Latest news with #Democrat-friendly
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why an East Texas lawmaker wants to name I-35 through Austin after President Donald Trump
If Democrats are all aquiver over the prospect of carving the likeness of Donald Trump into the Harney Peak granite of Mount Rushmore, perhaps they'll like the idea of naming one of the most cursed and congested stretches of highway in Texas after the Republican president of the United States. Less than two months after U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Florida, introduced federal legislation to enshrine Trump alongside the images of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt in the iconic national monument in the Black Hills of South Dakota, Freshman Texas state Rep. Joanne Shofner of Nacogdoches raised the ante. Or maybe lowered it. Shofner, a first-term Republican, filed House Bill 5503, which would name the perennially bogged down Interstate 35 through the heart of Democrat-friendly Austin after the president. Ironically, the highway's name change would begin and end at the Travis County boundaries just about where I-35 starts snaking through countryside that's a bit more hospitable to Trump. If the measure passes — and it's a big "if" considering that six of the seven House members and two of the three senators representing Travis County are Democrats — Shofner, whose East Texas district is some 230 miles from the exit on I-35 that leads to the Capitol, said it'd be an appropriate name change to the highway that bisects the city that serves as the seat of state government. More: Honk if you agree: Austin's I-35 ranked among top congested roads in Texas, worst for truck traffic "It is fitting that this designation is located in our state capital, recognizing a president whose impact on Texas and the country is profound and enduring," she said in a news release that lavishes praise on Trump's return to the White House. Some on social media suggested the proposal is a dig at the Democrats who control the city's and county's governments. "If that's not a pointy finger in the eye of deep blue Austin, I don't know what is," the conservative newsletter, Shooting News Weekly, said in a post on X. Shofner said that is not the purpose of her bill. "It's not a poke in the eye of beautiful Austin," she told the American-Statesman. "I'm not like that." Still, some couldn't resist noting the antipathy for the interstate in Austin. "People hate IH35 already," former Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who is both a Republican and a Trump critic, said on X. "This ain't gonna help." According to a 2024 analysis by the Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University, the 8-mile stretch of I-35 between U.S. 290 and Texas 71, which includes the double-decked portion through the heart of downtown Austin, has the the highest "congestion cost" in the state. That refers to the "monetary value of the time, fuel, and other resources wasted due to traffic congestion," according to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Trump would not be the first president to have a major highway named for him in Texas. Just four days after Democratic President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, Nueces County commissioners renamed what was then called the Padre Island Causeway in his honor. Kennedy's successor and native Texan, Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson, became the namesake for I-635, a beltway that opened in 1959 as an alternative to the I-35 East that allowed motorists to bypass downtown Dallas' heavier traffic. The highway was named for LBJ in 1974, the year after his death. The President George Bush Turnpike is part of a toll road network that was designed and built to relieve pressure on the highway system serving the suburbs on the outer loop of the greater Dallas area. While those presidential projects were aimed at relieving congestion or connecting a destination beach island to the mainland, a Trump highway through Austin might be viewed by some as an homage to gridlock. "No one is awful enough to deserve to have I-35 named after them," said an X user who calls himself "a political heretic." "I can't condone such cruelty." This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Should Texas Legislature name I-35 in Austin after Donald Trump?
Yahoo
07-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Democrats fighting Trump's government reforms are waging a losing battle
Democrats have gone to the mattress against Donald Trump. Not to protest his immigration crackdown, his intention to shut down the Department of Education, his tariffs or any of the other controversial policies the new president has proposed in the past two weeks. No, Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to protect the federal bureaucracy. Just recently, Senate Democrats took the extreme measure of filibustering through the night to decry the nomination of Russell Vought, Trump's nominee to head the White House budget office and, more broadly, the new administration's efforts to cut wasteful government spending. Historically, Senate filibusters have supported civil rights legislation or opposed ObamaCare — you know, consequential issues. Vought, a fellow likely familiar to few Americans and a veteran of the prior Trump administration, must be flattered. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared 'We're going to be speaking all night. We want Americans, every hour, whether it's 8 p.m. or 3 a.m., to hear how bad Russell Vought is.' In reality, probably not many Americans tuned into what even the Democrat-friendly New York Times called a 'performative protest.' Republicans only need a majority to confirm nominees; they have that. What exactly are Democratics so wound up about? They are incensed that Elon Musk and his DOGE posse are turning over the rocks and exposing corruption and waste in the federal government. Progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are screeching that Americans did not elect Musk president, while others portray the world's richest man as a grifter hoping to line his own pockets. Seriously. Warren is right; no one elected Musk president, but they did elect Donald Trump, who was very open about his plan to cut down our bloated, redundant and wasteful bureaucracy — and who is very supportive of Musk's efforts. Hoping to get Musk tossed from the Trump train, Democrats and their allies in the liberal media are trying to drive a wedge between the Tesla founder and the president by noting the brilliant entrepreneur's critical role and growing clout. Recent stories in The Atlantic are typical: 'Elon Musk is President' declares one; another highlights 'Elon Musk's Bureaucratic Coup.' No doubt the left was sorely disappointed when the president recently vouched for Musk after he gained unprecedented access to the Treasury's payments systems. Trump said that Musk 'can't do and won't do anything without our approval,' suggesting that the SpaceX founder so far is acting within those bounds. Trump also said 'If there was something that didn't have my OK, I'd let you know about it very fast,' leaving no doubt about who's the boss. Democrats hate the idea of shrinking the 3 million-person federal workforce; after all, political contributions from the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing such workers, totaled $2.6 million in the last election, 96 percent of which went to Democrats. But what Democrats really hate is shining a spotlight on where U.S. taxpayer money is going. Hence the uproar about the U.S. Agency for International Development, which many on the right are blasting for having funded left-wing causes and for being utterly unaccountable. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), chair of the DOGE caucus, told Fox Digital that USAID has 'stonewalled' her office for years; she complains of wasted fund flowing to 'tourism in Lebanon, Sesame Street in Iraq, sending Ukrainians to Paris Fashion Week and so much more.' Secretary of State Marco Rubio also accuses USAID of being unresponsive and unwilling to cooperate with congressional oversight. He has taken over as temporary head of USAID; he says some existing programs will continue, but he wants to make sure that the $44 billion in taxpayer money annually spent by the agency is 'aligned with the national interest.' How could any elected official disagree? Especially when a majority of the country thinks that corruption, inefficiency and red tape are 'major problems' in the federal government. It turns out that while the Washington Post claims that 'Democracy Dies in Darkness,' Democrats today believe that democracy dies when the lights are turned on. And thanks to DOGE, serious wattage is shining on USAID. Elon Musk tweeted recently, 'Did you know that USAID, using YOUR tax dollars, funded bioweapon research, including Covid-19, that killed millions of people?' His note referenced another post claiming that 'USAID funneled $53 million to EcoHealth Alliance, which then used U.S. taxpayer funds to support gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab – research that likely led to the creation of Covid-19.' Musk has also called USAID a 'criminal organization' — tough words. But the agency's activities include a host of offensive programs and expenditure, including $15 million for condoms to the Taliban, $3,315,446 for 'being LGBTQ in the Caribbean,' $425,622 to help Indonesian coffee companies become more climate and gender friendly and $2.5 million to build electric vehicle charging stations in Vietnam's largest cities. Social media accounts reported recently that the left-leaning site Politico had received $8 million in recent years from USAID. Politico denied it had ever received government grants but acknowledged that government agencies, including USAID, held many subscriptions to their 'pro service.' Do taxpayers think this is a good use of their dollars? Does USAID also subscribe to the Wall Street Journal or other right-leaning news organizations? We are in the early innings of the effort to cut back on government waste, and Democrats are throwing up as many legal challenges as they can. Do they know we have a $36 trillion national debt, and that most Americans (by a wide margin) consistently think the U.S. government tries to do too much? Democrats look foolish opposing a genuine and promising effort to thin down our government. The more the American people hear about where their tax dollars go, the more absurd their protests will appear. Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim and Company. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
07-02-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Democrats fighting Trump's government reforms are waging a losing battle
Democrats have gone to the mattress against Donald Trump. Not to protest his immigration crackdown, his intention to shut down the Department of Education, his tariffs or any of the other controversial policies the new president has proposed in the past two weeks. No, Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to protect the federal bureaucracy. Just recently, Senate Democrats took the extreme measure of filibustering through the night to decry the nomination of Russell Vought, Trump's nominee to head the White House budget office and, more broadly, the new administration's efforts to cut wasteful government spending. Historically, Senate filibusters have supported civil rights legislation or opposed ObamaCare — you know, consequential issues. Vought, a fellow likely familiar to few Americans and a veteran of the prior Trump administration, must be flattered. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared 'We're going to be speaking all night. We want Americans, every hour, whether it's 8 p.m. or 3 a.m., to hear how bad Russell Vought is.' In reality, probably not many Americans tuned into what even the Democrat-friendly New York Times called a 'performative protest.' Republicans only need a majority to confirm nominees; they have that. What exactly are Democratics so wound up about? They are incensed that Elon Musk and his DOGE posse are turning over the rocks and exposing corruption and waste in the federal government. Progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are screeching that Americans did not elect Musk president, while others portray the world's richest man as a grifter hoping to line his own pockets. Seriously. Warren is right; no one elected Musk president, but they did elect Donald Trump, who was very open about his plan to cut down our bloated, redundant and wasteful bureaucracy — and who is very supportive of Musk's efforts. Hoping to get Musk tossed from the Trump train, Democrats and their allies in the liberal media are trying to drive a wedge between the Tesla founder and the president by noting the brilliant entrepreneur's critical role and growing clout. Recent stories in The Atlantic are typical: 'Elon Musk is President' declares one; another highlights 'Elon Musk's Bureaucratic Coup.' No doubt the left was sorely disappointed when the president recently vouched for Musk after he gained unprecedented access to the Treasury's payments systems. Trump said that Musk 'can't do and won't do anything without our approval,' suggesting that the SpaceX founder so far is acting within those bounds. Trump also said 'If there was something that didn't have my OK, I'd let you know about it very fast,' leaving no doubt about who's the boss. Democrats hate the idea of shrinking the 3 million-person federal workforce; after all, political contributions from the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing such workers, totaled $2.6 million in the last election, 96 percent of which went to Democrats. But what Democrats really hate is shining a spotlight on where U.S. taxpayer money is going. Hence the uproar about the U.S. Agency for International Development, which many on the right are blasting for having funded left-wing causes and for being utterly unaccountable. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), chair of the DOGE caucus, told Fox Digital that USAID has ' stonewalled ' her office for years; she complains of wasted fund flowing to 'tourism in Lebanon, Sesame Street in Iraq, sending Ukrainians to Paris Fashion Week and so much more.' Secretary of State Marco Rubio also accuses USAID of being unresponsive and unwilling to cooperate with congressional oversight. He has taken over as temporary head of USAID; he says some existing programs will continue, but he wants to make sure that the $44 billion in taxpayer money annually spent by the agency is 'aligned with the national interest.' How could any elected official disagree? Especially when a majority of the country thinks that corruption, inefficiency and red tape are 'major problems' in the federal government. It turns out that while the Washington Post claims that 'Democracy Dies in Darkness,' Democrats today believe that democracy dies when the lights are turned on. And thanks to DOGE, serious wattage is shining on USAID. Elon Musk tweeted recently, 'Did you know that USAID, using YOUR tax dollars, funded bioweapon research, including Covid-19, that killed millions of people?' His note referenced another post claiming that 'USAID funneled $53 million to EcoHealth Alliance, which then used U.S. taxpayer funds to support gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab – research that likely led to the creation of Covid-19.' Musk has also called USAID a 'criminal organization' — tough words. But the agency's activities include a host of offensive programs and expenditure, including $15 million for condoms to the Taliban, $3,315,446 for 'being LGBTQ in the Caribbean,' $425,622 to help Indonesian coffee companies become more climate and gender friendly and $2.5 million to build electric vehicle charging stations in Vietnam's largest cities. Social media accounts reported recently that the left-leaning site Politico had received $8 million in recent years from USAID. Politico denied it had ever received government grants but acknowledged that government agencies, including USAID, held many subscriptions to their 'pro service.' Do taxpayers think this is a good use of their dollars? Does USAID also subscribe to the Wall Street Journal or other right-leaning news organizations? We are in the early innings of the effort to cut back on government waste, and Democrats are throwing up as many legal challenges as they can. Do they know we have a $36 trillion national debt, and that most Americans (by a wide margin) consistently think the U.S. government tries to do too much? Democrats look foolish opposing a genuine and promising effort to thin down our government. The more the American people hear about where their tax dollars go, the more absurd their protests will appear.
