Trumping D.C.'s Progressive Pipe Dreams
The House voted this week, with 56 Democratic ayes, to stop the District of Columbia from letting noncitizens vote in local elections. Then a resolution to quash D.C. 'sanctuary' policies passed with 11 Democrats. Both must hurdle a Senate filibuster, but note this show of bipartisanship by Democrats afraid of unpopular progressive excesses.
Only U.S. citizens may vote in federal elections, but a few localities have experimented in recent years with letting aliens vote for mayor or school board. The D.C. City Council passed a law in 2022 to enfranchise noncitizens who have a mere 30 days of residency. That's a worse version of a bad idea, and Congress has a right to intervene, since D.C. is a federal enclave. A resolution to overturn the law in 2023 passed the House with 42 Democratic votes, but it didn't get through the Senate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
Live updates: Trump military parade, ‘No Kings' protests
Update: Date: 4 min ago Title: National Guard "twiddling their thumbs in LA" instead of stopping fentanyl trafficking, Gov. Newsom says Content: Members of the California National Guard federalized by President Donald Trump have been pulled away from efforts to stop the flow of fentanyl at the US-Mexico border, Gov. Gavin Newson claimed in a social media post yesterday. Newsom's comments on X were in response to a post by White House adviser Stephen Miller regarding the administration's border security priorities. 'You just pulled National Guard I placed at the border who were stopping fentanyl smuggling,' Newsom wrote. 'Now they're twiddling their thumbs in LA.' Remember: Trump federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard against Newsom's will, with orders to protect federal buildings and personnel amid immigration protests in Los Angeles. On Wednesday, Newsom said Trump's deployment of guard troops to LA also threatened the state's ability to respond to wildfires. Update: Date: 8 min ago Title: About 60 veterans and military families arrested last night at US Capitol protest after crossing police line Content: A group of roughly 60 individuals were arrested outside the US Capitol yesterday evening after breaching a police line of bike racks and moving toward steps leading to the Capitol Rotunda, according to the Capitol Police. The group, made up of veterans and military family members, planned a sit-in on the Capitol steps to protest President Donald Trump deploying the National Guard and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles, as well as a military parade today, according to a news release from organizers. A group of approximately 75 protesters were demonstrating peacefully at the Supreme Court, just across the street from the US Capitol, according to a statement from the Capitol Police. As the group was leaving the area, officers began establishing a perimeter of bike racks to keep the protesters away from the Capitol. 'A few people pushed the bike rack down and illegally crossed the police line while running towards the Rotunda Steps,' the Capitol Police said. 'Our officers immediately blocked the group and began making arrests.' Police said: 'All will be charged with unlawful demonstration and crossing a police line. Additional charges for some will include assault on a police officer and resisting arrest.' The protest was organized by two advocacy groups — About Face: Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace. The brief sit-in followed a rally and press conference, according to the organizers' news release. 'We want a future where we invest in care for veterans, in health care, and in education, not where we spend $50 million on a parade,' said Brittany Ramos DeBarros, an Army combat veteran and organizing director of About Face: Veterans Against the War, in a statement. Update: Date: 44 min ago Title: Here's where "No Kings" protests are expected to take place across the country today Content: Millions of Americans are expected to attend protests today in what organizers predict will be the strongest display of opposition to President Donald Trump's administration since he took office in January. More than 2,000 demonstrations across all 50 states have been planned through the 'No Kings' movement, which organizers say seeks to reject 'authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.' The mobilization is a direct response to Trump's military parade tonight celebrating the 250th anniversary of the US Army — which coincides with his 79th birthday. Update: Date: 2 min ago Title: Many GOP senators aren't attending Trump's military parade and one says he would've "recommended against" it Content: The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman said he would've advised against hosting a big military parade in Washington, DC — an unease with the event reflected by some of his fellow Senate Republicans. 'I would have recommended against the parade,' Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi told CNN when asked for his views on the event. Wicker, the chamber's top Republican with oversight of the military, said he would be out of town attending the Paris Air Show during the parade, which coincides with President Donald Trump's birthday. Most of the GOP senators surveyed by CNN this week said they did not plan to attend: • Senate Majority Leader John Thune won't be in DC for the parade. Asked about spending some $45 million on it at a time when many Republicans are demanding government austerity, he said: 'There are a lot of people who believe that's a cause worth celebrating.' • An aide to Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso said that after being at the White House twice this week, the senator would be back in Wyoming celebrating the Army's 250th birthday and Flag Day with his constituents. • Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, Senate Foreign Relations chairman, said he would miss the parade. 'Come on guys, we have lot of stuff to do. We have lots of parades in Washington,' he said. • Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas will also be at the air show in Paris, and Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma will be home celebrating his wedding anniversary, though he said he 'would love to see it.' • Sens. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Josh Hawley of Missouri, John Curtis of Utah, John Kennedy of Louisianna and Chuck Grassley all won't be there. One Republican with whom CNN spoke — Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall — told reporters Thursday he plans to attend the parade.
Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
Higher Oil Prices Mean Less GDP
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks after casting his ballot during the runoff ... More presidential election in Tehran on July 5, 2024. (Photo by ATTA KENARE / AFP) (Photo by ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty Images) The shale revolution has been a huge boon for America, producing an enormous amount of income, tax revenue and employment as well as reducing CO2 emissions. At the same time, by reducing our net oil imports, they have substantially improved our energy security. But the simple metric of net imports understates the complexity of energy security. Energy vulnerability is often treated as nothing more than reliance on imports from foreign countries, and that is certainly a crucial element but hardly the only one. Conversely, the fact that the U.S. still imports as much as eight million barrels a day of oil overstates our vulnerability: lost imports would not mean a shortage for domestic consumers, as that oil is swapped out for domestic supplies for the sake of economic efficiency, and producers can simply retain crude that is currently exported. The Figure below breaks down the source of gross imports; the decline in oil from OPEC is pronounced, while the rise of Canadian oil imports, due to higher oil sands production, exaggerates the security of our supply, albeit only slightly. U.S. Oil Imports (thousand barrels per day) On the one hand, despite ongoing tension with Canada, they are unlikely to cut off sales to the U.S. for political reasons. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that in a new disruption of global oil supply, such as from unrest in Russia or war in the Middle East, Canadian oil would continue to be delivered to American refiners. In theory, Canada could use the U.S. for the transshipment of oil to better paying overseas customers, although given the globalized nature of the oil market, prices should not be significantly different elsewhere. Of course, should American politicians (foolishly) respond to a global oil crisis by restricting exports of domestic crude, U.S. oil prices would presumably drop below global prices, encouraging Canadian companies to export their oil elsewhere. Such a populist move by the U.S. would be detrimental and the impact multiplied if politicians tried to prevent Canadian companies from selling their oil onwards, mostly through the Gulf Coast ports. Should, say, a country like China offer attractive deals to Canadian companies for additional supply (similar to what happened in 1979), the political calculus becomes more complex. But this highlights another way the globalized oil market affects energy security: even if the U.S. is well-supplied with oil, a global oil crisis will translate into higher domestic oil prices. Absent political intervention, U.S. prices would rise to match global oil prices, meaning even with our current energy independence, a new oil crisis would inflict economic damage. Certainly, now that the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, higher oil prices would improve not worsen the trade balance. Still, sending the money from East Coast consumers to Southwest producers will have a deflationary impact on the economy because higher oil prices have an effect similar to a tax hike. Consumers would spend more for gasoline and reduce other spending accordingly. It is generally thought that a tax hike lowers GDP by 2-3 times the increased taxes, so that an increase in taxes equal to 1% of GDP yields a 2-3% reduction in GDP. Tax Increases Reduce GDP | NBER An oil price increase does not have precisely the same effect, because the money goes not from the private sector to the government but from one part of the private sector (consumers) to another (oil producers). Still, a $10/barrel increase in oil prices equates to roughly $35 billion in higher household expenditures, or about 0.1% of GDP. So, back of the envelope calculation suggests that GDP would drop somewhere on the order of 0.2% for every $10/barrel increase in oil prices. This effect is clearly seen in historical GDP data, as the figure below shows, although there are obviously many confounding factors. In all likelihood, the impact now would be less than in the past because our oil trade balance is positive; net exports, at 2 million barrels per day, will translate into modest but significant economic benefits. Still, in the case of a prolonged period of $100 per barrel oil, which many think could be achieved if the Middle East situation worsens significantly, a GDP loss of 0.5% is quite likely. Change in Real GDP (percent) At present, it appears unlikely that Middle Eastern oil supply will be affected by the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel. Attacks on shipping or the Straits of Hormuz would boost prices but are unlikely to persist beyond a few weeks. More worrisome would be an Israeli attack on Iranian oil facilities, although at present, such is not expected. So, $100 oil for several months would not automatically translate into a recession, but would have a notable impact on GDP growth, especially if the Fed raises interest rates as higher oil prices increase inflation. But an oil price spike will definitely worsen consumer and business confidence. As much as it would be nice for cash-rich Southwesterners to spend their increased income on Maine lobster and New England clam chowder, a prolonger period of higher oil prices--$100 or more—will be disruptive enough to threaten at least significant economic slowing and potentially tip us into a recession.
CNN
36 minutes ago
- CNN
Anti-Trump protests cap a week of free speech stress tests across America
Virtually every flashpoint in American politics right now involves the First Amendment right to free speech and free expression. Some of this tension is due to President Donald Trump, who vowed in his inaugural address to 'bring back free speech to America,' but who keeps showing that he wants some forms of speech to carry a great cost. From arrests of Palestinian activists to blitzes against universities to threats against demonstrators in Washington, DC, the Trump administration's actions and words have alarmed free speech organizations — and have fueled Saturday's 'No Kings' protests across the country. 'Trump's retaliation campaign against free speech has entered a new and even more dangerous phase,' Nora Benavidez, a civil rights and free speech attorney at the group Free Press, told CNN Friday. Get Reliable Sources newsletter Sign up here to receive Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter in your inbox. International human rights groups have taken notice. Amnesty International denounced Trump's recent claim that any protests during Saturday's Army parade would be met with 'very big force.' 'Now is a good moment to remind President Trump that protesting is a human right and that his administration is obligated to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly – not suppress them,' the group said in a statement. Between the military parade in DC and the anti-Trump demonstrations expected in all 50 states, Saturday is shaping up to be a huge show of — and test for — free speech rights. Ezra Levin, the co-founder of Indivisible, a progressive nonprofit, said Friday on CNN's 'Inside Politics' that 'we want to see people exercising their First Amendment rights, because when those rights are under threat, if you don't stand up in defense of them, you don't have those rights.' First Amendment freedoms — and concerns about whether they're being upheld — are a through-line of numerous legal battles and administration maneuvers. The editorial board of The Everett Herald in Washington state put it this way on Thursday: 'The First Amendment has been getting a workout in recent days. Even amid abuses of those rights, that's for the good.' It's also keeping advocacy groups very busy. Benavidez said the examples of Trump 'targeting perceived enemies and dissenting voices' with investigations and public intimidation are almost too extensive to list. 'This is all an escalation of the Trump administration's scheme to silence critics and weaken any institutional and societal checks against his abuse of power — all the while promoting a version of free speech that rewards capitulation and penalizes anything less,' she said. Trump officials and allies have repeatedly cited security risks while curtailing free speech rights, as in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate at the center of a high-profile deportation fight over his pro-Palestinian views. Security concerns were also invoked when Sen. Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference on Thursday. Rep. Nancy Pelosi condemned the handcuffing of Padilla by calling it 'an assault on freedom of speech in our country.' Press groups have also warned about potential First Amendment violations during the anti-ICE protests in L.A. and other cities. On Friday, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 60 media outlets, including CNN, sent a letter to federal, state, and local officials asking them to ensure that authorities uphold the rights of journalists to report on law enforcement activity without reprisal. These days, free versus restricted speech is not the relevant dividing line. Rather, it's favored versus disfavored speech — and Trump is very explicit about which is which. During his falling-out with Elon Musk, Trump said Musk would face 'very serious consequences' if he funded Democratic challengers to Republican candidates, a comment that many interpreted as a threat. In a recent interview with the New York Post, Trump boasted about 'getting rid of woke in our schools, our military, and just in our society,' claiming, 'You're not seeing woke anymore. It almost became illegal.' His recent assertion that masks are not allowed at protests was also seen, by civil liberties groups, as an infringement on the right to free expression. Meanwhile, the Trump administration's moves against media outlets like The Associated Press, Voice of America, NPR and PBS have spawned First Amendment lawsuits in recent weeks. Several of the targeted outlets cited Trump's claims about bias and 'fake news' to argue that the president committed viewpoint discrimination. Critics say various other actions — like deleting government websites and stripping books from shelves — have also been against the spirit, even when not against the letter, of the First Amendment. California Governor Gavin Newsom raised the subject in his address to the state on Tuesday night. Trump is 'delegitimizing news organizations and he's assaulting the First Amendment,' Newsom said. He concluded by telling residents, 'if you exercise your First Amendment rights, please, please do it peacefully.'
