"Joe Manchin always told me": A centrist Democrat explains why he sided with Republicans on the CR
In a call with a No Labels, a self-proclaimed centrist organization, Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, described his decision to vote for a Republican continuing resolution that stands to empower billionaire Elon Musk and President Donald Trump as him taking the 'high road.'
Golden, speaking Thursday just before Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced his support for the same CR, was the sole Democrat in the House to back the GOP plan, which pairs spending cuts with funding to keep the government open for another six months. Many Democrats expressed concern that, while the passage of the CR would avoid a government shutdown, it would also further empower Trump and Musk to make unilateral cuts to congressionally authorized programs.
Indeed, Politico reported this week that Vice President JD Vance promised House Republicans wary of approving more spending that the administration would pursue impoundment, which legal experts decry as an unconstitutional attempt to seize Congress' power of the purse.
During the No Labels event, however, Golden suggested that it was he who was standing up to the administration. 'I think people on the left are not really thinking this through, and they should be careful what they ask for,' he said in reference to people actively opposing the Republican bill.
'Anyways, Joe Manchin always told me, 'Don't — if you can't go home and explain something to people, then you probably ought not to vote for it.' And I can't explain what good would come out of a shutdown,' Golden said.
Golden continued: 'I also want to point out that right now, anyway, where [Trump] is exceeding his authority as president, the courts are doing a pretty good job so far.'
Asked about Vance's promise, Golden suggested in an email to Salon after the No Labels call that it didn't affect his decision.
"Statements by the vice president, or anyone else for that matter, didn't factor into my vote for the CR at all," Golden said. "I voted to keep government open because I know that right now a shutdown will make things worse, not better. A shutdown will mean more people going home without pay, more federal agencies having their doors closed."
The "real fight," Golden said, is coming up: "I voted to keep federal spending at more or less current levels through the end of the fiscal year and to keep the government's lights on so we can move on to the real fight, which is stopping the House GOP from using reconciliation to cut taxes for the wealthy while potentially taking health care away from hundreds of thousands of my constituents."
But plenty of Democrats disagree with that assessment.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., described her issues with the CR at a House Rules Committee hearing earlier this week, calling the bill a 'blank check' that allows Trump to 'keep impounding." The bill, she charged, is 'filled with cuts and policy changes while abandoning Congress' responsibility to decide how and why to spend taxpayer dollars.'
Impoundment refers to when the president decides not to spend money appropriated by Congress. The power is both statutorily illegal under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and constitutionally illegal as the Supreme Court ruled in Train v. City of New York.
Golden's remarks come as most House Democrats are urging their Senate counterparts to stand firm and oppose the Republican CR. No Labels, the group that hosted the Maine lawmaker, presents itself as a counterweight to progressives, but a review of its finances shows that it has often backed Republicans. In 2024, the group donated more than $1.6 million to Republicans, compared to $236,000 to Democrats. Golden himself received $2,000 from the group. Other Democrats the group supported by No Labels include Reps. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J.
While No Labels has historically sought to keep its donor roles a secret, an investigation by Mother Jones published in 2023 found that many of the group's wealthy benefactors are business moguls.Some of the donors include Michael Smith, the billionaire founder of Freeport LNG, who has donated millions of dollars to support Republican efforts to control the Senate, and Tom McInerney, a private-equity investor with connections to the Republican National Committee and GOP affiliated super-PACS.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
28 minutes ago
- Washington Post
‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has found himself in the center of the internet's spotlight after squaring off with President Donald Trump on social media over the deployment of military troops to counter protesters in Los Angeles. While police deployed tear gas and shot at protesters in Los Angeles with rubber bullets on Monday, Newsom shared a screenshot on TikTok of a Washington Post headline reporting that California would sue Trump over the National Guard's presence, paired with a trending sound sampled from the movie 'Mean Girls. ' The video was captioned 'We will not stand while Donald Trump illegally federalizes the National Guard' and was liked more than 255,000 times.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati

Associated Press
29 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required. Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.