (or, in Kelce’s case, shut up and catch) has been such a consistent theme in right-wing cancel culture that it was the title of the Fox News host Laura Ingraham’s 2003 book and of a 2006 documentary about the Dixie Chicks (now just the Chicks). But Republican opposition to celebrity engagement has always been highly selective. Even as he condemned Swift, one prominent MAGA figure recently boasted that his “side” still had Kid Rock, Ted Nugent and Jon Voight. And it was the G.O.P., after all, that elected both a movie star (Ronald Reagan) and a reality TV celebrity (Donald Trump) to the presidency.

But while traditional partisan pettiness can explain the knee-jerk negative reaction to Swift, it can’t come close to explaining the incredible weirdness of the recent theory emanating from people with some of the largest platforms in MAGA America. According to them, Taylor Swift’s extraordinary popularity isn’t the organic outcome of a talented and appealing superstar’s bond with her fans. No, according to them, Swift’s rise is an opor a psyop engineered by the deep state in order to benefit Biden.

A central part of the plot, of course, is Swift’s fake, deep-state-invented relationship with Kelce. Thus when the Chiefs struggled earlier in the season, it was a source of right-wing schadenfreude. But now that they’ve surged into a berth in the Super Bowl, it has all been revealed as part of the Plan.

Again, it’s all just so dumb and strange. But dumb and strange is par for the course with MAGA. If we imagined conspiracy theories as movies, we’d say “Taylor Swift: Psyop” was brought to you by the same studio that produced cult classics such as “Pizzagate” and “The Seth Rich Conspiracy,” not to mention the tentpole franchises “QAnon” and “Stop the Steal.”

All of these conspiracy theories are deeply strange. Who can forget that the effort to steal the election included claims that bamboo in the ballots suggested evidence of Chinese interference? Or that Italian military satelliteshad somehow disrupted the count? Or that a woman’s bizarre dreams and visions had revealed misdeeds by Dominion Voting Systems?

The MAGA right’s relentless villainization of Democrats (called Demon-crats in some parts of the religious right) has created a substantial population of people who believe that the left is miraculously powerful, operates without any moral restraint and is dedicated to destroying their way of life. And if you believe your opponents are capable of anything — in every sense of the phrase — it’s a short trip to believing almost anything about them.

The political strain that MAGA’s conspiracy theories has placed on our democratic system has been amply documented. Less documented is MAGA’s cultural threat to American pluralism. On some days, it can seem that MAGA is engaged in a kind of cultural secessionism in which it turns against popular mainstream products and institutions — Bud Light, Target, the military — and tries to create alternatives. There’s been MAGA coffee, MAGA banking, MAGA beer and MAGA rap, for example.

By themselves, parallel economies can be an element of pluralism rather than a threat to it. Creating a business that both sells a product and advances a particular set of political or religious values is nothing new, on the rightor the left.

But combine parallel economies with boycott culture, and you have something else entirely. It’s a cultural manifestation of an old legal temptation — free speech for me but not for thee. For Swift, it’s shut up and sing. But for Jason Aldean and Aaron Rodgers, the calculation is entirely different. MAGA’s believers want them on that stage. They need them on that podcast.

And so we’re caught in a vicious cycle. Unrelenting hostility opens up the mind and heart to the worst stories about your opponents, no matter how incredible. Once convinced, you double down on your hatred: Can you believe what they’re doing now? And then the cycle repeats with another story, just as wild, if not wilder.

Then, once the conspiracy theories are fully embraced, alienation is inevitable. I strive to be very tolerant of opposing views, and I’ve always enjoyed sports and the arts even when athletes and entertainers disagree with me profoundly on religion or politics. But I confess that my tolerance would be tested if I truly believed that I wasn’t watching a football game at all but rather an elaborate government manipulation designed to maintain its power.

This era of American politics will end, one way or the other. And when it does, historians are likely to debate whether its defining characteristic was stupidity or malice. I’ve gone back and forth in my mind, but I now realize that the two traits have almost fully merged. Malice is creating stupidity, and stupidity is creating malice.

If there’s any silver lining in this dark cloud, it’s that perhaps MAGA has finally revealed itself too fully. One can dream, but perhaps targeting the world’s most popular pop star can at last help expose what the nation’s political observers have long known: MAGA isn’t just deeply angry; it’s become deeply weird. (New York Times).

______________________________________