Donald Trump was 100% correct that this is something that states/cities should enact, not the federal government

Group of Senate Democrats and Republicans vote to keep $15 minimum wage out of Biden’s COVID stimulus bill

A group of Democratic senators joined all Senate Republicans in voting against Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour on Friday.

The Vermont independent tried to add the provision to President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 stimulus bill as the Senate considered the $1.9 trillion measure. But the effort failed in a 58-42 vote with eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus voting against it.

The vote started at 11:03 a.m. EST Friday and didn’t officially end for nearly 12 hours as Democrats and Republicans negotiated changes to an extension of unemployment benefits.

The outcome of the vote could spell trouble for future Democratic attempts to raise the minimum wage, something Biden included in his initial stimulus proposal that passed the House last week.

It may or may not cause trouble in the future if they bring up a clean bill that is simply about raising the minimum wage, rather than including it in a completely unrelated bill, and, by unrelated, the minimum wage has nothing to do with COVID relief (and most of the bill is unrelated to COVID relief). It would have been against the ruled to include a minimum wage increase in the bill that they know they will have to reconcile (which also shows that it is highly partisan if they have to go that route.)

Republicans have been united against the $15 proposal, citing opposition by some small businesses and an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which estimates it would result in the loss of as many as 1.4 million jobs. The same analysis said it would boost the pay for as many as 27 million Americans and would lift nearly 1 million out of poverty.

Higher wages increase the cost to employers of producing goods and services, and those costs are generally passed on to consumers who usually react by purchasing fewer goods and services, according to the CBO. As a consequence, employers faced with having to scale back their output usually cut back their workforce.

I’m rather shocked that the USA Today allowed that 2nd paragraph, despite being the truth as to how the economy and consumers react. The question now is not about how many times Comrade Bernie will attempt to add the $15 MW to unrelated bills, but, 1. whether the GOP can kill off lots of the unrelated garbage and unnecessary spending

After listening to the entire 11 hours of the reading of this bill, it's clear this is not a COVID relief bill.

It's amazing how much spending is for 2022-2028.

This is just a Democrat wish list. pic.twitter.com/SAYCsxd53c

— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) March 5, 2021

and 2. what happens when the reconciled bill is reconciled with the House version, which does contain the $15 MW increase. Will the House drop it, or try to force it back in even with the knowledge that it won’t pass the Senate? And another question, why hasn’t the GOP simply submitted legislation that provides for the $1,400 checks, unemployment relief, vaccinations, and other COVID specific measures? Heck, introduce one for the checks as a stand alone, force Dems to vote on it.

Democrats decided to take some sound ideas and ramp them up to Partisan Category 4

House Approves Police Reform Bill Named After George Floyd

House lawmakers on Wednesday passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a police reform bill that would ban chokeholds and eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement. The 220-212 vote came nine months after Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, was killed by Minneapolis police officers last spring.

The wide-ranging legislation would also ban no-knock warrants, mandate data collection on police encounters, prohibit racial and religious profiling and redirect funding to community-based policing programs.

“Never again should an unarmed individual be murdered or brutalized by someone who is supposed to serve and protect them,” said Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., in a statement. “Never again should the world be subject to witnessing what we saw happen to George Floyd in the streets in Minnesota.”

Banning chokeholds is nice, but, sometimes police need to use them to grab hold of a perp. It’s easy to ban them, but, in practice, when an officer is attempting to grab hold of a violent criminal, it is the easiest way to grab them. It’s knowing when to let go. But, it’s doing away with qualified immunity that is the worst part of this, and will lead to huge numbers of police officers quitting the force, especially in Democratic Party run areas where crime is rampant, and would see fewer people wanting to be police officers, making the rest of us who aren’t criminals less safe.

No knock warrants are a big problem, but shouldn’t be banned: they should be reformed to make sure there are more safeguards and a stronger approval method. Profiling? We all profile constantly, and police use profiles to understand potential crimes. “Community based policing programs”? Left wing idiocy which will make the rest of us less safe.

In debate on the House floor Wednesday evening before the vote, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said Minneapolis is still traumatized by Floyd’s death. “Time and time again we have witnessed the people who are sworn to protect our communities abuse their power,” she said.

Traumatized? She didn’t know George Floyd. Or his family. She’s just grandstanding. Perhaps she should ask the business owners who saw their businesses trashed by the rioters. And those who were assaulted. The families of those who couldn’t get their loved one to a hospital because Ilhan’s peeps were blocking the streets, or a fire truck couldn’t make it through the blocked roads.

(KYOUTV) Iowa Congresswomen Ashley Hinson and Mariannette Miller-Meeks both issued statements on their opposition to The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a narrow vote of 220-212 on Wednesday night.

In Hinson’s statement, she wrote that “Law enforcement officers in Iowa and across this country put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe. It’s reprehensible that House Democrats would bring forward legislation to defund police departments while relying on law enforcement to protect our Capitol from imminent threats...In a chamber safeguarded by Capitol Police.

In her statement, Miller-Meeks wrote that “We need serious bipartisan police reform that holds bad officers accountable” but that “The Justice in Policing Act would eliminate qualified immunity, which would make recruitment and retention difficult,” adding that “In effect, this is a backdoor way to defund the police.”

And this bill would interfere with States Rights on how to run their police departments. This is, as usual, a highly partisan bill. The GOP attempted to pass Senator Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act, which was well thought out and didn’t destroy the police, but, Democrats blocked it with the filibuster (you know, that thing Democrats say they hate). Dems already knew the George Floyd bill was 100% partisan, but, still voted and passed it again. And, again, the only way it makes it through the Senate is with nuking the filibuster.

Democrats gave this bill a whirl last year, when it passed on strictly party lines, and then was never brought up in the Senate, because it is a Category 5 partisan bill. The Institute for Free Speech obliterated it when it was first introduced in early 2019, because it is great for certain politicians, bad for groups, citizens, and free speech. This was one of the things I was warning about if people decided to vote for Biden because Trump has mean tweets

House passes voting rights and elections reform bill

The House passed a sweeping election reform and voting rights bill along party lines on Wednesday in a 220-210 vote.

The For The People Act, better known as H.R. 1 — has been a top priority for Democrats, who argue restoring voters’ faith in the electoral process is more important than ever after former President Trump repeatedly asserted unfounded claims the election was stolen. The Biden administration has strongly advocated for its passage.

“In the wake of an unprecedented assault on our democracy, a never before seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, and a newly aggressive attack on voting rights taking place right now all across the country, this landmark legislation is urgently needed to protect the right to vote and the integrity of our elections, and to repair and strengthen American democracy,” the White House said in a statement of administrative policy.

The measure would require states to offer mail-in ballots, a minimum of 15 days of early voting and calls for online and same-day voter registration. The legislation also calls for the creation of independent commissions to draw congressional districts in an effort to put an end to partisan gerrymandering. It would also provide additional resources to stave off foreign threats on elections, enable automatic voter registration, and would make Election Day a national holiday for federal workers.

Supporters of the bill said it’s a necessary step to restore faith in the electoral system and tackle dark money in politics, arguing it expands voting rights, increases transparency in elections and creates new ethics rules to tamp down on corruption.

Under the legislation, the Citizens United Supreme Court case, which dissolved certain limits on corporate and union political spending, would be overturned and coordination between super PACs and candidates would be prohibited.

That’s rather the way most articles from the Credentialed Media go, lauding the bill in flowing terms. But, there’s a reason why it was passed twice strictly on party lines

Republicans have blasted the measure as a power grab by Democrats, arguing that the provision allowing for voters to designate a person to return their ballot equates to ballot harvesting and opens the door for election fraud. They have also slammed language allowing felons to vote.

“Second: H.R. 1 would legalize voting for convicted felons all over the country even if they were convicted of election fraud. Does that make sense to you? Not only is this dangerous, it’s unconstitutional,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a floor speech on Tuesday.

“Third: H.R. 1 would weaken the security of our elections and make it harder to protect against voter fraud. Here’s how: It would automatically register voters from DMV and other government databases. Voting is a right, not a mandate,” McCarthy said. “In most cases, this legislation would actually prevent officials from removing ineligible voters from the rolls and would make it much more difficult to verify the accuracy of voter information. So future voters might be underage or dead or illegal immigrants or registered two or three times. Democrats just don’t care.”

It’s actually much worse than that, as John Fund points out

HR 1 would cement all of the worst changes in election law made in blue states in 2020 and nationalize them. Federal control of elections would be the norm. States would be relegated to colonial outposts that carry out Washington DC’s mandates. ‘Democracies die when one party seizes control of the elections process, eliminates the safeguards that have protected the integrity of the ballot, places restrictions on free speech, and seizes the earnings of individual citizens to promote candidates they may abhor,’ says Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican. ‘Democracies die by suicide, and we are now face to face with such an instrument.’

Does HR 1 justify such apocalyptic rhetoric? Sadly, yes. Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, says that while the Constitution does allow Congress to override the power of states to decide ‘the time, manner and place’ of federal elections nothing on the massive scale of HR 1 has ever been attempted.

He consulted other former members and assembled a short summary of the worst provisions of HR 1:

• Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals on state and federal databases. This would include many ineligible voters, including aliens
• It would require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register. Combined with a ban on voter ID, this would allow underage individuals to vote
• Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters
• Ban state-voter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are
• Create vague and broad language that could be used to criminally charge someone who questions the eligibility of a voter
• Force disclosure of names of Americans who donate to nonprofit organizations — thus subjecting them to political harassment
• Declare statehood for Washington DC to be ‘constitutional’ despite evidence it is not
• And finally, HR 1 would effectively ban nonprofits from contacting a member of Congress or their staff about pending legislation — a direct assault on the right of Americans to petition their government

That’s a shortened list of a shortened list. This is all about entrenching Democrats in office, and, notice that there are at least two First Amendment violations. Dare note that someone is ineligible to vote in a situation? You could be held criminally liable. Years ago I made the NC GOP and NC election board aware that I had received in the mail a letter that gave a women residency for voting rights at my address. This person was a Charlotte, NC resident, completely different part of the state. This was an attempt to be able to vote twice. I would be held criminally liable for doing that now. Then you take away the Right of people to petition their government.

This is, really, one of the most partisan bills ever passed in the House. What happened to Joe Biden calling for unity and bipartisanship? Nothing the Democrats are doing is anything but hugely partisan. Can it pass the Senate? The only way is to nuke the filibuster, something Joe Manchin said he would never vote to do. And, if they manage to suspend the filibuster for this vote, they might not get the 50 votes they need to allow Kamala to make it 51. And, if they somehow make it pass, the lawsuits will be amazing, and it is something the Supreme Court would need to take up forth with, since this deals directly with Bill Of Rights matters. If there’s no severability, it would be killed in whole.

Seriously, are Democrats asking for a civil war? Because this is the type of legislation that leads that way.

Quick More: I’d forgotten about one other issue among so many, and this is a big one that would, well, should, kill it in any lawsuits if passed, as pointed out by Betsy McCaughey

The authors of the Constitution worried that Congress would try to seize control of presidential selection using dirty tricks like those in HR 1. That’s why they acted to “to take the business as far as possible out of their hands,” according to Charles Pinckney, a framer from South Carolina.

Congress, said Pinckney, “had no right to meddle” in it. The framers provided in Article II, Sec. 1 that only state legislatures would have the power to determine how the president is chosen. No national rules.

And since every other national election is for president, this would be unconstitutional. And, it would take a constitutional amendment to make D.C. a state.

Surprisingly, this is not as bad as you’d expect from Democrats, which should make people think “what’s the catch?” even if there is no catch

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy introduces universal background check law

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut is reintroducing legislation Tuesday that would require universal background checks on the sale or transfer of all firearms. Universal background checks are largely supported by Americans but have not gained traction in Congress.

Murphy’s bill, the Background Check Expansion Act, would extend a background check requirement to unlicensed and private firearm sellers before selling a firearm. Current federal law doesn’t require unlicensed sellers to do background checks before transferring firearms.

Polling from gun reform advocacy groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords finds 93% of Americans support a background check requirement for all gun sales. In 2019, the House passed a comprehensive background check bill, but it died in the Republican-controlled Senate. Democratic Congressman Mike Thompson of California will introduce the House version of the Senate bill on Tuesday. (snip)

Democrats hoping to pass gun safety laws have a champion in the White House, and President Joe Biden last month called on Congress to pass gun control legislation, including background checks. However, the legislation still requires 10 Republican senators to vote with Democrats to advance the bill, a significant obstacle to passage.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, who is cosponsoring the legislation, is hopeful that this time may be different.

“My conversation with Republicans indicated they get it,” he told reporters Tuesday. “The American people are responding to a political movement that has resulted from Parkland, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas — the shorthand of tragedies that have caused this political movement to be a force that has met this moment of reckoning.”

This legislation was killed in the Senate last November because Murphy asked for unanimous consent and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith objected, wanting more time to consider and debate. As far as it goes, it is very simple (link to the legislation here), requiring a background check on all firearm transfers, with exceptions being “transfers between law enforcement officers, temporarily loaning firearms for hunting and sporting events, providing firearms as gifts to immediate family members, transferring a firearm as part of an inheritance, or temporarily transferring a firearm for immediate self-defense.” There doesn’t seem to be any tricks in it. There are no requirements to register a firearm with Los Federales or any government agency, or create a public registry, or tell government where you keep your guns, like Sheila Jackson Lee’s bill.

“The overwhelming majority of Americans support ensuring background checks on all gun sales. And for good reason; the loopholes in the current system make it too easy for guns to end up in the hands of those prohibited by law from buying them. It is far past time that Congress answers the call to better protect our communities from senseless gun violence by passing the Background Check Expansion Act,” said Durbin.

Raise your hand if you think criminals will request background checks when giving their criminal friends a firearm. Or when they are stealing one. Raise your hand if you think this will make any difference in criminals shooting each other in places like Chicago. Raise your hand if you think this will make a difference in shootings, because many of the mass shootings were committed by people who passed a background check.

So, if it passes and fails to make a dent in criminals shooting each other, what will the Democrats demand next? It might be worth passing, because then the GOP and 2nd Amendment supporters can say “hey, we just passed a backgrounds check, we need to give it 5-10 years to see if it makes a difference before pushing something more extreme” when Dems try pushing something like Jackson Lee’s bill.

You do have to wonder about poison pills, because the Senate version has exactly zero Republicans as cosponsors. The House version has 2 Republicans, so, of course the media will call this “bipartisan.”