google-site-verification: google6508e39c6ec03602.html The news

google-site-verification: google6508e39c6ec03602.html

Monday 17 April 2023

‘We’re going to live in reality’: Senate GOP among McCarthy’s biggest skeptics on SNAP cuts


House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s new debt limit negotiating proposal set to be unveiled Monday morning will include broad moves to restrict food assistance for millions of low-income Americans. His GOP colleagues in the Senate aren’t optimistic any of those measures will survive.

McCarthy’s initial list calls for expanding the age bracket for people who must meet work requirements in order to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Food Assistance Program or SNAP, while closing what Republicans say are “loopholes” in existing restrictions, according to two people who were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations.

Cutting spending on federal food assistance programs is a perennial Republican target, and House conservatives are eager to make it part of any agreement to raise the debt ceiling, which the country must do later this year to avoid a default crisis. But Senate Democrats have said such measures are dead on arrival in the upper chamber, and with the help of key Senate Republicans, they have killed off a series of similar House GOP efforts over the years — including a 2018 push involving McCarthy and his current top debt limit lieutenant Rep. Garret Graves (La.). The early response from Senate Republicans this time around does not bode well for a different outcome in 2023.

While praising the intent behind the House GOP efforts to expand work requirements for SNAP, which used to be known as food stamps, top Republican senators have sought to temper expectations about the proposal’s prospects in the upper chamber.



“I’m sure it won’t be easy,” said John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, noting his party will get a second bite at the apple later this year during the farm bill reauthorization process.

A GOP Senate aide, who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, was less diplomatic: “I mean, Godspeed. Get what you can. We’re going to live in reality over here.”

Senate Republicans have been voicing similar skepticism since House Republicans began privately pitching new proposals to rein in SNAP last year, after they won back the chamber in November.

Asked about the prospects for such measures in the next Congress, Sen. John Boozman (Ark.) the top Republican on the Agriculture Committee, which oversees SNAP, said in an interview a week after the 2022 midterms that the effort “would be difficult to pass in the Senate with 60 votes,” a nod to the threshold needed to overcome a Senate filibuster.

And, given the GOP’s unexpectedly slim majority in the House, there’s no guarantee such controversial proposals could even get out of the lower chamber, Boozman pointed out. “You look at the margin in the House,” he said, “It might be difficult to pass it in the House.”

McCarthy and his team are now confronting that reality as they try to hold together their own caucus vis-a-vis the debt ceiling negotiations with the White House. McCarthy, Graves and other top House Republicans have briefed most of the caucus on their plans in a series of calls that stretched into the weekend. So far, leaders have avoided key defections by staying away from too much detail — for example, they have yet to outline a specific plan to close the so-called “loopholes” in the existing SNAP work requirements, which Republicans complain primarily blue states are using to waive some work requirements. Taking a tough line would please the most conservative GOP members, but alienate Republicans from swing districts, and vice versa.

Already, the talk of shrinking SNAP, which currently serves 41 million low-income Americans, is raising pressure on many Republicans that represent districts President Joe Biden won in 2020. Several of those members have raised internal concerns, especially about proposals from their colleagues that would add work requirements for some low-income parents who have children under 18 living at home, according to two other people involved in those conversations, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal caucus matters. A handful of GOP freshmen from New York, one of the states that consistently asks the federal government to waive some work requirements for SNAP recipients, are in an especially tricky spot. Constituents have begun pressing them to oppose efforts that would further restrict SNAP and other key assistance following the loss of key pandemic-era aid — which Biden administration officials argue helped keep the country from falling into a deeper hunger crisis in the wake of Covid-19.

At a farm bill listening session in Rep. Mark Molinaro’s (R-N.Y.) upstate district last Friday, local farmers, food bank operators and anti-hunger advocates urged lawmakers to defend and even expand current SNAP programs.

One state administrator called for “easing burdensome and complicated work and reporting requirements” to provide better access to the program, as the administration’s pandemic-era pause on certain SNAP work requirements is set to end in July. A food bank operator warned of a looming “hunger cliff” in the country as families continue to reel from the fallout of Covid-19. She urged members of Congress “not make decisions on the back of the most vulnerable people.”



Eric Ooms, vice president of the New York branch of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation’s leading agricultural lobby, told the lawmakers who attended the listening session not to think of SNAP as a “city thing,” noting that the program is a key lifeline to low-income Americans in rural areas where food insecurity “is higher than it’s ever been.”

Molinaro, who says his family relied on food stamps during his childhood, has indicated general support for some SNAP reforms, saying he understands the “inefficiencies” of the program through his experience as a former county executive charged with overseeing it. But he has declined to say if he would support the proposals to expand work requirements that his colleagues have been pushing for months.

In his closing remarks on Friday, Molinaro sounded a note of support for SNAP but indicated only the most needy should get aid — an argument Republicans have used in their campaign to reduce the size of the program.

“Yes, those that struggle the hardest need to know that they have the support, not only of SNAP, but of other wrap-around services,” he said.

Derrick Van Orden, a Trump-aligned Republican who represents a swing district in Wisconsin, spoke during the listening session of his family’s struggle with poverty and reliance on food stamps when he was a child. While he acknowledges some flaws in the current system, he said, “I’m a member of Congress because of these programs.”

“There’s a lot of people who have not gone to bed hungry at night, and I have. And there’s no place for that in America,” Van Orden said.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/uZo5dFf
via IFTTT

New Mexico governor fears a national ban on abortion


New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said Sunday she is worried the U.S. is headed toward a national ban on abortion, as state legislatures and courts move to squeeze abortion access across the country.

“It's every social issue that you disagree with, is it stem cell research, is it fertility, drugs, whatever it is, in this context, if we're going to use the federal courts as a way to bar and ban access, we are looking at a national abortion ban and more,” Lujan Grisham said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

The Democratic governor recently signed two bills into law protecting abortion providers and guaranteeing access to reproductive and gender-affirming care, just as a judge in neighboring Texas moved to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone — one of two drugs used together to cause an abortion.

With the fate of mifepristone now tied up in the courts, a number of states which support access to abortion have moved to stockpile the drug. But states need to do more than build up a cache of the abortion pill, Lujan Grisham said.

“We were going to make sure — we already are — that we have access to all of those medications,” she told host Margaret Brennan. “But if the response is we'll stockpile instead of protecting all access, then we're minimizing the work that we have to do to make sure that women and families are fully protected.”

The New Mexico legislation that Lujan Grisham signed puts no restrictions on when during a pregnancy a woman can get an abortion.

“These are horrific medical conditions. And again, New Mexico's position, and mine, is that we should not be interfering with a woman's right medical situation and her decision about that life-threatening potential circumstance,” Lujan Grisham said. “We shouldn't be doing that.”



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

Sunday 16 April 2023

Ukraine’s bumper grain exports rile allies in Eastern Europe

Polish farmers are protesting over a surge in grain shipments redirected through their market, months before national elections.

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

Japan's prime minister vows to boost G-7 security after smoke bomb attack

Fumio Kishida was unhurt in incident, which had echoes of the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last summer.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/c1LqBPo
via IFTTT

Nikki Haley’s fuzzy fundraising math


When Nikki Haley’s presidential campaign announced its first quarterly fundraising haul earlier this month, the figure sounded impressive.

The former U.N. ambassador’s campaign said it had raised $11 million between her mid-February launch and the end of the quarter on March 31. It got that figure by saying Haley’s campaign had $5.1 million in receipts, along with $4.4 million for Team Stand for America, a joint fundraising committee, and $1.2 million for Stand for America PAC, a Haley-launched leadership PAC.

But after Haley filed her first-quarter report to the Federal Election Commission late Saturday, an altogether different story has emerged. Her campaign’s math didn’t add up.

What Haley’s campaign and two affiliated groups actually raised was about $8.3 million. The discrepancy between the Haley campaign’s public statements and the numbers on the filings appear to be a case of double-counting.

Haley’s campaign alone raised $5.1 million. But $1.8 million of that total came in a transfer from Team Stand for America, and SFA Fund, Inc., a hybrid PAC that can send limited amounts of money directly to candidates but is prohibited from coordinating its independent expenditures with the campaign. But that’s not the only double counting that appears to have happened. Haley’s leadership PAC also received a $886,000 transfer from her joint fundraising committee — a total that the campaign seeks to count twice in the quarterly total across all three vehicles.

The web of campaign finance laws around various committees is complicated, especially after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United case last decade. And in a statement, Haley’s campaign insisted that it was simply sharing the three vehicles’ total receipts, without sharing that those figures included transfers between them.

“We reported $11 million, the sum of entities,” Ken Farnaso, Haley’s campaign press secretary, wrote in an email, adding that other presidential candidates also have multiple fundraising vehicles.

Had they counted those transfers only once, Haley’s $11 million becomes about $8.3 million. That’s still a strong sum for her first six weeks as a candidate, but it’s not quite what was touted in the media over the past two weeks.

As a direct comparison, when former President Donald Trump’s campaign shared its first-quarter fundraising numbers with POLITICO, it said he raised nearly $19 million across both the campaign (which raised $14.4 million) and his joint fundraising committee ($18.8 million), which transferred $14 million to the campaign.

Using the same campaign’s methodology, Trump would have raised more than $32 million — a figure far greater than his actual haul.

That said, there are examples of Trump’s campaign fudging the math, too. Ahead of the last quarterly deadline, in January, some media outlets reported the Trump campaign claimed it raised $9.5 million from the launch of his third bid for the presidency — even though the actual number after the filings should have been closer to $5 million, since it also included transfers from joint fundraising committee into other committees.



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

Trump’s fundraising was lagging. Then he said an indictment was imminent.


Former President Donald Trump’s latest campaign finance filing showed how his indictment spurred a last-minute fundraising surge. It also showed he used that money to pay close advisors and top aides while some went to his own properties and businesses.

The former president’s campaign raised $14.5 million during the first quarter of 2023, according to a first-quarter filing with the Federal Election Commission late Saturday. The filing backs up the notion that Trump experienced a fundraising surge linked to talk of the indictment: more than 30 percent of his quarterly fundraising from itemized donors came in during the final 12 days of the quarter, after Trump said on Truth Social that he expected to be arrested, with the greatest surge in the final days, after he was indicted.

Fundraising has long been a point of strength for Trump, as he leveraged Facebook and other digital tools to mobilize a base of GOP small-dollar donors. His joint fundraising committee, Save America, raised more than $100 million in the 2021 calendar year when he was not even a federal candidate.



But Trump’s early presidential campaign initially struggled to keep up the momentum. The fourth quarter of 2022 was Save America’s worst in terms of overall fundraising and it spent more on digital fundraising expenses than it raised in December of last year, according to FEC filings.

Even with the surge in revenue linked to the indictment, Trump’s first-quarter numbers still trail where he was at the same time in 2019, when he was running for reelection. That could be due to the fact that donor cash is being spread out among his GOP challengers or that donors are waiting to see how the primary plays out. The campaign of former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, the most prominent other Republican to announce so far, reported raising $5.1 million for her campaign over the three months. Vivek Ramaswany, who has never held office, reported raising around $850,000 from donors.



While Trump has several other political groups, only his campaign was required to file a report with the FEC on Saturday, so the full magnitude of his expenses during the first quarter is not clear. His joint fundraising committee appeared to shift strategy this quarter, including cutting back on text messaging after long sending many users as many as three texts per day.

Trump’s campaign committee still reported spending $3.5 million over the first three months of the year, with payroll occupying the single greatest expense, with roughly two dozen campaign employees on staff. The campaign also paid nearly $500,000 to Tag Air Inc., a Trump-owned company that operates his airplanes.

Other expenses included $122,000 to Advancing Strategies, LLC, which is helmed by Chris LaCivita; more than $80,000 to Georgetown Advisory, the firm founded by former Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn, for legal consulting and communications services; as well as more than $75,000 to Compass Legal Group, headed by former Trump administration lawyer Scott Gast; and $30,000 to Belmont Strategies, a consulting firm headed by Andrew Surabian, an aide to Donald Trump Jr.

The campaign also spent just over $4,000 at Trump’s trademark Mar-a-Lago Club.



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

George Santos’ campaign didn’t spend a dime and managed to lose money


Rep. George Santos’s (R-N.Y.) congressional campaign officially lost money during the first quarter of 2023 after it reported having to issue refunds in excess of the contributions it received.

The New York Republican, who has been beleaguered from before he was sworn in after it was revealed he’d fabricated major portions of his biography, raised a scant $5,333.26 during the first three months of the year. But his campaign also refunded $8,352; meaning that he actually took in less than $3,000 than he paid out.

Only one person gave enough to Santos to require that their name be listed on his FEC form. That individual, Sacha Basin, gave $245.95. There was no clear online history for an individual with that name nor is there a record of them previously giving more than $200 to any candidate in the FEC database.

Such fundraising numbers are exceedingly rare and suggest either a candidate who has no actual support from donors or one who is not eyeing an actual re-election bid; or both. Santos has filed paperwork for a re-election bid even as a host of national and local Republicans have urged him not to do so.

Santos had just $25,000 cash on hand at the end of the quarter. That figure came despite having made not a single reported campaign expense during the quarter — a figure that raises questions as to how and whether he has done the basic bookkeeping and paperwork that campaign’s are legally required to do.

Making matters worse for Santos: his campaign reported having $715,000 in debts and obligations that it owed. All of those were owed to Santos himself.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/2jMbG6k
via IFTTT