Senate foes of Donald Trump’s border emergency near strength to win
Senate opponents of President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the Mexican border moved within a hair Thursday of having enough votes to prevail, and one Republican suggested he could face a rejection by the GOP-led chamber if he doesn’t change course. Trump’s move would “turn a border crisis into a constitutional crisis,” veteran Sen. Lamar Alexander said on the Senate floor. But he stopped just short of saying he’d support a resolution blocking the president’s move. Had Alexander pledged his vote, it would probably be enough for the Senate to pass a measure repealing the emergency declaration. Speaking later to reporters, Alexander, R-Tenn., warned about what might happen if Trump doesn’t settle for using other money he can access without declaring an emergency. “He can build a wall and avoid a dangerous precedent and I hope he’ll do that,” Alexander said. “So that would change the voting situation if he would agree to do that.” The Democratic-led House voted Tuesday to upend Trump’s move, which if left standing would let him circumvent Congress and funnel billions of extra dollars to build his proposed wall. The Senate is considering the measure. Exactly what the Senate will vote on remains unclear. Several Republicans said that behind closed doors, they were considering several options for alternative language, including making it harder for future presidents to divert federal dollars to projects of their choosing by declaring emergencies. Republicans say a Senate vote is likely in two weeks. Trump has promised to veto the House-passed resolution. Congress appears all but certain to lack the two-thirds majorities in each chamber that would be needed to override his veto, but the showdown carries risks for GOP lawmakers. Underscoring that, Trump warned Republicans against challenging him. While the wall and other Trump moves curbing immigration elicit wide public opposition, he remains wildly popular with hard-right voters and GOP lawmakers cross him at their peril. “I really think that Republicans that vote against border security and the wall, I think you know, I’ve been OK at predicting things, I think they put themselves at great jeopardy,” Trump said in excerpts of an interview with Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” show released Thursday. While congressional Republican are reluctant to challenge Trump, many say his move tramples Congress constitutional power to control spending. They also say it would set a precedent for future Democratic presidents to declare emergencies for their own purposes, and they worry that he would siphon money to barrier construction from home-state projects. Alexander, a three-term senator who will retire in 2021 and is known for reaching across the aisle, has no re-election worries. “I support what the president wants to do on border security, but not the way he has been advised to do it,” said Alexander, 78. “It is unnecessary and unwise to turn a border crisis into a constitutional crisis about separation of powers.” Presidents have declared 58 national emergencies under a 1976 law. But never has one declared an emergency after Congress had explicitly denied the money in question. GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina have said they will vote to derail the emergency declaration. Just four would be needed to send the measure to Trump for his promised veto, assuming that all 47 Democrats and their independent allies vote as expected to confront the president. By law, the resolution cannot be filibustered and would need just a majority of 51 votes to pass the Senate. Congress has voted to limit spending for barriers to just under $1.4 billion. Trump featured the wall as a central plank of his presidential campaign and repeatedly said Mexico would pay for it, which hasn’t happened. Trump has said he needs additional barriers to halt drugs, human traffickers and unauthorized immigrants from slipping into the U.S. Opponents say there is no crisis. The emergency declaration would let Trump divert $3.6 billion from military construction to erect more border barriers. He’s invoking other authorities to transfer an additional $3.1 billion to construction. Lawsuits have been filed aimed at derailing the declaration, which could at least prevent Trump from getting the extra money for months or more. Meanwhile, Collins and three other moderate senators introduced their own resolution blocking the emergency. and three other moderate senators introduced their own resolution blocking the emergency. The proposal is identical to the one-sentence, House-approved measure. The new legislation gives the Senate and the four centrist sponsors — two Republicans and two Democrats — a chance to put their stamp on congressional opposition to Trump’s move. The other sponsors are Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Only Murkowski does not face re-election next year. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Bradley Byrne proposes federal tax credits to advance school choice
Alabama 1st District U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne took the lead on Thursday, joining his Senate colleague U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos at a press conference announcing legislation that supports the Trump administration renewed its push for school choice. At the press conference, Byrne announced the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act , which would give students and parents in Alabama and around the country the freedom they deserve to make educational decisions that are right for them. The legislation does this by offering $5 billion a year in federal tax credits for donations to scholarships for private schools and other educational programs. “Every student in America should have the opportunity to receive a high quality education, and we can help accomplish that goal through a new federal tax credit,” said Byrne. “This model has succeeded at creating opportunity for students in Alabama, and I am hopeful through this legislation we can create similar opportunities for students around the country. Byrne, continued, “I applaud the leadership of President Trump and Secretary DeVos to expand choice and freedom in education, and I am committed to working with them and Senator Cruz to see this legislation across the finish line.” The bill was developed in consultation with DeVos and Cruz, and is the Trump Administration’s official school choice proposal. It responds to president’s State of the Union call for school choice and builds upon the Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO) model that has already been successful in Alabama. DeVos says the legislation puts “individual needs of students above all else.” “Every student in America deserves to learn in an engaging, meaningful and personalized way. No student should be denied that opportunity simply because of where they live or their family income,” Secretary DeVos explained. “Education Freedom Scholarships will make a historic investment in our students and their futures, finally putting the individual needs of students above all else. I want to thank Congressman Byrne for his commitment to education freedom and for his continued leadership in Congress on this important issue.” According to Byrne, the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act will: Create an non-refundable federal tax credit for contributions from individuals and businesses to state-identified nonprofits called Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). Provide for the granting of scholarships to expand students’ access to a variety of educational opportunities, from advanced or remedial courses to private and home schooling to CTE opportunities. Increase opportunity for families to make informed decisions that work for them and their individual needs. Allow states to control their SGO programs, not the federal government. The Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act is supported by a variety of stakeholders, including the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Catholic Education, Agudath Israel of America, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, American Association of Christian Schools, Association of Christian Schools International, American Federation for Children, ExcelinEd, Americans for Tax Reform, & EdChoice.
USPS unveils new stamp in honor of Alabama’s 200th birthday
The United States Postal Service (USPS) on Saturday commemorated Alabama’s bicentennial and entry as the 22nd state in the union with the unveiling of the Alabama Statehood Forever stamp during the Alabama200 ceremony at the EarlyWorks Children’s Museum in Huntsville, Ala. “Since becoming America’s 22nd state on Dec. 14, 1819, Alabama has built a rich history grounded in the diversity, tradition and hard work of its people, and the natural beauty and wonderment of its land,” said USPS Acting Chief Human Resources Officer Isaac Cronkhite, who officially dedicated the stamp. “Alabama has been pivotal in the growth of our nation to constantly strive to be a more perfect union.” Joining Cronkhite to unveil the stamp were State Sen. Arthur Orr, Alabama Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh, Speaker of the House Mac McCutcheon, County Commission Chairman Dale Strong, Constitution Hall Executive Director Bart Williams, Madison Mayor Paul Finley and Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle. The stamp The Alabama Statehood Forever stamp features an existing photograph taken at sunset in Cheaha State Park. Alabama photographer Joe Miller shot the picture from the park’s Pulpit Rock Trail, and Pulpit Rock is visible in the foreground. Greg Breeding designed the stamp with Art Director William Gicker. According to the USPS, customers may purchase the Alabama Statehood Forever stamp at The Postal Store at usps.com/shop, by calling 800-STAMP24 (800-782-6724), by mail through USA Philatelic, or at Post Office locations nationwide. Forever stamps will always be equal in value to the current First-Class Mail 1-ounce price.
Future Farmers of America changes with the times
Even as agriculture has changed over the years, Future Farmers of Alabama says it’s remaining relevant. Students in the program learn leadership and public speaking — skills being lost over time with technology and communicating through texting, officials said at a recent event in southeast Alabama. Leadership and communication skills have always been key parts of the FFA’s mission, The Dothan Eagle reported . To earn a state farmer degree in 1929, members had to be able to lead a group discussion for 40 minutes and be involved in school activities such as the debate team. As times changed, some tasks are no longer required for a state farmer degree, such as passing a test of which chickens to remove from a flock because they’re ill, injured or inferior, and a test of handsaw-sharpening. At a recent ceremony in Dale County, schools Superintendent Ben Baker signed a proclamation declaring FFA Week for Dale County Schools. He was surrounded by organization members dressed in the blue corduroy jackets made the group’s official dress in 1933. Dale County agricultural teacher and FFA adviser Emily Soles found the Dale County location appropriate since one of the original signees of the Alabama charter, Jim Espy, was from Midland City. Espy and Ozark native Loyd Ezell both served on the executive committee of the state organization in 1929 and signed the state charter into existence. Students drive the organization, and cannot be successful without competent and willing student leaders, the Dothan newspaper reported. Though participation in FFA has slackened over the years due to a lack of student involvement, interest is still strong, Soles said. “It has been picking up,” she said. “We have some awesome leaders who are planning a lot of activities for the group.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
No deal: Donald Trump, Kim Jong Un summit collapses over sanctions impasse
Talks between President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un collapsed Thursday after the two sides failed to bridge a standoff over U.S. sanctions, a dispiriting end to high-stakes meetings meant to disarm a global nuclear threat. Trump blamed the breakdown on North Korea’s insistence that all the punishing sanctions the U.S. has imposed on Pyongyang be lifted without the North committing to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. “Sometimes you have to walk,” Trump explained at a closing news conference after the summit was abruptly cut short. He said there had been a proposed agreement that was “ready to be signed.” “I’d much rather do it right than do it fast,” Trump said. “We’re in position to do something very special.” Mere hours after both nations had seemed hopeful of a deal, the two leaders’ motorcades roared away from the downtown Hanoi summit site within minutes of each other, their lunch canceled and a signing ceremony scuttled. The president’s closing news conference was hurriedly moved up, and he departed for Washington more than two hours ahead of schedule. The disintegration of talks came after Trump and Kim had appeared to be ready to inch toward normalizing relations between their still technically warring nations and as the American leader dampened expectations that their negotiations would yield an agreement by North Korea to take concrete steps toward ending a nuclear program that Pyongyang likely sees as its strongest security guarantee. In something of a role reversal, Trump had deliberately ratcheted down some of the pressure on North Korea, abandoning his fiery rhetoric and declaring that he wanted the “right deal” over a rushed agreement. For his part, Kim, when asked whether he was ready to denuclearize, had said, “If I’m not willing to do that I won’t be here right now.” The breakdown denied Trump a much-needed triumph amid growing domestic turmoil back home, including congressional testimony this week by his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who called Trump a “racist” and “con man” and claimed prior knowledge that WikiLeaks would release emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. North Korea’s state media made no immediate comment on the diplomatic impasse, and Kim remained in his locked-down hotel after leaving the summit venue. The North Korean leader was scheduled to meet with top Vietnamese leaders on Friday and leave Saturday on his armored train for the long return trip, through China, to North Korea. Trump insisted his relations with Kim remained warm, but he did not commit to having a third summit with the North Korean leader, saying a possible next meeting “may not be for a long time.” Though both he and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said significant progress had been made in Hanoi, the two sides appeared to be galaxies apart on an agreement that would live up to U.S. stated goals. “Basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn’t do that,” Trump told reporters. Kim, he explained, appeared willing to close his country’s main nuclear facility, the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center, if the sanctions were lifted. But that would leave him with missiles, warheads and weapon systems, Pompeo said. There are also suspected hidden nuclear fuel production sites around the country. “We couldn’t quite get there today,” Pompeo said, minimizing what seemed to be a chasm between the two sides. Longstanding U.S. policy has insisted that U.S. sanctions on North Korea would not be lifted until that country committed to, if not concluded, complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization. Trump declined to restate that goal Thursday, insisting he wanted flexibility in talks with Kim. “I don’t want to put myself in that position from the standpoint of negotiation,” he said. White House aides stressed that Trump stood strong, and some observers evoked the 1987 Reykjavík summit between Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev, a meeting over nuclear weapons that ended without a deal but laid the groundwork for a future agreement. The failure in Hanoi laid bare a risk in Trump’s unpredictable negotiating style: Preferring one-on-one meetings with his foreign counterparts, his administration often eschews the staff-level work done in advance to assure a deal and envisions summits more as messaging opportunities than venues for hardline negotiation. There was disappointment and alarm in South Korea, whose liberal leader has been a leading orchestrator of the nuclear diplomacy and who needs a breakthrough to restart lucrative engagement projects with the impoverished North. Yonhap news agency said that the clock on the Korean Peninsula’s security situation has “turned back to zero” and diplomacy is now “at a crossroads.” The collapse was a dramatic turnaround from the optimism that surrounded the talks after the leaders’ dinner Wednesday and that had prompted the White House to list a signing ceremony on Trump’s official schedule for Thursday. The two leaders had seemed to find a point of agreement when Kim, who fielded questions from American journalists for the first time, was asked if the U.S. may open a liaison office in North Korea. Trump declared it “not a bad idea,” and Kim called it “welcomable.” Such an office would mark the first U.S. presence in North Korea and a significant grant to a country that has long been deliberately starved of international recognition. But questions persisted throughout the summit, including whether Kim was willing to make valuable concessions, what Trump would demand in the face of rising domestic turmoil and whether the meeting could yield far more concrete results than the leaders’ first summit, a meeting in Singapore less than a year ago that was long on dramatic imagery but short on tangible results. There had long been skepticism that Kim would be willing to give away the weapons his nation had spent decades developing and Pyongyang felt ensured its survival. But even after the summit ended, Trump praised Kim’s commitment to continue a moratorium on missile testing. Trump also said he believed the autocrat’s claim that he had nothing to do with the
House OKs Democrats’ bill blocking Trump emergency on wall
House Democrats have ignored a veto threat and passed legislation that would stymie President Donald Trump‘s bid for billions of extra dollars for a U.S.-Mexico border wall. The move has escalated a clash over whether he has abused his powers to advance the signature pledge of his 2016 campaign. The House’s 245-182 vote Tuesday to block Trump’s national emergency declaration fell well below the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override what would be the first veto of Trump’s presidency. Thirteen Republican backed the Democrats’ measure as top Republicans worked to keep defections as low as possible, wanting to avoid a tally suggesting that Trump’s hold on lawmakers was weakening. The issue is now before the Republican-run Senate, where there already were enough GOP defections to edge the resolution to the brink of passage. Vice President Mike Pence used a lunch with Republican senators at the Capitol to try keeping them aboard, citing a crisis at the border, but there were no signs he had succeeded. “I personally couldn’t handicap the outcome at this point,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who plans a vote within the next three weeks. He even said Republicans remained uncertain about the legality of Trump’s move. The showdown was forcing Republicans to cast uncomfortable votes pitting their support for a president popular with GOP voters against fears that his use of emergency powers would invite future Democratic presidents to do likewise. House Republicans who joined all voting Democrats to support the resolution included moderates from competitive districts such as Fred Upton of Michigan and libertarian-leaning conservatives like Thomas Massie from Kentucky. The White House, in a letter to lawmakers threatening a veto, said blocking the declaration would “undermine the administration’s ability to respond effectively to the ongoing crisis” at the border. Republicans said Democrats were driven by politics and a desire to oppose Trump at every turn. They said Trump had authority to declare an emergency to protect the country and they defended his claims of a crisis. “We are at war on the southern border with the drug cartels,” said Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas. Trump has asserted that barriers would stop drugs from Mexico from entering the U.S. In fact, government figures show that 90 percent of drugs intercepted from Mexico are caught at ports of entry, not remote areas where barriers would be constructed. Democrats said Republicans repeatedly accused former President Barack Obama of flouting the Constitution, which gives Congress control over spending, but are ignoring Trump’s effort to do the same. “Is your oath of office to Donald Trump, or is your oath of office to the Constitution?” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asked Republicans. Trump’s push for the wall reflected a continuation of the anti-immigrant views that helped fuel his election, some Democrats said. “Since when do we call human beings in need a national emergency?” said Mexican-born Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, D-Ill. “Is he running out of insults for people like me?” Democrats said the crisis is a fiction manufactured by Trump to evade Congress’ vote this month to provide less than $1.4 billion for barrier construction. That was well below the $5.7 billion Trump demanded as he forced a record-setting 35-day federal shutdown. “The president does not get to override Congress in a raucous temper tantrum over his inability to broker a deal” with lawmakers for more money, said Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, sponsor of the one-sentence measure blocking the declaration, called Trump’s move “constitutional vandalism.” Trump used a 1976 law to declare a national emergency and ordered the shift of $3.6 billion from military construction projects to wall building. Citing other powers, he intends to shift an additional $3.1 billion from Defense Department anti-drug efforts and a fund that collects seized assets. The money would be used to build steel barriers up to 30 feet tall and other barriers and for “law enforcement efforts,” said a White House statement. In the Senate, three Republicans have said they will back Democrats’ drive to block the emergency declaration: Maine’s Susan Collins, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis. One more GOP defection would provide enough votes to approve the Democratic measure, assuming all Democrats and their independent allies back it. Republicans said senators asked Pence numerous questions about which projects Trump would divert to pay for the wall, with Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., saying the discussion was “hearty.” Shelby, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which controls spending. said the committee would quickly “backfill” money for military construction with other funds he did not identify. “That issue won’t stay alive long,” Shelby told reporters. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the chief GOP vote counter, said there may be GOP attempts to amend the House measure, saying Republicans “think they have amendments that would improve it.” That suggests that McConnell may try finding a way to add language that could sink the Democratic resolution or, perhaps, make it more palatable for Republicans. The law requires the Senate to vote on a measure within 18 days of receiving it from the House. Though presidents have declared 58 emergencies under the law, this is the first aimed at acquiring money for an item Congress has explicitly refused to finance, according to Elizabeth Goitein, co-director for national security at New York University Law School’s Brennan Center for Justice. This is also the first time Congress has cast votes on whether to annul an emergency declaration, she said. Several lawsuits have been filed aimed at blocking the money, including by Democratic state attorneys general, and progressive and environmental groups. Those suits are likely to delay access to those funds for months or years. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Daniel Sutter: Amazon is not the king of Queens
Amazon announced last year that it would build part of its new second headquarters facility, dubbed HQ2, in Queens, New York. In February, Amazon abandoned these plans. The episode offers insights on government-business relations in America today. The saga began in September 2017 when Amazon requested proposals from cities to host HQ2 and its expected 50,000 jobs. The 238 proposals were cut to twenty finalists in January 2018. In November Amazon announced a split of HQ2 between Long Island City and Arlington, Virginia. Opposition in New York arose in part from the estimated $3 billion package of tax exemptions and targeted spending offered to Amazon. HQ2, for instance, would get its own heliport. Handing $3 billion in incentives to one of the world’s biggest companies and the world’s richest person, Jeff Bezos, understandably provoked anger. Targeted incentives for select businesses are commonplace in America today, even though I prefer lower taxes and regulation for all businesses. The New York tax exemptions, $2 billion of the $3 billion deal, must be viewed relative to the $27 billion in taxes the city and state were projected to collect from Amazon. This makes the exemptions look more like a loyal customer discount than a straight giveaway. Neither the city nor state had approved the incentives as of November’s announcement. For that matter, Virginia lawmakers also still had to approve their incentive package, which they did. The appointment of State Senator Michael Gianario, an ardent foe of the deal whose district includes Long Island City, to New York’s Public Authorities Control Board, which could block the deal, signaled a potential roadblock. HQ2 suggests that incentive packages may not be vital in business location decisions. Newark, New Jersey, offered Amazon a more generous deal ($7 billion) than New York. And Maryland also outbid Northern Virginia. Academic research fails to find clear links between incentives and location choices. Businesses might be playing cities to get a better deal where they plan to locate. Amazon’s pullout also illustrates the consequences of secretly negotiated incentive deals. HQ2 was relatively public, as the media reported both the 20 finalist cities and many details of the incentive packages. Often deal making remains more hidden. Alabama cities use code names for businesses being recruited, like in a spy novel. I understand businesses’ desire for secrecy, but incentives still rightfully require political approval. From a strategic point of view, secrecy likely forces the hand of politicians not participating in negotiations. The deal announcement creates perceptions of a fait accompli and gives opponents little time or opportunity to rally support. That Amazon desires an HQ2 outside of Seattle also makes sense, given the city’s recent anti-business measures. Most notable was 2018’s (eventually repealed) “Amazon tax,” a $275 annual tax per employee on large businesses to fund low income housing. Seattle has also enacted a special income tax on individuals earning over $250,000 a year and a $15 per hour minimum wage. These policies could readily reflect West Coast liberal politics. Or politicians may be taking advantage of Amazon’s considerable costs of relocating. Amazon has 45,000 employees in Seattle, with families and lives making them reluctant to move. Businesses often bear burdensome taxes and regulation before moving, allowing politicians space to do things which they think will improve their city. New York behaves similarly. The financial, banking, fashion, and art industries are unlikely to relocate, and the Big Apple offers a unique lifestyle. People accept the nation’s highest state and local taxes, laws preventing building which keeps apartments almost unaffordable, and burdens like their taxi regulations to live in New York. Why did Amazon think that life would be different in New York than Seattle? After competing vigorously for HQ2, some in New York decided that the prize was not worth having. The bidding for businesses has been called an economic war between the states. Perhaps it is time to negotiate a peace. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
