Valenzuela picks up another big endorsement

Candidate for Texas' 24th district and alum of this class Candace Valenzuela has picked up another big endorsement. Kamala Harris endorsed her today, saying "I'm so proud to endorse Candace Valenzuela for Congress in Texas’ 24th District. After growing up in a military family, beating the odds to become a first generation college graduate, and fighting for Texas students on the school board, Candace will be ready to lead on day one. She knows both the struggles and hopes of working and middle class families and will be a strong advocate for progressive change in Texas." This is good news for her campaign which has been picking up steam in the lead up to the July runoff election. Previously she has been endorsed by both Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro. These endorsements are important, especially since Valenzuela has only fundraised about half as much as her opponent, Kim Olson. I am interested to see whether Valenzuela will go on the attack as it gets closer to the runoff election, as there is lots to attack Olson over. She was forced to retire from the military to avoid a court martial after an investigation turned up misconduct in Iraq. As the LA Times reported in 2006, “Pentagon investigators allege that while on active duty as one of the most powerful figures in Iraq, Olson established a U.S. branch of a South African security firm after helping it win more than $3 million in contracts to provide protection for senior U.S. and British officials, as well as for KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton Co.”

New York Primary Back On

I thought this might be interesting since the cancellation of the New York primary was mentioned last week in class. A judge has just ruled that it should still be held, and withstanding an appeal, seems like it will be. Also, the lawsuit was filed by Andrew Yang:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/politics/ny-presidential-primary.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Virtual Finish

Review of the Dualities:

Two chambers: Bicameralism is real:  consider reopening

Two Congresses: Historical public opinion data and the two Congresses

Two parties:  polarization

Two political branches:  different interests of lawmakers and POTUS

Mixed opinions on civility and compromise

Norris

• Norris v. Cannon
• Something that JFK leaves out of the story of Norris and the Armed Ship Bill
• 1928 election

Congress and Progressive Reforms

16th Amendment

• The first Form 1040
• Form 1040 today

17th Amendment


Taft

• Prewar isolationism
• And why JFK downplayed that side of the story
• Nuremberg (start video at 11:00)
• Taft against NATO
• The story that led to the LBJ-RFK feud

On October 29, 1940, Congressman Lyndon Johnson happened to be in President Franklin Roosevelt’s office when FDR’s isolationist ambassador to London, Joseph Kennedy—at whom Roosevelt was furious for his freelancing and his insufficient outrage against Adolf Hitler—returned to the United States. LBJ omits the detail that as FDR invited Kennedy by telephone for dinner, he drew his finger across his throat, razor fashion. Johnson twits Roosevelt for his indifference to civil rights, contrasting that unfavorably with LBJ’s own record.

I was with President Roosevelt the day he fired Joe Kennedy. He picked up the phone and said, “Hello, Joe, are you in New York? Why don’t you come down and have a little family dinner with us tonight?” Then he hung up and said, “That son of a bitch is a traitor. He wants to sell us out.” Well, Kennedy did say Hitler was right.

Anyway, Roosevelt didn’t have any Southern molasses compassion. He didn’t get wrapped up in going to anyone’s funeral. Roosevelt never submitted one civil rights bill in twelve years. He sent Mrs. Roosevelt to their meetings in their parks, and she’d do it up good. But President Roosevelt never faced up to the problem.

Inherent limitations of Congress:

• Except in simulation, legislation is slow. (And swift action is not necessarily smart action.)
• In a body resting on geographic representation, parochialism is inevitable. (And it is often legitimate.)
• A multi-member, bicameral institution will have a hard time planning.  (And planning is overrated.)

From Profiles:

 Although the public good was the indirect beneficiary of his sacrifice, it was not that vague and general concept, but one or a combination of these pressures of self-love that pushed him along the course of action that resulted in the slings and arrows previously described. It is when the politician loves neither the public good nor himself, or when his love for himself is limited and is satisfied by the trappings of office, that the public interest is badly served.

... 

This is not to say that courageous politicians and the principles for which they speak out are always right. John Quincy Adams, it is said, should have realized that the Embargo would ruin New England but hardly irritate the British. Daniel Webster, according to his critics, fruitlessly appeased the slavery forces, Thomas Hart Benton was an unyielding and pompous egocentric, Sam Houston was cunning, changeable and unreliable. Edmund Ross, in the eyes of some, voted to uphold a man who had defied the Constitution and defied the Congress. Lucius Lamar failed to understand why the evils of planned inflation are sometimes preferable to the tragedies of uncontrolled depression. Nor-
ris and Taft, it is argued, were motivated more by blind isolationism than Constitutional principles.

New Coronavirus Relief may be Stalled

As Senate returns, multiple stumbling blocks threaten next coronavirus bill

"WASHINGTON — As the Senate returns Monday after being forced from the Capitol by the coronavirus outbreak, the next round of emergency relief legislation could be weeks away as Democrats, Republicans and the White House are pushing conflicting priorities for the next bill.

Republicans want liability protections for businesses. Democrats want more state and local government aid. And President Donald Trump wants to “pause” more legislation for now, but won’t consider anything that doesn’t include a payroll tax cut.

“We’re not doing anything unless we get a payroll tax cut,” Trump said Sunday night during a Fox News town hall.

Trump has mused about a payroll tax cut throughout the coronavirus response efforts, but the proposal has received a lukewarm reception from Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Trump privately discussed a payroll tax cut with Senate Republicans ahead of the passage of the CARES Act, but the party never unified behind the idea."

Dr. Fauci Expected to Meet with Senate After Being Blocked from Testifying Before the House

Dr. Anthoney Fauci was blocked from testifying in front of the House Appropriations Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee, which was supposed to occur this week. The White House declared it would be "counterproductive" for Dr. Fauci, the director of NIAID and leading expert on the White House's coronavirus task force, to testify at congressional hearings. However, Dr. Fauci is now scheduled to meet on May 12, with the Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Now, why would the White House believe it to be counterproductive for Dr. Fauci to testify before the Democratic-led House Appropriations Subcommittee, but allow him to meet with the GOP-led Senate committee? Is this another attempt from Trump's administration to silence Dr. Fauci, and keep information away from his Democratic counterparts in the House?

The Testing Conundrum

Are they being courageous by potentially putting their health at risk -- or are they being less-than-courageous by refusing to acknowledge that lawmakers and key staff are essential workers? (Even though approval of Congess has ticked upward, the public still disapproves of congressional performance by a two-to-one margin.)

Marianne Levine at Politico:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday rejected an offer from the Trump administration to provide Congress with rapid results testing, citing the need to direct resources where they are most needed.

“Congress is grateful for the Administration’s generous offer to deploy rapid COVID-19 testing capabilities to Capitol Hill, but we respectfully decline the offer at this time," McConnell (R-Ky.) and Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement. "Our country’s testing capacities are continuing to scale up nationwide and Congress wants to keep directing resources to the front-line facilities where they can do the most good the most quickly."

Instead, the two leaders said Congress will rely on the testing procedures outlined by the Office of the Attending Physician until “these speedier technologies become more widely available.”

The move caps a remarkable few days, with senators deeply anxious about returning to the Capitol amid the pandemic and the White House facing criticism that it was getting better treatment than Congress.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced late Friday night that the Senate would receive three rapid-results testing machines and 1,000 tests.

President Donald Trump also weighed in Saturday morning saying that “there is tremendous CoronaVirus testing capacity in Washington for the Senators returning to Capital Hill” and that “the 5 minute Abbott Test will be used.”

On Saturday evening following the release of the McConnell-Pelosi statement, Trump wrote in a tweet there was "No reason to turn it down, except politics."

The Senate is scheduled to return Monday, just as Washington nears its peak of coronavirus cases.

South Carolina Senator Willing To Die Hypothetical Death to Ensure There Are More Actual Deaths

 From Business Insider 4/30

***************************************************************************************

'Over our dead bodies': Lindsey Graham vows Congress won't extend additional $600 coronavirus-related unemployment benefits, as US death toll crosses the 60,000 mark

Kayla Epstein

Apr 30, 2020, 8:58 AM

• Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said he and his colleague Sen. Tim Scott would allow a $600 per week pandemic unemployment benefit to extend past July "over our dead bodies."
• Graham and Scott appeared at an April 29 meeting for AccelerateSC, Gov. Henry McMaster's task force dedicated to reopening the state's economy during the coronavirus crisis.
• The CARES Act provides three types of coronavirus-related unemployment benefits, including an additional $600 per week for people who are unemployed because of the coronavirus.
• Graham and Scott said giving people increased unemployment benefits would incentivize them to stay home rather than return to work, therefore slowing South Carolina's economic recovery.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday Congress would extend the additional $600 unemployment benefit provided in the coronavirus relief package past July only "over our dead bodies."His remarks came the day that the US passed 60,000 deaths caused by the coronavirus, by far the largest reported death toll in the world.

The senator made the remarks while appearing on an April 29 panel for AccelerateSC, the coronavirus task force created by Gov. Henry McMaster to examine ways to revitalize the state's economy. He was joined by his fellow Republican senator from South Carolina, Tim Scott.
"I promise you over our dead bodies will this get reauthorized," Graham said of his and Scott's opposition to government spending on unemployment. "We've got to stop this. You cannot turn on the economy until you get this aberration of the law of fixed."

The coronavirus relief package passed by Congress in late March provided emergency benefits to Americans who had lost their jobs because of the coronavirus outbreak. The law includes funds that grant people $600 per week on top of their regular unemployment benefits until July 25. Separately, the law also bolsters unemployment funds issued by individual states and makes more people eligible for the benefits.

Under regular circumstances in South Carolina, unemployment insurance lasts up to 20 weeks, and the average weekly benefit amount is $236. The maximum benefit is $326. In South Carolina, people who lost their jobs because of the coronavirus through no fault of their own are eligible for all three types expanded unemployment benefits under the relief package.

Proponents said the funds were necessary to shore up Americans' finances after social-distancing and stay-at-home orders closed nonessential businesses, which caused widespread job losses and furloughs. About 30 million people have filed for unemployment over the past six weeks.
Healthcare experts have said that social-distancing measures will need to remain in effect to some degree for several months and may need to be loosened or tightened depending on the state of the outbreak. Americans to a large extent are still being urged to work from home whenever possible and not to travel for work unless they are an essential worker.

But Graham and Scott said these additional unemployment benefits would incentivize people to stay at home rather than return to work, to the detriment of small business owners.
"The goal is to help people who are unemployed, to make sure that if they get unemployed, they'll have their income intact, but it was never our goal to pay people more to be out of work than at work," Graham added during a Q&A session, adding that "if a person is making $23 an hour on unemployment, it's going to be hard to get you go back to work for $17 hour job."

"If your job is available to you, please go back. The economy needs you back," Graham said.
In an email to Insider, Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham, said the senator's intent was "to ensure people do not get more in unemployment than they do going to a 40 hour a week job."
Before the relief package's passage, Graham supported a failed amendment that would have prevented people from claiming more in unemployment than they would make in their 40-hour-a-week jobs. He said allowing people to have an increase in income on unemployment was "a perverse incentive which needs to be fixed."

Scott said he had spoken with employers in South Carolina who said they had difficulty bringing people back to work because they couldn't "compete" with the unemployment stipends.
"Bringing those folks back to work is creating frustration among their employees," Scott said. "The tension is real." Graham said he and Scott would oppose any extension of the additional unemployment benefits in upcoming legislation considered by Congress.

"I will never let this happen again with my vote," Graham said.

******************************************************************************
This article seems very topical given our reading material on Profiles in Courage. Perhaps, Lindsey Graham should be awarded a profile in courage for his political bravery in standing up to Big Poor. It is controversial, but it is true. This additional benefit allowing people to stay home during a pandemic creates perverse incentives for workers. In reality, workers should have to choose between their own health and financial ruin. Otherwise, employers won't be able to force them to do what they want. I would like to commend Lindsey Graham for taking this courageous stand against the poorest, most disenfranchised members of society. Thank you, Lindsey.

Profiles in Courage Award

If you are writing about profiles in courage, remember John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award:

The John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award was created in 1989 by members of President Kennedy's family to honor President John F. Kennedy and to recognize and celebrate the quality of political courage that he admired most.

The award recognizes a public official (or officials) at the federal, state or local level whose actions demonstrate the qualities of politically courageous leadership in the spirit of Profiles in Courage, President Kennedy’s 1957 Pulitzer prize-winning book, which recounts the stories of eight U.S. Senators who risked their careers by embracing unpopular positions for the greater good.

The award is presented each May at a ceremony at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in connection with the observance of President Kennedy’s birthday on May 29.

The Profile in Courage Award is administered by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. A distinguished bipartisan committee named by the Foundation reviews all nominations, and selects the recipient or recipients of the award.

Criteria:

In Profiles in Courage, President Kennedy told the stories of eight United States senators who risked their careers by standing up for particular ideals or principles, even when constituents or powerful interest groups pressured them to bend.

Today, elected officials are too often captives to opinion polls, reluctant to act in the broader public interest when it means taking unpopular courses of action or offending powerful groups. The Profile in Courage Award honors modern-day elected officials who govern for the greater good, even when it is not in their own interest to do so. The award celebrates individuals who choose the public interest over partisanship – who do what is right, rather than what is expedient.

• Ordinarily, the award will be made to living Americans who are or were elected officials.
• Individuals at all levels of government—federal, state and local—are eligible for the award.
• Emphasis will be placed on contemporary acts of political courage.
• On occasion, in rare and special circumstances, awards have been made to foreign officials.

CLICK HERE FOR A LIST OF RECIPIENTS

CMC Dad Lobbies for Zoom

David Beavers and Daniel Lippman report at Politico:

Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas started lobbying for Zoom on April 1 on issues related “to video conferencing and other communication and collaboration services,” according to a disclosure filed on Thursday. After rocketing upward in popularity during the pandemic, Zoom is facing calls from lawmakers for an investigation into its privacy and security policies.

— “Consistent with our commitment to transparency, Zoom is proactively engaging with our users to ensure they understand Zoom's relevant policies, as well as the best ways to customize their Zoom security and privacy settings for their own use cases,” the company said in a statement. “At the same time, we look forward to engaging with lawmakers across a broad range of issues, and we are pleased to have support from Bruce Mehlman [CMC P `21] and his bipartisan team on these efforts.”