What passed on Crossover Day at the Georgia General Assembly
Georgia state lawmakers worked overtime on Crossover Day on Thursday, advancing proposals to ban THC-infused drinks, require moped insurance and continue cutting the state's income tax.
Why it matters: Crossover Day is the last opportunity for a bill at the Georgia General Assembly to move from one chamber to another.
Though there are ways to get around it, the odds of legislation becoming law get pretty slim if the measure fails to pass the House or Senate by the end of Crossover Day.
Zoom in: Here are important pieces of legislation that passed Thursday.
Escaped the House
Income tax: State reps OK'd cutting the state income tax rate and sending up to $500 tax refunds — legislative priorities for Gov. Brian Kemp that cost nearly $2 billion — to Georgia residents.
Democrats said the tax cut would mostly benefit the affluent, with most people living on low and middle incomes seeing a roughly $70 annual benefit.
"Y'all, you can't even afford a dozen eggs for $6 a month," House Minority Whip Sam Park (D-Lawrenceville) said.
MARTA: Lawmakers approved MARTA's request to mount cameras on buses that will ticket the owners of cars parked in the Summerhill bus rapid transit-only line.
More Mulberry: A proposal to expand the city limits of the recently created City of Mulberry to include 45 houses, business and other properties passed with Democrats who represent the Gwinnett County area leading the opposition.
Vroom vroom: House reps overwhelmingly supported legislation requiring moped drivers to carry insurance to cover accident liability claims.
Survived the Senate
Cannabis and medical marijuana: Lawmakers added surprise language on legislation limiting the total amount of Delta-8 THC and Delta-9 THC in hemp-infused products with an outright ban on drinks with the psychoactive compounds.
Yes, but: Not long afterward, senators passed legislation upping the maximum potency of low-THC oil available through Georgia's medical marijuana program.
School safety: Named after victims of the Apalachee High School and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shootings, "Ricky and Alyssa's Law" would require school systems to install panic alarm systems.
The Senate also approved legislation that would make "terroristic threat of a school or terroristic act upon a school" a felony offense.
What's next: Lawmakers in the chamber across the Capitol get to craft — or in General Assembly-speak, "perfect" — laws that affect residents and businesses' rights, safety and bank accounts.
What's next: Lawmakers reconvene on Monday, March 10. Sine Die, the final day of the legislative session, is Friday, April 4.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
29 minutes ago
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. Brehm's attorney, Bradley Girard with Democracy Forward, expressed disappointment with the judge's decision. 'But in our parallel case, Rural Development Innovations v. Marocco, a grantee and two USADF employees have also challenged Marocco's unlawful appointment," Girard wrote in an email. "We are hopeful that the Court will reject the defendants' attempt to ignore the constitutional and statutory requirements for appointing board members to federal agencies.' That lawsuit 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.
an hour ago
Trump's actions in Los Angeles spur debate over deportation funds in his 'big, beautiful' bill
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in Congress includes more than tax breaks and spending cuts — it also seeks to pour billions of dollars into the administration's mass deportation agenda. Republican leaders capitalized Tuesday on the demonstrations in Los Angeles, where people are protesting Trump's immigration raids at Home Depot and other places, to make the case for swift passage of their sprawling 1,000-plus-page bill over staunch Democratic opposition. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the One Big Beautiful Bill Act delivers 'much-needed reinforcements,' including 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, $45 billion to expand migrant detention facilities and billions more to carry out at least 1 million deportations a year. 'All you have to do is look at what's happening in Los Angeles to realize that our law enforcement needs all the support that we can possibly give them,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. The focus on some $350 billion in national security funding comes as action on the massive package is lumbering along in Congress at a critical moment. Trump wants the bill on his desk by the Fourth of July. But Senate Republicans trying to heave it to passage without Democrats are also running up against objections from within their GOP ranks over the details. At the same time, Democrats are warning that Trump's executive reach into California — sending in the National Guard over the governor's objections and calling up the Marines — is inflaming tensions in what had been isolated protests in pockets of LA. They warned the president's heavy-handed approach has the potential to spread, if unchecked, to other communities nationwide. 'We are at a dangerous inflection point in our country,' said Rep. Jimmy Gomez, who represents the Los Angeles area. 'Trump created this political distraction to divide us and keep our focus away from his policies that are wreaking havoc on our economy and hurting working families," he said. "It's a deliberate attempt by Trump to incite unrest, test the limits of executive power and distract from the lawlessness of his administration.' At its core, the bill extends some $4.5 trillion in existing tax breaks that would otherwise expire at the end of the year without action in Congress, cutting some $1.4 trillion in spending over the decade to help offset costs. The Congressional Budget Office found the bill's changes to Medicaid and other programs would leave an estimated 10.9 million more people without health insurance and at least 3 million each month without food stamps from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. At the same time, CBO said the package will add some $2.4 trillion to deficits over the decade. One emerging area of concern for Republican leaders has been the bill's status before the Senate parliamentarian's office, which assesses whether the package complies with the strict rules used for legislation under the so-called budget reconciliation process. Late Monday, Republicans acknowledged potential 'red flags' coming from the parliamentarian's office that will require changes in the House bill before it can be sent to the Senate. Leaders are using the reconciliation process because it allows for simple majority passage in both chambers, were GOP majorities are razor-thin. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Republicans are preparing to address the concerns with a vote in the House, possibly as soon as this week, to change the package. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer seized on the House's upcoming do-over vote as a chance for Republicans who are dissatisfied with the package to reassert their leverage and 'force the bill back to the drawing board.' 'They say they don't like parts of the bill — now is their opportunity to change it,' Schumer said. On Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance was dispatched to speak with one GOP holdout, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has pushed for deeper spending reductions in the bill to prevent skyrocketing deficits from adding to the nation's $36 trillion debt load. Other Republican senators have raised concerns about the health care cuts. But Republicans are in agreement on border security, deportation and military funding, over the objections of Democrats who fought vigorously during the committee process to strip those provisions from the bill. The package includes about $150 billion for border security and deportation operations, including funding for hiring 10,000 new ICE officers — with what Johnson said are $10,000 hiring bonuses — as well as 3,000 new Border Patrol agents and other field operations and support staff. There's also funding for a daily detention capacity for 100,000 migrants and for flights for 1 million deportations annually. The package includes $46 billion for construction of Trump's long promised wall between the U.S.-Mexico border. Additionally, the bill includes $150 billion for the Pentagon, with $5 billion for the military deployment in support of border security, along with nearly $25 billion for Trump's 'Golden Dome' defense system over the U.S. Separately, the bill adds another $21 billion for the Coast Guard. Democrats have argued against the deportations, and warned that Trump appears to be stirring up protests so he can clamp down on migrant communities. Rep. Nanette Barragan — whose district represents the suburban city of Paramount, where the weekend Home Depot raid touched off protests — implored Americans: 'Listen to the words of this administration: They're using words like insurrection. They're using words like invasion.' She warned the administration is laying the groundwork for even steeper actions. 'That's a concern,' she said. 'That is dangerous. It's wrong.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Being a progressive activist made me miserable
Advertisement My anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms were at their worst when I was most invested in the left-wing ideology I'd built my professional and social life around. That all changed in late 2020, when I quit my job after months of growing disillusionment. I 'graduated' from therapy at that point, and over the following years, my mental health kept improving, despite fluctuating income and the eventual loss of formerly close connections. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up As my political views and social networks shifted, my emotional trajectory tracked with longstanding research showing that the further left a person's political views lean, the more likely they are to be diagnosed with certain kinds of mental or emotional distress. Researchers have documented a happiness gap between conservatives and liberals for decades. This pattern holds across Advertisement Such uncharitable assumptions about conservatives reflect a cultural problem that I believe at least partially drives this happiness gap: leftists' unwillingness to fairly consider other viewpoints or question their own. Though they are often well-intentioned, their culture subverts those intentions. Leftists often embrace negative beliefs and are often unwilling to rethink those beliefs — even when those beliefs distort or contradict reality. Sabrina Joy Stevens is a communications consultant. Sam Cruz For example, the belief that racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry are the root cause of inequalities and disparate outcomes ignores countless other macroeconomic, cultural, and natural conditions that affect people's choices and circumstances. This causes people on the left to misinterpret reality in divisive, anxiety-inducing ways that undermine their social and emotional well-being. Leftists' tendency toward self-segregation not only weakens the social support necessary for mental health, it makes it harder for them to encounter information that could help them abandon unhealthy ideas and thought patterns. It also increases the likelihood that they will spend more of their time surrounded by people who share their psychological struggles. By denigrating and dismissing perspectives they disagree with, many leftists forfeit opportunities to cultivate relationships and habits of mind that promote mental health. Advertisement My political evolution If there is anyone who should be a lifer in the lefty political camp, it's me. I am a college-educated Black woman raised by lifelong Democrats. I am an advocate by nature, with a lifelong passion for civil and human rights. I actually ran my first campaign in elementary school, unseating our safety patrol captain for abusing his power. After my dad survived the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, where he worked, I became an antiwar activist in the hope that peace activism could prevent more terrorism. In college, I joined multiple causes promoting environmentalism and fighting against animal cruelty, human rights abuses, sweatshop labor, mass incarceration, educational injustice, racial injustice, and gender inequality. I added union organizing to the list of my causes after being mistreated as a public school teacher in my early 20s, and eventually I became a professional communications strategist, working at several progressive advocacy organizations. I should note, though, that there is nothing inherently or exclusively 'progressive' about these causes. Any well-meaning person could take an interest in promoting issues like workers' rights and environmental protection, because there are multiple ways to pursue cultural and policy shifts that support those goals. But after years of learning from left-leaning professors, and especially after enduring ideological purity conflicts where more militant left-wing partisans convert, silence, or push out peers who are less committed to leftist ideology, I conformed. To fully advance civil and human rights, I believed, being a leftist was required. Advertisement My disenchantment with left-wing ideology began during the spring of 2020, when the disconnect between progressives' alarming rhetoric — such as the assertion that racism constituted a deadly pandemic of its own — and our unserious actions became too frustrating for me to ignore. Then, as now, professional progressives and left-leaning politicians claimed that our country was all but collapsing under the weight of bigotry and fascism. Yet we continued the same performative protests, petitions, and social media stunts as ever. Meanwhile, more-militant leftists responded to the perceived urgency of the moment by rioting. Hearing our narratives echoed by those destroying ordinary people's livelihoods and property disturbed me. This began a process of investigating whether the ideas I'd been steeped in were actually based in reality. That prompted me to reexamine and eventually abandon the 'systemic injustice' worldview I learned in college and subsequent activist spaces, along with the accompanying 'oppressors versus victims' narrative. Though I would never want to relive 2020's public health, political, or economic crises, I am grateful for the way they disrupted the echo chambers I used to inhabit. That enabled me to engage with contradictory evidence and spot logical fallacies in my political beliefs that were harder to notice when I was constantly surrounded by like-minded people. The enforcers of ideological conformity Lefty partisans' dominance of many influential professions and institutions makes rethinking harder to do. Though the 'progressive left' and 'establishment liberals' are estimated to account for just Advertisement It's important to note, however, that this dominance didn't happen by chance. It's the result of leftist pressure campaigns in various professions, institutions, and organizations. For example, left-wing activists in academia agitate to change curriculum, admissions, and hiring decisions in ways that promote their ideology in the classroom and beyond. They protest to get certain ideas taught and other ideas and speakers suppressed, and they use practices like Even spaces like online knitting communities and breastfeeding support groups have been beset by leftists Advertisement One field where left-wing activism has distorted public knowledge is climate science. Many climate activists believe that carbon emissions are the biggest threat to our future and that government interventions are the most important solution. Accordingly, the activist-approved narrative on climate focuses on dramatic information they hope will scare people into supporting such interventions. Longtime climate scientist how members of his field are incentivized to oversimplify and overemphasize climate change at the expense of other relevant information: 'I sacrificed contributing the most valuable knowledge for society in order for the research to be compatible with the confirmation bias of the editors and reviewers of the journals I was targeting.' Neither Pielke nor Brown ever denied the existence or significance of climate change. Nonetheless, left-wing climate activists and academics slandered both men as 'climate deniers,' 'unhinged,' 'irresponsible,' and so on. By discouraging scientists and journalists from sharing nuanced and practical explanations of our environmental challenges, militant climate activists have fostered an alarmist conversation that causes millions of people unnecessary anxiety. Thankfully, some researchers are finding the courage to stop self-censoring. But hardline activists and academics continue to label those who deviate even slightly from their approved narrative 'climate deniers,' which functions as a thought-stopping tactic. A more extreme example of this dynamic exists in the field promoting gender drugs and surgeries for youth. Gender activists within academia and prominent medical organizations built the alleged 'expert consensus' on these interventions with deceptive practices like In the communications training sessions I lead, I regularly warn clients against manipulating audiences through fear and anger — for example, by mislabeling reasonable objections as 'bigotry.' Not only does this poison public discourse, it sabotages campaigners' own mental health. I speak from experience here. The belief that entrenched, identity-based socioeconomic systems dictate most of our life outcomes fosters what psychologists call an external locus of control, Reflecting on my journals and medical history during my last few months of therapy, I noticed that my PTSD symptoms, from an experience I had suffered years before, had gotten considerably worse once I started working in progressive organizations. They peaked in 2018 and 2019 while I was working at a feminist legal organization. I spent my days there generating and consuming alarmist rhetoric for our internal and external campaigns, and my free time in a social media bubble full of people mirroring my then-obsessive Trump hatred. I spent multiple hours a day catastrophizing with my friends and colleagues, doing the exact opposite of what I was trying to learn in therapy. Around that same time, attorney Greg Lukianoff and psychologist Jonathan Haidt published 'The Coddling of the American Mind.' In that book, they share Lukianoff's hypothesis that by reinforcing politically induced cognitive distortions (for example, promoting the idea that controversial speech 'harms' marginalized people), colleges and universities were inadvertently performing reverse cognitive behavioral therapy on students. I ultimately found it very insightful, but only after ignoring it for years simply because my tribe hated Lukianoff and Haidt. Back when 'Coddling' debuted, Lukianoff and the organization he leads, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, held villain status in my circles because they opposed cancel culture and weren't aligned with our stance on Title IX regulations. and those accused of it' (emphasis added), was reasonable. But in our communications, we accused groups like this of demanding ' If leftists honestly examined the shortcomings of their beliefs, they could improve their mental and political prospects. But their pride often gets in their way. When you spend years vilifying anyone who disagrees with you, it's difficult to notice (much less concede) when they have a point. Particularly for those in academia and professional advocacy — whose incomes are tied up in their faulty beliefs — there's also a strong financial disincentive against rethinking. Academics whose work offends their most dogmatic colleagues risk not only their reputations but funding and career opportunities. Likewise, activist organizations that attempt to course-correct risk being financially and socially punished by the very supporters they helped to radicalize. That perverse incentive against self-correction is one of the many risks of building a supporter base on exaggerated, emotionally manipulative communications. Yet failing to adjust their approach is costing them credibility, while exacerbating burnout and mental illness among staff and supporters. I understand that dilemma. It cost me a lot to rethink my beliefs, but those losses hardly compare to the freedom I've gained by divesting from left-wing ideology and culture. Leaving the left allowed me to relax and reclaim the energy I previously spent feeling unjustifiably threatened by disagreement or stressing over how everything I think or do might be perceived by judgmental peers. Losing fake friends freed up space for real ones. Dropping unethical clients freed up space to pursue other passions and work with principled people who care more about solving problems than enforcing ideological conformity. Instead of vetting clients based on which 'side' they represent on an arbitrary political spectrum, I now consider whether they can show that their ideas and approaches would protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Rejecting demands for ideological purity freed me to deepen my Christian faith, follow evidence instead of emotional appeals, and develop an outlook on life that doesn't make me anxious or depressed. I've chosen political independence now. Doing this in a partisan environment is challenging, but reclaiming my reasoning and emotional well-being from unhealthy tribal dynamics has been well worth it. Doing good in the world doesn't have to feel terrible. Being 'part of the solution' doesn't require being part of a political tribe. It simply requires us to have the humility and curiosity to prioritize truth over personal validation, acknowledging that we're not always right and that those we consider opponents aren't always wrong.
