Salazar’s opponent slams her in video after Florida interview debacle

MIAMI — Rep. María Elvira Salazar’s Democratic opponent attacked her in a video just days after the congresswoman couldn’t recall the House votes she cast during an interview with a South Florida TV station.

In a campaign video titled “Salazar Lied” released Thursday, Democrat Lucia Báez-Geller slammed the congresswoman for voting against an estimated $24 million in federal funding for her district — the topic of a contentious interview Salazar had with CBS News Miami's Jim DeFede earlier this week.

“What we see here in Miami-Dade County is that a lot of the advancements that are happening happened despite her and not because of her,” Báez-Geller, a school board member in Miami-Dade County, said of Salazar.

During the interview with DeFede, he challenged the congresswoman for having touted spending measures she opposed and pressed her to explain.

Salazar couldn’t recall her votes on the House bills and at one point she needed to ask her staff about them.

“Why don’t we look at the $40 million that I have brought to this community?” she asked after a back-and-forth. “Aren’t you proud of me?”

The funding Salazar highlighted and seemed to embrace — but in some cases voted against — came from several federal laws, including the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the 2023 Omnibus spending bill to fund the government as well as the CHIPS and Science Act to expand manufacturing and semiconductor research in the U.S.

The video from the Báez-Geller campaign lists a variety of projects the money funded in the district, including a mental health facility expansion, a community health center and a police department upgrade.

“We felt it very disrespectful and dishonest that she's trying to pull the wool over people's eyes,” Báez-Geller said. “And so we just actively came together to … make sure that her voters know that she's taking credit for projects that she voted against.”

The Salazar campaign brushed off the accusations in a statement provided to POLITICO. "Only in the minds of out-of-touch radical liberals is standing up to bad policies and wasteful spending viewed as a 'gotcha,'” the campaign said.

Eager to win back the U.S. House in November, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has been attacking several incumbent Republicans for a pattern of what they're calling "vote no, take the dough."

Democrats have likewise lit the fire under Republicans when they do the opposite by turning down federal funding that could benefit their constituents.

Salazar has been in Congress since 2021 and previously worked for the Spanish-language network Telemundo. Her highly competitive district is nestled in Miami-Dade County and is heavily Hispanic. She has more than $800,000 cash on hand for her reelection bid — just under 10 times the amount in Báez-Geller’s campaign coffers, according to new Federal Election Commission filings.

Gov. Ron DeSantis won the Miami-Dade County in 2022, becoming the first Republican to do so in more than two decades. But the county is a potential swing in the 2024 election because registered Democratic voters out-number Republicans in Miami-Dade County, by about 82,000.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/2XH3qjt
via IFTTT

Read More

‘I did not handle this right’: Austin apologizes over hospital secrecy

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin apologized for the way he handled his prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment, a decision that led to confusion following a secret hospital stay that was kept from top U.S. officials, including the president.

Austin was hospitalized on Jan. 1 due to complications from a late-December surgery to treat the cancer.

“We did not handle this right. I did not handle this right.” Austin told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday.

Top members of the national security team, including President Joe Biden, did not know Austin was in the hospital until Jan. 4, three days after he was admitted. That was when Kelly Magsamen, Austin’s chief of staff, informed Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks and national security adviser Jake Sullivan, who then told the president.

Austin said he did not direct anyone to keep his hospitalization or diagnosis from the White House.

Magsamen was not present at the briefing on Thursday, though she regularly attends. She came under scrutiny for her delay in notifying others about Austin’s hospitalization.

When asked if Magsamen has offered her resignation, Austin said she has not.

A reporter also asked about Jan. 1, the day Austin experienced pains due to his earlier cancer treatment. At the time, an aide who called 911 asked for an ambulance to come to Austin’s house, but to keep its lights and sirens off to maintain a low profile.

Austin said he did ask the aide to call the ambulance, but did not direct that it be kept quiet. “What he said and why he said it, I think, that should come out in the review,” Austin said.

It wasn’t until Jan. 9, eight days after he was hospitalized, that Biden and the American public learned that Austin had been diagnosed with cancer in December.

“I should have told the president about my cancer diagnosis. I should have also told my team and the American public, and I take full responsibility,” Austin said, adding that he has apologized to Biden personally.

The defense secretary stressed that there were “no gaps in authorities” during his treatment. Hicks assumed some of his duties while he was in the hospital and she was on vacation, though she wasn’t given an explanation for the transfer of responsibilities.

If Hicks needs to temporarily assume duties in the future, Austin said, the White House and other key officials will be immediately notified.

Austin said his diagnosis was “a gut punch” and his first instinct was to keep it private.

“I don’t think it’s news that I’m a pretty private guy,” he said.

The side effects from his cancer treatment were “highly, highly unusual,” Austin said. He still experiences leg pain and remains in physical therapy.

Some Republicans in Congress demanded his ouster after the news first surfaced, and have called for hearings to learn more about what happened. Biden has stood behind Austin and has no plans to fire him.

Austin did not consider resigning at any point, he told reporters.

In the public statement announcing his diagnosis, Austin noted that 1 in 8 American men will get prostate cancer, including 1 in 6 Black men. He stressed those statistics Thursday, citing his experience as a Black man as part of the reason for keeping the matter to himself.

“Cancer, period, is very private,” he said. “Among the Black community, though, it's even more a thing that people want to keep private.”

The likelihood of developing prostate cancer increases with age, according to a study from the National Institutes of Health. There’s a 1 in 3 chance of developing it for men 60 to 69 years old, and a 46 percent chance for men over 70 years old.

Austin, 70, urged all men to check with their doctors regularly.

“I'm here with a clear message to other men, especially older men. Get screened. Get your regular checkups,” he said. “Prostate cancer has a glass jaw. If your doctor can spot it, they can treat it and beat it.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/mc47kwS
via IFTTT

Read More

California dockworkers have a new target in their fight against automation

LOS ANGELES — Tech firms are pitching reduced pollution as a key benefit of self-driving vehicles and other controversial autonomous machinery.

Labor unions are trying to dismantle that argument.

In a bid to thwart tough new air quality standards, one of California's most powerful unions is warning that a shift to cleaner technology would imperil their livelihoods.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union — a major donor to Democratic lawmakers who’ve backed electrification — says the state’s proposed air quality regulations are so burdensome, they could push the sprawling ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to cut labor costs by switching to automated equipment.

It's a novel attack line against technologies that are rapidly transforming the transportation and industrial sectors — and it could slow the nation's adoption of zero-emission policies.

“Any discussion on sustainability should be, 'How do we improve air quality and protect jobs,'” said Rich Dines, a former Long Beach harbor commissioner and ILWU member who contributed to a new report on electrification at the two Southern California ports that handle nearly 40 percent of the country's imported cargo. “Electrification is an excuse for automation.”

The conflict illustrates the tensions California’s leaders face in trying to slash carbon emissions while preserving union-friendly jobs. That friction has already surfaced in other labor fights like last year’s United Auto Workers strike, which featured a dispute over wages at electric vehicle battery plants. But the ripple effect from the Golden State is likely to be widespread, as states around the country are poised to follow California’s lead into the electric future.

The report, by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, warns that Southern California regulators’ efforts to electrify the ports create “a real risk of driving terminal operators to pursue port automation under the pretense of meeting environmental standards.”

Air pollution regulators who oversee the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach argue that electrification of equipment like trucks, cranes and yard tractors is essential to cleaning up the largest emissions source in a region that routinely ranks among the most polluted in the nation.

A spokesperson for the South Coast Air Quality Management District said the agency’s goal is to push for 100 percent zero-emission operations, a target the ports have already set for themselves. Agency staff are working on rules now to get there and said they’re keeping in mind the port’s own timelines of 2030 for cargo equipment and 2035 for trucks.

“Electrification does not equal automation or less jobs,” Nahal Mogharabi, the air quality agency’s director of communications, said in a statement. “There is a varying level of automation at our ports already in the absence of air quality regulations. In fact, we have seen automation using diesel equipment.”

Both ILWU and the Teamsters — who represent truckers moving goods from the ports to inland warehouses — stress they're not against electrification and other zero-emission technologies in all cases. "We absolutely support green transportation and electric vehicles," said Peter Finn, Teamsters’ western region vice president.

But even among unions that have embraced electrification, there’s growing concern that rapid and unfettered advancements in technology are putting their members at risk.

Artificial intelligence technologies are also coming in for labor attacks on their environmental credentials.

The Teamsters are pointing to an MIT study that finds autonomous vehicles' software demands could require as much energy as the world's data centers, equivalent to the annual carbon footprint of Argentina.

It's a line of argument that they're throwing up against AV companies like Cruise and Waymo, which promise to replace human drivers, as well as reduce planet-warming emissions, with their all-electric fleets.

“The AV companies are trying to conflate the issues to, quite frankly, engage in some PR spin and imply the technology is somehow more environmentally friendly,” Finn said. “The value proposition of the technology is to eliminate people.”

Finn pointed to San Francisco, where the Teamsters have been fighting against Waymo’s efforts to build large-scale charging stations for their vehicles. Their opposition helped persuade the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to overturn a city planning commission's permit for Waymo to operate a parking lot over concerns it would become an automated delivery hub.

“Their coalition of supporters are writing letters and focusing on electrification, when in fact, what we are trying to put guardrails around is autonomous vehicles,” he said.

Waymo in a statement said the company’s goal “has always been to improve road safety and accessibility through access to safe, sustainable and equitable transportation."

Although automated port technology has existed for decades and is already employed at three terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach, the vast majority of dock operations are still conducted using human-operated equipment. Union workers and the shipping industry say that could change if the ports are forced to adopt electric equipment.

“This rule, aimed at meeting environmental standards, has raised worries about the potential increase in automation at the ports,” said Gary Herrera, president of ILWU Local 13, in a statement. “While it is important to prioritize environmental sustainability, it is equally important to consider the impact of these measures on the local workforce and community as it pertains to jobs in the community and region.”

Dines, who’s spent decades as a marine clerk tasked with coordinating the flow of goods coming off and going onto ships, said it will cost companies billions of dollars to switch to electric equipment, forcing them to cut labor costs.

The lifelong Los Angeles County resident said he is a supporter of electrification in other sectors and has switched to electric vehicles, but worries dock workers are souring on the idea altogether.

“I think workers are being pushed to be anti-electrification,” he said. “Electrification by itself is not what we need to be sustainable, because electrification is to reduce emissions. What about protecting jobs?”

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, which represents terminal operators, echoed ILWU’s concerns, arguing that human-operated electric equipment is not ready to handle the bulk of port operations, forcing a switch to automation. The group, and other electrification opponents, have pointed to zero-emission alternatives like hydrogen fuel as being more promising.

“To the degree that the [rule] says 'electrified now,' there is only one choice that's on the table today,” said Thomas Jelenić, PMSA’s vice president. “We want to make sure that as an industry we don't force a specific technological pathway when there are multiple pathways available to get to zero emissions.”

Environmental groups who are pushing for stricter emissions rules at the ports say unions' fears are overblown. They point to language in 2022's Inflation Reduction Act that offers funding for low-emission cargo equipment but requires it to be human-operated.

But even among environmentalists, there's disagreement over whether automation is the best way to cut emissions from transportation and ports.

“If we have a goal of reducing [vehicle miles traveled], the most promising strategy by far is shared automated vehicles,” said Dan Sperling, director of University of California, Davis' Institute for Transportation Studies. “There is no other plausible strategy that comes even close in terms of the potential now.”

Adrian Martinez, deputy managing attorney for Earthjustice, said that while he’s wary of opposition to autonomous vehicles as an argument for the logistics industry to avoid cutting emissions, his group wants to maintain driving jobs.

“Workers have a right to demand that from regulators and electeds,” he said.

Lawmakers in Sacramento are poised to take the issue on this year, with the Teamsters backing a bill to require a human safety driver in autonomous trucks weighing more than 10,000 pounds. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a previous version of that proposal last year.

“You've got to account for basic safety and job displacement,” said state Sen. Dave Cortese, a Democrat from San Jose. “It's going to have to be addressed as rapidly as innovation is happening. We've dealt with that around climate, but with AI, it's going to happen literally 100 times faster and more aggressively.”

Blanca Begert contributed to this report.

Want to stay up to date with the latest California Climate news? Sign up for our newsletter here.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/kmQZvUd
via IFTTT

Read More

NATO chief: I’m not worried that Trump will pull out of the alliance

The leader of NATO said he’s not concerned about the U.S. pulling out of the alliance even if former President Donald Trump wins reelection in November.

“I'm confident that the United States will remain a staunch ally” no matter who wins, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview Wednesday during his dayslong visit to Washington.

The NATO chief is in town to make his pitch that supporting Ukraine and rearming NATO — issues that are inexorably intertwined — helps the U.S. in the Pacific and creates American jobs.

“I worked with former President Trump for the four years he was president,” Stoltenberg told POLITICO, when Trump repeatedly threatened to leave the alliance as he thundered about NATO allies failing to keep up with defense spending pledges.

The NATO chief also pointed to the traditional bipartisan support for NATO in Congress, something he said he witnessed on Tuesday while meeting with Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Stoltenberg also noted that Trump’s criticism of NATO wasn’t really aimed at the alliance, but at individual countries that have failed to live up to the 2014 pledge to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense by 2024. “It's important to listen,” he said, because the criticism from Trump “is not a criticism of NATO not investing enough in NATO.”

The comments came immediately after the NATO leader made a pitch to conservatives in Washington that supporting Ukraine and re-arming Europe is good for America.

“NATO is a good deal for the United States,” Stoltenberg said at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank closely aligned with Trump.

Stoltenberg’s trip to D.C. comes at the start of a tumultuous year for the alliance, Ukraine, and American domestic politics, with major questions hanging over those relationships and their future together.

His speech at Heritage reflects the uncertainty Europe is feeling over the U.S. political scene with the unpredictable Trump potentially reoccupying the Oval Office, making this particular think tank an essential stop.

Even though support for Ukraine is strong in some Republican circles, Trump has been pushing Congress to walk away from a plan to fund Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan due to a clash over border policy.

Stoltenberg’s remarks were an effort to tie multiple issues together that concern U.S. lawmakers, making the case that no issue — China, Russia, migration — exists by itself.

“China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly aligned,” Stoltenberg said. “Together, they subvert sanctions and pressure, weaken the U.S. dollar-based international financial system, fuel Russia’s war in Europe, and exploit challenges to our societies, such as terrorism, disruptive technologies, or migration.”

In his opening remarks, Heritage President Kevin Roberts made clear that Stoltenberg had some convincing to do. “Until the [U.S.] border is at least as secure as it was a few years ago, we cannot support sending U.S. tax dollars overseas to protect” a foreign border in Ukraine.

Roberts also criticized NATO countries for not living up to spending pledge. Only 11 of the 31 member states reach the 2 percent GDP threshold, with major countries Germany, France, Turkey, Italy and Spain still falling short.

But Stoltenberg said that this year “at least half” will hit the mark, which is “a totally different world than we were in a few years ago.”

The NATO leader didn’t just come to rebut critics, however. He also arrived with a story to tell.

“NATO creates a market for defense sales,” he said, noting that member states have purchased $120 billion worth of weapons from U.S. defense companies over the past two years, including 600 F-35 fighters by 2030.

“From Arizona to Virginia, Florida to Washington state, American jobs depend on American sales to defense markets in Europe and Canada,” he said.

That line of thinking is similar to the message being touted by the White House: supporting Ukraine is good for the American economy. U.S. manufacturers build weapons that are sent to European capitals, which are looking to restock after donating their machinery to Ukraine.

Stoltenberg also noted that by share of GDP, most European countries provide more military aid to Ukraine than Washington does.

“All allies have increased defense investments” since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding $450 billion in domestic defense investments across the alliance.

Stoltenberg also pushed back at the notion that Europe isn’t pulling its weight in Ukraine. “Since the outbreak of the war, the United States has provided around $75 billion," he said. "Other allies and partners have provided over $100 billion, and measured as a share of GDP, most allies provide more than the United States.”

He called the war in Ukraine “a war of attrition” that will require European and American defense industries to ramp up production, since “we have seen some serious gaps” in manufacturing of munitions.

Just this week, the U.S. sent new longer-range munitions to Ukraine that will allow Kyiv to strike Russian targets dozens of miles behind the front lines.

Some Republicans have criticized U.S. aid to Ukraine as a waste of money and resources that could be funneled to the Indo-Pacific. But NATO has taken pains to signal to Washington since the Trump administration it has supported the U.S. desire to shift focus to the Indo-Pacific.

“We must organize ourselves for enduring competition with China,” Stoltenberg said, adding that since Trump began pushing shifting U.S. priorities toward the Indo-Pacific in 2017, “NATO has gone a long way in helping European allies fully appreciate the challenge posed by China.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/agprZfD
via IFTTT

Read More

GOP super PAC spends more on migrant crisis ads in NY race

A top GOP super PAC is dumping even more money into the special election to replace ex-Rep. George Santos, and once again they are doubling down on an immigration-centric attack.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, a group allied with Speaker Mike Johnson, will spend $2.6 million on TV ads to aid Republican nominee Mazi Pilip in the final two weeks before the Feb. 13 special election for New York’s 3rd Congressional District. That brings its total investment to nearly $5 million and extends a GOP ad blitz that began earlier this month in the New York City area.

The new cash will also help narrow what had become a massive spending advantage for Democrats.

Pilip, an Ethiopian-born former Israeli Defense Forces soldier, faces former Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi in the race for the district, which includes parts of Long Island and Queens.

New York City has been struggling with a surge of more than 160,000 migrants over the past year, making the issue a flashpoint in the special election. The migrant crisis has taken center stage in television messaging, and CLF’s new ad buy will continue airing its initial spot, which accused Suozzi of “rolling out the red carpet for illegal immigrants” and uses audio of the former congressman bragging that he “kicked ICE out of Nassau County.”

The ad will air on broadcast in the pricy New York City media market, backed by a $2.2 million buy. The other $400,000 will go toward airing the ad on digital streaming services.

Democrats have sought to neutralize the attacks. In response to the earlier spot, Suozzi released a TV ad warning voters that they had “been hearing a lot of nonsense blaming Suozzi for the migrant problem” and praising ICE.

National Republicans didn’t start spending in earnest to help Pilip until weeks into the special election, giving Democrats a noticeable early edge. Democrats have booked a collective $9.6 million through Feb. 13, including $4 million on TV and digital ads from House Majority PAC; $3.8 million from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $1.6 million from the Suozzi campaign.

Before the new buy, Pilip, the House GOP campaign arm and the Congressional Leadership Fund were at a collective $3.6 million, according to AdImpact, a media tracking firm. But CLF’s initial buy ended Wednesday. On the GOP side, the NRCC spent $929,000; Pilip dropped $253,000 on her own — as well as $734,000 in a coordinated spend with the NRCC.

CLF has been airing both 15- and 30-second spots in an attempt to reach more viewers at a lower price point.

The stakes are high for both parties.

Democrats are eager for redemption after losing a slew of seats in New York in 2022, while Republicans want to prove their victories there are enduring. The GOP is also hoping to pad Johnson’s already miniscule House minority in the first special election of his speakership.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/hp1EBmQ
via IFTTT

Read More