Latest news with #Democr
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's next move: Energizing Democrats in South Carolina and California
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will seek to energize activists at Democratic state conventions in South Carolina and California on Saturday, as the party's 2024 vice presidential nominee works to keep up the high national profile he gained when Kamala Harris selected him as her running mate. Walz, a former schoolteacher who went to Congress and then became his state's governor, will keynote the South Carolina gathering in Columbia, traditionally a showcase for national-level Democrats and White House hopefuls. Another leader who often appears on those lists, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, spoke Friday night at the party's fundraising dinner. South Carolina held the first Democratic presidential primary of the 2024 campaign, and the party hopes for a repeat as first in line in 2028. But the national party organizations haven't settled their 2028 calendars yet, and party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada are also vying to go first. 'From the classroom to the governor's office, Tim Walz leads with compassion and common sense,' the South Carolina party posted on social media earlier this month when it announced his appearance. 'He's proof that you can govern with both heart and backbone, and he's bringing that message to South Carolina.' Walz, who's on a long list of potential 2028 candidates who have been traveling to early-voting states, will also be a featured speaker as California Democrats gather in Anaheim on Saturday. 'We're fired up to welcome Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to the Convention stage in Anaheim,' state chair Rusty Hicks said in a statement. 'He's a former teacher, a veteran, and a trailblazer who's spent his career fighting for working families and standing up for the values we all share — fairness, dignity, and opportunity for all.' Democrats have been debating since Harris lost to President Donald Trump in November over which direction the party should take. That self-examination reflects deep frustrations among Democratic voters that their leaders are failing to put up enough resistance against Trump, who has taken a much more aggressive approach to his second term in the White House. Walz hasn't officially said if he'll seek a third term in 2026, but acknowledges he's thinking about it. He said in a recent interview with KSTP-TV that he would probably wait to decide until July, after he calls a special session of the closely divided Minnesota Legislature to finish work on the state's next budget. Those negotiations have gone slowly despite his frequent meetings with legislative leaders. He's given mixed signals on a 2028 presidential run while keeping up his attacks on Trump. He told The New Yorker Radio Hour for an interview that aired in March that he would 'certainly consider that' if circumstances were right. He told CNN's 'State of the Union' last month that he was 'not thinking about running in 2028.' But he hasn't ruled it out, either, and has signaled possible interest in other ways. Following the Democratic ticket's defeat in November, Walz returned to the road in March when he went to Iowa to launch a series of town halls in competitive congressional districts represented by Republicans, after House Speaker Mike Johnson advised GOP representatives to avoid holding town halls because of protests at them. Walz's gubernatorial campaign organization, which has been actively raising money, has used his travels in 'Support Tim on the Road' fundraising pitches. 'For the past few weeks, I've been showing up where Republicans won't,' he wrote in one recent message. 'I've hosted town halls in Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Texas to hear from people the GOP is neglecting.' ___
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's next move: Energizing Democrats in South Carolina and California
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will seek to energize activists at Democratic state conventions in South Carolina and California on Saturday, as the party's 2024 vice presidential nominee works to keep up the high national profile he gained when Kamala Harris selected him as her running mate. Walz, a former schoolteacher who went to Congress and then became his state's governor, will keynote the South Carolina gathering in Columbia, traditionally a showcase for national-level Democrats and White House hopefuls. Another leader who often appears on those lists, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, spoke Friday night at the party's fundraising dinner. South Carolina held the first Democratic presidential primary of the 2024 campaign, and the party hopes for a repeat as first in line in 2028. But the national party organizations haven't settled their 2028 calendars yet, and party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada are also vying to go first. 'From the classroom to the governor's office, Tim Walz leads with compassion and common sense,' the South Carolina party posted on social media earlier this month when it announced his appearance. 'He's proof that you can govern with both heart and backbone, and he's bringing that message to South Carolina.' Walz, who's on a long list of potential 2028 candidates who have been traveling to early-voting states, will also be a featured speaker as California Democrats gather in Anaheim on Saturday. 'We're fired up to welcome Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to the Convention stage in Anaheim,' state chair Rusty Hicks said in a statement. 'He's a former teacher, a veteran, and a trailblazer who's spent his career fighting for working families and standing up for the values we all share — fairness, dignity, and opportunity for all.' Democrats have been debating since Harris lost to President Donald Trump in November over which direction the party should take. That self-examination reflects deep frustrations among Democratic voters that their leaders are failing to put up enough resistance against Trump, who has taken a much more aggressive approach to his second term in the White House. Walz hasn't officially said if he'll seek a third term in 2026, but acknowledges he's thinking about it. He said in a recent interview with KSTP-TV that he would probably wait to decide until July, after he calls a special session of the closely divided Minnesota Legislature to finish work on the state's next budget. Those negotiations have gone slowly despite his frequent meetings with legislative leaders. He's given mixed signals on a 2028 presidential run while keeping up his attacks on Trump. He told The New Yorker Radio Hour for an interview that aired in March that he would 'certainly consider that' if circumstances were right. He told CNN's 'State of the Union' last month that he was 'not thinking about running in 2028.' But he hasn't ruled it out, either, and has signaled possible interest in other ways. Following the Democratic ticket's defeat in November, Walz returned to the road in March when he went to Iowa to launch a series of town halls in competitive congressional districts represented by Republicans, after House Speaker Mike Johnson advised GOP representatives to avoid holding town halls because of protests at them. Walz's gubernatorial campaign organization, which has been actively raising money, has used his travels in 'Support Tim on the Road' fundraising pitches. 'For the past few weeks, I've been showing up where Republicans won't,' he wrote in one recent message. 'I've hosted town halls in Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Texas to hear from people the GOP is neglecting.' ___
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Congress Must Vote on Tariffs
President Donald Trump's unilateral attempt at imposing tariffs has evolved into a quantum state. You probably already know that Trump has repeatedly threatened, imposed, paused, delayed, raised, lowered, and "chickened out" on various tariff plans. In the past 48 hours, things got even crazier. The Court of International Trade blocked most of Trump's tariffs with an injunction issued Wednesday, but that injunction was temporarily paused by a federal appeals court on Thursday. Meanwhile, a second federal court also ruled Thursday that the tariffs are unlawful. The tariffs, which constitute one of the largest tax increases in American history, are simultaneously active and unlawful, subject to change at the president's whim, and could be turned off once again within weeks (when the appeals court's temporary stay will be reviewed). As of this moment, that means an American importer doesn't know whether it is due a refund for tariffs already paid, or whether it will owe more taxes for the next shipment of goods. This is, obviously, no way to run tax policy. The good news is that there's an equally obvious solution to this mess—a solution that's been available since the beginning of this whole insane saga. Congress needs to vote on the tariffs. Now. This is true for both practical and constitutional reasons. The practical one should be obvious enough, given all the tariff-related chaos that Trump has unleashed. The economy needs certainty, and Congress can provide that by approving whatever tariff package can get the necessary votes in both chambers—and by restricting Trump's ability to keep making changes. For tariff advocates, the benefit of having a vote in Congress is putting an immediate end to the various lawsuits facing the administration's trade policies. In both lower court rulings that went against Trump, the judges did not say tariffs are unlawful. They said Trump did not have the authority to impose those tariffs, and that the power to do so rests with Congress. That brings us to the constitutional argument. Article I, Section 8 spells it out in no uncertain terms: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." Some members of Congress have been making this point for months. "Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax belongs to Congress—not the president," is how Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) likes to explain it. "Our Founders were clear: tax policy should never rest in the hands of one person." The closest thing we've seen to an actual congressional vote on tariff policy was a Senate vote on a resolution Paul proposed to cancel the tariffs Trump imposed on Canada and Mexico. It passed 51–48 but has not received a vote in the House (more on that in a moment). Paul also offered a second resolution to cancel Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs on nearly all imports, but that one failed because two senators likely to vote "yes" missed the vote. Over in the House, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D–Wash.) and some of her Democratic colleagues have been trying to force similar votes. "Before Trump attempts to reformulate his tariffs under a different law, Congress must settle this issue once and for all by passing legislation to require the president to come to Congress before imposing sweeping tariffs," she said this week, following the court ruling that blocked Trump's tariffs. The situation in the House has been made more complicated by Republican leaders, who have used a gimmick to block a proxy vote on the tariffs—along the lines of what Paul was able to force in the Senate. A resolution to cancel the supposed "emergency" underpinning the tariffs should be a privileged motion that can move directly to the House floor without going through committees. This is all a bit wonky, but the House Rules Committee has declared that, for the purposes of tariff resolutions, "days" on the House calendar are not actually days. As a result, DelBene's resolution is trapped in a sort of alternate dimension where time does not pass and therefore the proposal cannot be brought to the floor. Like I said at the beginning, the tariffs are in a quantum state. Congress could put an end to all of this insanity by writing a tariff bill and having a vote. You know, the way the system is supposed to work. What would that bill look like, and what sort of tariffs could pass? I don't have a clue, but that's the beauty of democratic government: lawmakers would have to find a version of Trump's tariff policy that has majority support—or would have to admit that there is no such thing. That's how every other tax policy gets made. Tariffs aren't any different. In a post on Truth Social on Thursday, Trump whined that the Court of International Trade's ruling this week "stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs," which he said would "completely destroy Presidential Power." Sorry, but no. That's simply what the Constitution requires. And, regardless, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claims the tariffs are part of the "mandate" Trump won from the voters last year. If so, then he should have no trouble getting a tariff bill through Congress. Plenty of other presidents have done that, and Trump is supposedly a great dealmaker. American businesses should not have to live under a tax policy that's subject to change day by day and hour by hour. After Trump's legal defeats this week, the path forward on tariff policy should be clear. Congress must decide. The post Congress Must Vote on Tariffs appeared first on
Miami Herald
23-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Amazon suspends Minnesota data center as lawmakers plan to reduce Big Tech tax breaks
Amazon says it has suspended plans for a massive data center in Becker, Minnesota, an announcement that comes after state lawmakers and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said they will reduce tax breaks for these projects. The Seattle-based tech giant said in a statement that it moved ahead with the project initially based on how quickly it thought it could obtain permits and utility agreements, but believes those timelines are now "more uncertain." "As a result, due to the uncertainty, we are redirecting more of our resources to focus on other projects that can provide capacity to our customers more quickly," the statement says. Amazon's project would be an Xcel customer, possibly its biggest. The project likely would cost billions to build, resulting in many construction jobs. Xcel's president in Minnesota, Ryan Long, said in an interview Thursday that "due to confidentiality" he couldn't comment on Amazon suspending the project. Long said he'd follow up after looking into "what exactly our obligations are." Becker city administrator Greg Lerud said Amazon had informed the city it was suspending work in Minnesota. "We are certainly disappointed in their decision to not proceed at this time, and hope the company reconsiders their decision as they continue to evaluate future development sites," Lerud said. The decision comes as state lawmakers are negotiating a package of legislation to govern the influx of these large-scale data centers in Minnesota. Last week, leaders at the Capitol said they agreed to eliminate a sales tax exemption on electricity for data centers. They will keep exemptions for computers, servers, software, cooling and energy equipment. Together the exemptions have been worth about $100 million a year for data center companies, though they could grow explosively. Minnesota electric utilities expect the industry to multiply nearly 40-fold. The electricity exemption makes up a small portion of the value of the tax breaks currently but would grow since the data centers use so much energy. Walz did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Some DFLers argue wealthy companies like Amazon don't need the tax breaks and that it amounts to corporate welfare. They pushed to limit the tax incentives at the Legislature this year. House GOP leaders also agreed to the roll back as part of the larger budget deal. Sen. Andrew Mathews, a Republican from Princeton who represents the Becker area, said Walz had "rolled out the red carpet for Amazon early in session" and promised to get the project done, but that he and some DFLers in the Legislature then did "nothing but try to stonewall and prolong" the regulatory process. "It's just going to put an astronomical tax hit on these hyperscalers in Minnesota that are going to consume a lot of energy and get taxed at an extremely high rate," Mathews said. "The growth of data centers are definitely coming, they just appear to be going to all of our neighboring states, except Minnesota because the Democrats are trying to drive them out of the state." There are small data centers in Minnesota, but none of the scale companies like Amazon have proposed. Facebook's parent company is building a data center in Rosemount, and developers have proposed at least 10 others. The Amazon project would have been the largest of the projects for which developers have disclosed public estimates of energy use. Lawmakers are still debating other issues, such as whether to extend the sales tax breaks that are set to expire in 2042, implement tougher rules to limit energy and water use, or impose new transparency requirements on data center companies. In February, Minnesota utility regulators said Amazon must prove it needed 250 backup diesel generators at the Becker site. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission voted 4-0 to reject the tech giant's request for an exemption from a "Certificate of Need." It was a first-of-its-kind test of how the state will regulate this wave of giant server farms. Amazon argued the law did not apply to its emergency generators because they would supply only the data center and not the larger grid. At the time, Becker officials said Amazon had suspended site-preparation work ahead of the ruling and told the city that a permit process could delay the project by two years and limit the size of the data center. After the ruling, Amazon would not say if the decision had affected their plans in Becker. The company sought to overturn the ruling at the Legislature by easing some requirements for proving a need for backup power. That legislation has drawn support from Republicans and some Democrats who hope the project will bring jobs and other economic benefits to the state, but opposition from a segment of DFLers who fear Amazon was trying to circumvent state rules and that its generators would pollute. The PUC declined to comment. Amazon hasn't ruled out revisiting the project. It plans to keep 348 acres of land it purchased in Becker that it purchased for $73.5 million in 2024. Xcel had sold the land shortly before to a third party for $7.7 million. The transaction drew criticism from consumer advocates who thought Xcel could have gotten a better return for its ratepayers. Xcel said it would rethink its land sale contracts as a result. Amazon's decision is a blow to Becker, which is losing tax revenue and jobs as Xcel's Sherco coal plant closes in phases by 2030. This is the second large data center to pull out of the city. In 2022, Google abandoned a plan for a $600 million project at the Sherco site. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - Food stamp reform excluding soda is a huge win for making America healthy again
The face of the 'Make America Healthy Again' movement is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Case in point: The secretary of Health and Human Services recently made a huge announcement that the Trump administration will let states ban the purchase of soda on food stamps. This is the biggest policy win yet for the MAHA movement — a common-sense reform that will help tens of millions of Americans make healthier choices while saving billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded health care spending. But RFK, Jr. cannot bring this reform to fruition on his own. That job falls to a rising star in the MAHA movement and a self-described 'MAHA mom' — Brooke Rollins. As secretary of Agriculture, Rollins oversees the food stamp program, which currently assists more than 40 million Americans putting food on the table. She knows that food stamps are intended to help people stay healthy. The formal name of the program is the 'Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,' with an emphasis on nutrition. But there's nothing nutritional about much of our food-stamp spending. About 23 percent of food stamp spending goes to soda and other unhealthy foods — about $25 billion a year, all told. This year, the food stamp program will pay nearly twice as much for unhealthy food as it will for fruits and vegetables. And over the next 10 years, food stamps will pay for an estimated $60 billion in soda alone. According to Rollins's department, soda is actually the single most popular item purchased on food stamps. This matters because soda and other unhealthy foods are proven to contribute to obesity and many other health-related problems. While that's bad news for everyone who is affected, it's especially bad for children — about 13 million of whom get food stamps. They're more likely to struggle with weight and other health challenges for life. And their health will likely be worse than their peers, because food-stamp recipients spend more money on unhealthy foods than people who aren't on the program. Taxpayers should help these kids lead their best lives — not hurt them for the rest of their lives. And taxpayers also should be protected from the high cost of unhealthy foods. Most food-stamp recipients are also on Medicaid, and when their health worsens because of soda and junk food, taxpayers cover the tab of treatment, too. Obesity-related treatments cost taxpayers at least $60 billion annually. By reforming food stamps, taxpayers will save billions of dollars even as they help improve millions of lives. No wonder Brooke Rollins, that 'MAHA Mom,' is leading the reform of food stamps. After RFK Jr.'s recent announcement, she said that she'll grant waivers to states that want to refocus food stamps on healthy purchases. West Virginia and Utah will likely be the first states to formally ask for this freedom — and they won't be the last. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has also promised to request a waiver, and the Trump administration says that it's working with 16 governors. Even Democratic governors like California's Gavin Newsom and Colorado's Jared Polis have expressed interest — a sign of how popular and commonsense this idea is. This reform is a classic case of good policy making for good politics. Voters, especially suburban moms, have flocked to the Make America Healthy Again movement, and understandably so. They don't want their kids' lives to be ruined by unhealthy foods, and even if they aren't on food stamps, they want the program to be fixed in case they ever need it. Republicans, especially in the Trump administration, want to keep these voters, many of whom had avoided the GOP until 2024. Democrats want to win them back after making inroads with suburban moms in the 2010s. Hence why leaders in both parties are moving to restore some sense of healthiness to food stamps. Whatever the reason, the Make America Healthy Again movement has entered the new territory of turning its sweeping vision into concrete and potentially bipartisan reforms. Kennedy will no doubt continue to lead the public charge. Right alongside is Rollins leading on nutrition public policy — a MAHA mom empowering millions of families nationwide. Tarren Bragdon is CEO at the Foundation for Government Accountability. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
