Past and present African-American senators call for end to partisan politics

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and former Sen. Mo Cowan (D-Mass.) appear on “The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd” Feb. 25, 2014. (via screengrab)

With partisan gridlock casting a shadow on the United States Congress’ upper chamber, a panel of African-American senators both past and present called for an end to the standstill at a Tuesday event marking Black History Month. And they looked to Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) to silence the partisan bickering in hopes of reform.

Scott hosted and Senate Chaplain Barry Black moderated a panel featuring Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and former Sens. Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill.), Roland Burris (D-Ill.) and William “Mo” Cowan (D-Mass.) at the Library of Congress for an event called “Honoring Our Past, Celebrating Our Future: Discussing Personal Journeys and a Nation’s Progress with America’s Black Senators.” Kicking off the event with a “nonpartisan ‘Amen,’” the group of accomplished senators and trailblazers discussed the crucial need for young Americans to challenge themselves and their boundaries to achieve success. But among the jokes, ribbing between colleagues, and anecdotes, the trio of former senators called on their successors, specifically Scott, to put aside party politics and work to find common ground.

“These issues that we face are critical to the world and to have the kind of gridlock and stand-off and partisanship that I’ve seen as an observer from the outside just does a great disservice to our country,” Braun, who served as Ambassador to New Zealand until 2001, said. “And I don’t know who needs to start the conversation or whether we need to just wrap it up. But the fact of the matter is that this kind of partisanship that we’ve seen does a disservice to the legacy of the Senate, to the importance of the institution and to our whole country.”

The 113th Congress is the first to include two African-American senators — Booker and Scott — serving simultaneously. Yet despite the progress their presence represents, the upper and lower chambers’ label as the “the do-nothing Congress” has overshadowed the merits of its members.

And while Booker and Scott disagree on policy issues such as Obamacare, the minimum wage and immigration reform, the senators and their predecessors agreed that compromise was needed to move the country forward.

“One of the reasons why I wanted to bring us together was so we can share with the world … that all things are absolutely, positively, unequivocally possible in the United States of America,” Scott said.

The South Carolina senator, who was appointed by Gov. Nikki Haley in 2012, was the only Republican on the panel. Flanked by a duo of Democrats on either side, Scott said a life of public service is not met without challenges.

“I think it’s difficult being a member of the Senate sometimes,” Scott said. “We seem to have made it more difficult than it should be.”

But speaking to journalists after the event, the South Carolina Republican said he and Booker have plans to cross the partisan divide and tackle education, sentencing guidelines and tax reform in the near future.

The panel agreed that it would take the leadership of Scott and Booker to guide Congress to serve the American people well.

“George Washington, in his farewell address, pointed to the danger of what he called factions. And, quite frankly, I think that’s a lot of what we’re looking at now: Factions. Because to say one’s a Democrat, one’s  Republican, almost doesn’t describe anything anymore. What kind of Republican? What kind of Democrat? Where are you from?” Braun said. “All of these things have us breaking down into little pods of people. And those little pods may serve their own interest, but they do not serve the interest of the American people.”

Cowan, who left the Senate in 2013, noted that while the Senate has its flaws and partisan bickering, the body’s problems can still be fixed by those who are elected to serve in it.

“When I left the floor of the Senate, I said that there was nothing wrong with the Senate that can’t be fixed by what’s right with the Senate … the people in the body are fully empowered to make the Senate and the Congress at large work as effectively as the American people need it to be, as long and only if they’re willing to do so,” he said.

Red Alert Politics

Past and present African-American senators call for end to partisan politics

Governors" solutions tend to mirror partisan lines

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation’s governors sound every bit as divided as Washington lawmakers on how best to help the nation’s economy.

Democratic governors such as Maryland’s Martin O’Malley and Connecticut’s Dannel Malloy are making pitches to raise the minimum wage as the nation’s governors meet in Washington for their annual conference.

Meanwhile, Republican governors such as Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Indiana’s Mike Pence are calling for more freedom from federal regulations and the opening of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Appearing Sunday on CNN, Malloy says the vast majority of people earning a minimum wage are trying to raise a family, and the minimum wage needs to keep up with inflation.

Jindahl told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that delaying mandates included in President Barack Obama’s health insurance overhaul would boost the economy.

Associated Press

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Politics Headlines

Governors" solutions tend to mirror partisan lines

Partisan battle lines drawn on taxes as U.S. budget talks begin

• 
  
• 
  
• Share this




• Email


• Print


• Reprints






Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) questions Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on ”Affordable Care Act Implementation” on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 29, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas








By David Lawder


WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:37am EDT





WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. lawmakers launched a new round of budget talks on Wednesday with a pledge to work toward easing automatic government spending cuts but drew familiar partisan battle lines over boosting tax revenues to help pay for that.




The 29-member congressional negotiating panel, commissioned under this month’s deal to end a government shutdown and lift the federal debt limit, has until December 13 to agree on a plan that would at least reduce the effects of some $ 109 billion in spending cuts looming in 2014.




Republican and Democratic panel members have worked in recent days to lower expectations that the talks could result in a “grand bargain” that would reduce federal budget deficits by more than $ 1 trillion over 10 years. Instead, they are focusing on a much smaller deal.




Democratic leaders of the conference committee said they want part of the budget savings to come from increased revenue raised by closing some tax breaks for corporations and wealthy Americans.




Republicans said the savings need to come from cuts to expensive federal benefits programs and they will not support tax increases.




“I want to say this from the get-go: If this conference becomes an argument about taxes, we’re not going to get anywhere,” said Representative Paul Ryan, the House of Representatives Budget Committee chairman who is leading the Republicans on the panel.




Ryan said Republicans would prefer to use the savings from eliminating “carve-outs and kickbacks” to lower tax rates, which they argue would boost economic growth and generate increased revenues. Republicans want savings from benefits programs such as the Social Security retirement program and the Medicare health insurance program for the elderly.




“Let’s focus our energy on the task at hand: a budget that cuts spending in a smarter way,” said Ryan, his party’s vice presidential nominee last year.




The panel’s Democratic leader, Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, said she is prepared to make some compromises on spending cuts, but only if Republicans are willing to do the same on taxes.




“While we scour programs to find responsible savings, Republicans are also going to have to work with us to scour the bloated tax code – and close some wasteful tax loopholes and special interest subsidies,” Murray said, adding that it was “unfair – and unacceptable – to ask seniors and families to bear this burden alone.”




The budget panel has 22 senators and seven House members. Any deal would need a majority vote in each chamber. Democrats control the Senate. Republicans control the House.




There would be no immediate consequences if the panel fails to reach an agreement by December 13, but about a month later, on January 15, government spending authority would run out again, raising the threat of another government shutdown.




On the same day, a new round of automatic “sequester” spending cuts would be due to start.




While many Republican conservatives have sought to keep the automatic spending cuts in place, the next round of cuts would hit the military harder next year with about $ 20 billion more in cuts compared to 2013. This may motivate some Republicans to push for alternative savings.




(Editing by Will Dunham)





• Link this


• Share this


• Digg this


• Email


• Reprints

Reuters: Politics

Partisan battle lines drawn on taxes as U.S. budget talks begin

Has gerrymandering made politics more partisan? Ted Cruz argues not | Harry J Enten

Redistricting is blamed for polarising Congress. But Ted Cruz shows the cause is red-state voters’ choice of strict conservatives

I have written about gerrymandering before, but the issue is back to the fore because numerous commentators have posited a link between gerrymandering and the shutdown. Gerrymandering is now commonly given as the reason why congressional districts appear to be producing more conservative and/or Tea Party-allied Republican representatives.

I still believe the supposed effects of gerrymandering on political polarization in the House of Representatives are being overstated. And fine work from Nate Cohn and Sean Trende explains the point very well. I just have one more thing to add to the argument: what about Ted Cruz?

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is seen as a figurehead for Tea Party conservatives. It’s even been reported that House Republicans have been taking directions from him in refusing to pass a clean continuing resolution without defunding or delaying Obamacare. So did gerrymandering create Ted Cruz, too?

The answer, of course, is no. Ted Cruz was elected to the United States Senate; he has never served in the House. Senators are voted for in state-wide elections, which means that redistricting and gerrymandering logically can’t apply. Yet, Cruz is as conservative as, if not more conservative than, the House GOP members who, many believe, are keeping the government shut down and flirting with debt default.

Admittedly, Ted Cruz is just one elected official, but he’s played a larger-than-life role in the current crisis. And, more importantly perhaps, he is part of a larger trend in the United States Senate, in three ways.

First, Cruz is from the state of Texas. And Texas is a deep red state, which makes it characteristic of a pattern of states becoming more polarized. As I’ve noted before, there used to be a great many states that were very competitive in national elections. In 1976, almost half the states in the union came within 3pt of the nationwide vote in the presidential election. A more impressive 30-plus states were within 5pt. Today, the numbers aren’t even close to that.

There were only eight states that came within 3pt of the national vote in the 2012 presidential race. That number only rises to ten when we include states where the margin was within 5pt of the nationwide margin – only a third of the number there were in 1976. Even if you expanded the list to include those within 10pt, you’d still only get to 14 states.

It’s fairly clear, then, that people are “self-sorting” on the state level. As Sean Trende shows, this filters down to the congressional district level rather well. The number of districts that most would call “competitive” under even the Democratic-written district lines of the 1990s would have been about the same.

Second, Cruz’s election was one of many where voters decided that they wanted their senatorial vote to reflect their presidential vote. Just 20 years ago, a similar party allocation in the Senate featured many more blue state Republicans and red state Democrats. In 1993, 49% of the Democrats’ Senate caucus came from states that had voted more Republican than the nation as a whole in the prior presidential election. That percentage has been cut in half, to only 25% in 2013.

It’s the same story with the Republican Senate caucus. Republicans from blue states were 28% of the Senate Republicans in 1993. Today, the percentage is only 16%.

So, what we have is increased polarization in the voting patterns of states on the presidential level, which has translated down to the senatorial level. Note, as Nate Silver has shown, this is the same phenomenon that is occurring on the congressional district level – even when controlling for changing districting lines.

The third factor is that the increased polarization of the states seems to be reflected in the senators’ voting records. The Senate (as well as the House) is now more polarized than it’s been in the past 135 years. How do we know?

The people over at Voteview score each roll-call vote: -1 is most liberal, while +1 is most conservative, per Voteview’s “DW nominate” score. They then were kind enough to map the average difference between the Senate’s Democratic and Republican caucus. This shows that there have been increasing differences in the average voting scores of the Republican and Democratic Senate caucuses, respectively, since the 1976 election. The polarization accelerated after the 1992 election.

It’s simply not possible that gerrymandering was the sole cause of this trend. It’s not as though anyone can, all of a sudden, start moving around state lines.

Now, none of this is to say that gerrymandering isn’t responsible for some part of the polarization in Washington. The median Democratic and Republican House district is more polarized than the median Democratic and Republican Senate seat. The House caucuses have more extreme voting records than the Senate’s. Some of that is, again, due to self-sorting on the state level more locally, but not all of it can be accounted for that way.

The Senate shows, however, that the sharp upswing in polarization we see today is largely the product of natural voting patterns. And these manifest themselves on the state level without any gerrymandering. Texas put Ted Cruz in the Senate not because someone redrew Texas’ state lines, but because Texas voters became, on average, more conservative.

• US Congress


• United States


• US politics


• US House of Representatives


• US Senate


• Republicans


• Tea Party movement


• Democrats


• Texas

Harry J Enten

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Comment is free | theguardian.com

Has gerrymandering made politics more partisan? Ted Cruz argues not | Harry J Enten

After Epic Escape From China, Exile Is Mired in Partisan U.S.

Chen Guangcheng, the blind legal advocate who challenged the Chinese government over its harsh family planning policies, is nothing if not a politically astute survivor. He outsmarted the phalanx of guards who kept him under house arrest and then made his way into the American Embassy, setting off a diplomatic crisis that was resolved only after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened and negotiated his freedom.

Mark Makela for The New York Times

Chen Guangcheng; his wife, Yuan Weijing; and their children, last month on a visit to Pittsburgh.

But Mr. Chen’s political savvy has not translated well in the complex and fiercely partisan terrain he has encountered in the United States. Even before he could recover from jet lag in May 2012, Mr. Chen was besieged by human rights activists, opponents of abortion and an array of politicians from both parties eager to harness the celebrity wattage of the man who stood up to the Chinese Communist Party.

His sponsors at New York University cautioned Mr. Chen to stay clear of a partisan minefield he did not understand. “I told Chen there was a presidential election coming up and he should spend a year studying the American political landscape before wading in,” said Jerome A. Cohen, a law professor and close confidant.

That advice, friends say, never really sank in, and Mr. Chen, 41, has found himself enmeshed in controversy. Backed by a coterie of conservative figures, Mr. Chen has publicly accused N.Y.U. of bowing to Chinese government pressure and prematurely ending his fellowship this summer. The university says the fellowship was intended to be for only one year. Some of those around Mr. Chen also accuse the university of trying to shield him from conservative activists.

The sparring has grown fierce, with N.Y.U. officials accusing one of those conservative activists, Bob Fu, the president of a Texas-based Christian group that seeks to pressure China over its religious restrictions, of trying to track Mr. Chen surreptitiously through a cellphone and a tablet computer that Mr. Fu’s organization donated to him.

The controversy kicked up by Mr. Chen’s accusations against N.Y.U. have dismayed some of his supporters so much that a wealthy donor who had pledged to finance a three-year visiting scholar position for him at Fordham University recently withdrew the offer. That means Mr. Chen, who declined to be interviewed for this article and who returns to New York from a visit to Taiwan on Thursday, has to line up another source of financing. If that does not pan out, he will be left with a single job offer: from the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative research organization in New Jersey that is perhaps best known for its opposition to same-sex marriage and stem cell research.

The sniping has become a distraction from Mr. Chen’s work pressuring Beijing, but he is by no means the first Chinese activist to find his voice muted after arriving on American shores.

Since the late 1980s, a long list of high-profile Chinese exiles who were granted refuge in the United State have found their work diminished, or their reputations compromised. Some, like Chai Ling, a student organizer during the Tiananmen protests who later embraced evangelical Christianity, alienated many of her supporters by repeatedly suing the creators of a documentary that she says defamed her. Wei Jingsheng, who spent 18 years in Chinese prisons for his pro-democracy activism, was feted by Congress and human rights groups after his arrival in 1997, but later became far less prominent after feuding with other activists.

“You have to be a tough nut to be a dissident, but those same qualities don’t always serve them well outside China,” said Perry Link, a professor at the University of California, Riverside, who has helped many Chinese exiles adapt to life in the United States.

Friends of Mr. Chen say that he has been eager to solicit others’ advice, but that he has often been swayed by the last person with whom he spoke. Although they describe him as fiercely principled, they say he may have overestimated his ability to navigate the partisan shoals of American domestic politics. “Chen often told me he had no interest in siding with the Democratic or Republican Party, but that he was on the side of democracy and freedom,” said Hu Jia, a Chinese dissident who frequently speaks with him on Skype. “I think that maybe he got in over his head.”

Even before he landed at Newark Liberty Airport last year, veteran human rights advocates predicted a tug of war over Mr. Chen and his superhero élan, both among elected officials and the tangle of Chinese exile groups that often vie for attention and scarce financing.

John Kamm, the director of the Dui Hua Foundation, a San Francisco-based organization that advocates for Chinese political prisoners, said at the time that the prospect of someone with Mr. Chen’s profile coming to the United States was electrifying. “In the dissident community, someone with his kind of stature doesn’t come along every day,” Mr. Kamm said shortly before Mr. Chen arrived. “His face, with those sunglasses, is the kind of Che Guevara-like image you can stick on a T-shirt.”

Among those most eager to stake a claim on Mr. Chen’s celebrity was Mr. Fu, whose organization, China Aid, played a high-profile role in publicizing his long persecution at the hands of the local officials in Shandong Province, which included nearly six years of jail and house arrest.

Most dramatically, it was Mr. Fu, during a Congressional hearing convened by Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, who held aloft the cellphone that allowed Mr. Chen to plead for refuge in the United States as he recovered in a Beijing hospital from the injuries sustained during his escape.

NYT > Global Home

After Epic Escape From China, Exile Is Mired in Partisan U.S.