Millennials and Generation Xers outvoted baby boomers in 2016, analysis finds

Millennials and Generation Xers outvoted baby boomers and older generations in the 2016 election, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Research Center.

In the election, millennials and Generation Xers cast 69.6 million votes, which is a slight majority of the 137.5 million votes cast nationwide, the analysis found. Baby boomers and older voters, meanwhile, cast 67.9 million votes.

Millennials were ages 18 to 35 last year and accounted for 25 percent of the vote while Gen Xers were 36 to 51 last year and accounted for 26 percent of the vote. The younger age group of the two cohorts cast 34 million votes last year, which is up from 18.4 million that the age group cast in 2008.

While Gen Xers slightly outvoted millennials in 2016, Pew says the millennial vote could surpass the older group in the 2020 presidential election.

Pew says that the baby boomer vote peaked in the 2004 presidential election with 50.1 million votes.

Source: US Government Class

Albuquerque mayor rails against ‘sanctuary’ label

Santa Fe New Mexican – Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday launched another salvo in his campaign against communities that have adopted immigrant-friendly policies, telling four U.S. cities — including Albuquerque — his Department of Justice might deny them new federal crime-fighting resources if they do not prove they will offer sufficient cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

One problem: Albuquerque is not a so-called sanctuary city.

The Justice Department missive prompted Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry to write to Sessions to tout his city’s collaboration with federal immigration agents. Pushing back at Sessions’ comments about the danger of sanctuary jurisdictions, the Republican mayor emphasized his is not one.

Berry in 2010 rescinded the city’s sanctuary policy and enacted guidelines to facilitate “a narrow and focused partnership” with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that allows agents “access” to people arrested for crimes at the city’s Prisoner Transport Center.

Nonetheless, the Justice Department on Thursday morning singled out New Mexico’s largest city — along with Baltimore, San Bernardino, Calif., and Stockton, Calif. — in letters that inquired about each city’s “commitment to reducing violent crime stemming from illegal immigration.”

Rhiannon Samuel, spokeswoman for Berry, said, “We are delving into why the feds would believe we are a sanctuary city for criminals when we have repeatedly said we are not.”

A Justice Department representative resisted that characterization.

“That’s not at all what we’re saying,” said Devin O’Malley, a department spokesman.

He said the Thursday letters have “nothing to do with what we think about these cities.” They are part of the department’s evaluation of the four cities for admittance to the new Public Safety Partnership program, O’Malley said, rather than a statement or suggestion about each city’s immigration policies.

“We’re just making sure the cities that want to become part of the Public Safety Partnership program are committed to reducing violent crime and protecting public safety,” he said.

The partnership program, launched earlier this summer, will deploy federal assistance to local communities to address gun violence, gang-related crime and drug trafficking.

Asked whether the dozen cities that already have joined the partnership program were sent similar letters, O’Malley said “considerations” of cooperative policies regarding illegal immigration “were taken into account.”

The letters delivered Thursday ask each city seeking to join the program to demonstrate by Aug. 18 that it is committed to reducing crime “stemming from illegal immigration.”

Specifically, Sessions’ agency wants to know whether the cities have rules in place to grant federal immigrant agents access to correctional or detention facilities, whether such facilities notify federal agents of the scheduled release date of an “alien” suspect at least 48 hours in advance and whether facilities would honor written requests to hold foreign nationals for up to 48 hours beyond scheduled release dates.

Berry, in his response, wrote, “Let me begin by emphasizing that Albuquerque, New Mexico, is not a city that in your words ‘protects criminals from immigrant enforcement’ and therefore we are not, in your words, a ‘sanctuary’ city.”

Berry said Immigration and Customs Enforcement staffing at the city Prisoner Transport Center had “decreased and ultimately stopped.”

He also said the Albuquerque Police Department does not have the resources to enforce federal immigration law and that any ICE agents that might screen criminal arrestees at the Prisoner Transport Center may “not engage in racial or other profiling” or interview victims or witnesses.

Meanwhile, the move to make federal resources contingent on immigration cooperation inflamed Democrats, immigrant activists and civil rights groups in the state.

“Sessions is now trying to bully the city of Albuquerque into becoming complicit in the targeting and persecuting of immigrant families,” said Rachel LaZar of El Centro, an Albuquerque-based Latino community organization.

Community organizer Marian Mendéz Cara decried “the impact that Mayor Berry’s shameful, Trump-like policies had when he invited ICE into the prisoner transport center — leading to the separation of our families as a result of a simple traffic violation.”

Micah McCoy, spokesman for the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Justice Department letter amounted to an ultimatum that would “make misery in the lives of immigrant families” and hamper local law enforcement efforts.

“Jeff Sessions doesn’t know what’s best for our city,” McCoy said.

U.S. Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, an Albuquerque Democrat who is running for governor, criticized the Justice Department’s “political directive.” Asking local officers to do more to enforce federal immigration laws, she said in a statement, “threatens to make cities like Albuquerque less safe.”

Damon Martinez, who was U.S. attorney for New Mexico until March, when he was asked to resign by Sessions, tweeted that the letter was “outrageous and completely opposite the [Justice Department] I knew for 16 years.”

Martinez, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Lujan Grisham’s congressional seat, added the hashtag #gladtheyfiredme.

Sessions in his brief tenure as attorney general has charted a more conservative course for the nation’s top law enforcement agency. Crackdowns on violent crime as well as illegal immigration have taken root at the center of his agenda. Sessions has put the screws to cities that have adopted a hands-off approach to helping enforce federal immigration laws, warning more than once they could lose federal funding.

“These policies are driven by politics and do not protect their citizens,” Sessions said Thursday. “We will fight them with every lawful tool available.”

Sessions’ latest measure would appear to have no immediate impact on Santa Fe — a longtime sanctuary city whose mayor, Javier Gonzales, has previously countered Sessions’ threats to withhold grant funding by saying the capital city’s policies are not in violation of any law.

Santa Fe joined an amicus brief with more than 30 other cities and counties earlier this year in a lawsuit seeking to spike President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at withholding funds from sanctuary cities.

City spokesman Matt Ross said Santa Fe was not planning to gain entry to the Public Safety Partnership. “Even if we were, I don’t think there would be interest in changing our policies,” he said.

Contact Tripp Stelnicki at 505-428-7626 or tstelnicki@sfnewmexican.com.

Source: US Government Class

What’s going on with the New York Times story on the Justice Department’s affirmative action plans?

FoxNews – The Justice Department is pushing back on a New York Times article that claimed officials were reshuffling resources in its civil rights division to go after colleges’ affirmative action policies. The story ignited a firestorm after it was published, with civil rights groups and Obama-era education officials quickly condemning the DOJ for what they perceived as an “assault on affirmative action.”

Late Wednesday, DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores issued a statement calling the press reports “inaccurate.”

“This Department of Justice has not received or issued any directive, memorandum, initiative, or policy related to university admissions in general,” she added. “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting all Americans from all forms of illegal race-based discriminations.”

Instead, Flores said the department was looking for lawyers to investigate a 2015 complaint filed with the Department of Education over Harvard University’s race-based quota system. The complaint alleges the Ivy-League school requires Asian students to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than black students.

Late Tuesday, The New York Times reported that it obtained an internal DOJ job announcement that sought lawyers interested in a project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

While the notice doesn’t come right out and say which races and ethnicities are considered by the Trump administration as “at risk” for discrimination, the reported implication was that Jeff Sessions’ DOJ could go after affirmative action policies.
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Those programs are meant to diversify campuses but The Times reported that the new effort could be used to sue universities over admissions that allegedly go too far and discriminate against white and Asian applicants.

The news triggered an avalanche of criticism directed at the DOJ.

NAACP Legal Defense Fund Associate Director Janai Nelson told Fox News the Trump administration’s “assault on affirmative action” is “a dismantling of the pillars of our democracy.

“This administration through this Justice Department is taking us backwards,” she said.

John King, former education secretary under President Obama, said he was “deeply disheartened” by the Trump administration’s “hard line against efforts to increase campus diversity rather than focusing on addressing the persistent opportunity gaps facing students of color and low-income students.”

Anurima Bhargava, who led the Educational Opportunities Section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under Obama, also called the reported move a “scare tactic” intended to “drum up a bunch of fear and intimidate schools who are trying to provide a pipeline to leadership for all Americans.”

When contacted by Fox News Wednesday morning, the DOJ stopped short of denying the existence of the job posting but insisted it wasn’t “a policy announcement.”

One senior U.S. government official told Fox News that the story in the Times appeared to assume that the memo referred to white students without evidence.

“Whenever there’s a credible allegation of discrimination on the basis of race, the department should look into it,” a DOJ official told Fox News.

Supporters and critics say the DOJ push is intended to target admissions programs that give blacks and Latino students an edge over applicants with similar academic records, the newspaper reported.

Affirmative action policies in the United States have been controversial almost from the start and have been fought in court.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of race in college admissions for the University of Texas, rejecting a challenge brought by a white student. In that case, the court ruled in favor of the university. The ruling made it easier for public colleges and universities to justify reasons for using race in the admissions process.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS USE OF RACE IN UNIVERSITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE

University of Virginia law professor Deborah Hellman questioned the claims made in the Times.

“The court has recently reaffirmed this positon, so why is the Justice Department looking into bringing cases?” Hellman told Fox News.

The Times also reported the DOJ is looking to redirect resources from the department’s civil rights division. Rather than run the operation through the DOJ’s Educational Opportunities Section, it will be handled by the division’s front office which is composed of Trump’s political appointees.

The Washington Post reported two sources had told them that hand-picked Trump appointees would run the project because the career staffers who specialize in education issues refused to take part, saying it was a violation of the DOJ’s long-term stance on civil rights in school admission policies.

Dennis Parker, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Radical Justice Program, said any DOJ push to roll back affirmative action policies would mark an “alarming shift in direction” that threatens progress made by civil rights advocates and the department itself.

Fox News’ Samantha Mendiguren, Bill Mears and Jake Gibson contributed to this report. 

Source: US Government Class

Report: Zuckerberg brings on former Clinton pollster for adviser role

CBS News – Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is dipping his toes back into the political world with his latest hire — former Hillary Clinton pollster, Joel Beneson, as a consultant, according to a new Politico report.

Beneson’s company, Beneson Strategy Group, will join Zuckerberg, along with his wife Priscilla Chan, to conduct research for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative — the duo’s philanthropic endeavor, according to a person familiar with the new hire.

The group’s priorities currently revolve around science and education-based projects — including aiding in the funding of research to cure childhood diseases, improving and supporting enabling technologies and empowering communities to provide education across the world.

“The only way that we reach our full human potential is if we’re able to unlock the gifts of every person around the world,” Zuckerberg and Chan write on the Initiative’s site.

Beneson was instrumental to both President Barack Obama and Clinton, serving as Mr. Obama’s former top adviser and later chief strategist to Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

The Democratic consultant joins another Obama-era alum on the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative — President Obama’s senior adviser in the White House, David Plouffe.

Plouffe currently leads the initiatives’s policy and advocacy team, bringing along his experience as campaign manager for Mr. Obama’s 2008 run.

While the hire does not necessarily signal Zuckerberg’s entrance to the political arena, it certainly fuels more rumors of a possible run for office. The social media titan continues his cross-country “listening tour” with Americans, even stopping in for surprise dinners to talk about the presidential election. 

Source: US Government Class

White House pressures Senate to pass health care bill — or else

CBS News – WASHINGTON — The White House stepped up demands Sunday for revived congressional efforts on health care and suggested senators cancel their entire summer break, if needed, to pass legislation after failed votes last week.

Aides said President Trump is prepared in the coming days to end required payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act as part of a bid to let “Obamacare implode” and force the Senate to act.

It was all part of a weekend flurry of Trump tweets and other statements insisting the seven-year GOP quest to repeal former President Obama’s signature legislative achievement was not over.

“The president will not accept those who said it’s, quote, ‘Time to move on,’” White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said. Those were the words used by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., after the early Friday morning defeat of the GOP proposal.

Conway said Mr. Trump was deciding whether to act on his threat to end cost-sharing reduction payments, which are aimed at trimming out-of-pocket costs for lower-income people. “He’s going to make that decision this week, and that’s a decision that only he can make,” Conway said.

For seven years, Republicans have promised that once they took power, they would scrap Obama’s overhaul and pass a replacement. But that effort crashed most recently in the Senate Friday, and that’s when McConnell said it was time to focus on other policy matters.

Republicans hold a 52-48 majority in the Senate, where no Democrats voted for the GOP bill and three Republicans defected in the final vote Friday. One of the GOP defectors, Sen. John McCain, has since returned to Arizona for treatment for brain cancer.

“Don’t give up Republican senators, the World is watching: Repeal & Replace,” Mr. Trump said in a tweet.

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, when asked Sunday if no other legislative business should be taken up until the Senate acts again on health care, responded “yes.”

While the House has begun a five-week recess, the Senate is scheduled to work two more weeks before a summer break. McConnell has said the unfinished business includes addressing a backlog of executive and judicial nominations, coming ahead of a busy agenda in September that involves passing a defense spending bill and raising the government’s borrowing limit.

“In the White House’s view, they can’t move on in the Senate,” Mulvaney said, referring to health legislation. “They need to stay, they need to work, they need to pass something.”

Mr. Trump warned over the weekend that he would end federal subsidies for health care insurance for Congress and the rest of the country if the Senate didn’t act soon. He was referring in part to a federal contribution for lawmakers and their staffs, who were moved onto Obamacare insurance exchanges as part of the 2010 law.

“If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!” Mr. Trump tweeted.

The subsidies, totaling about $7 billion a year, help reduce deductibles and copayments for consumers with modest incomes. The Obama administration used its rule-making authority to set direct payments to insurers to help offset these costs. Mr. Trump inherited the payment structure, but he also has the power to end them.

The payments are the subject of a lawsuit brought by House Republicans over whether the health law specifically included a congressional appropriation for the money, as required under the Constitution. Mr. Trump has only guaranteed the payments through July, which ends Monday.

A new CBS Nation Tracker poll found 47 percent of Americans prefer a bipartisan approach to fix Obamacare over a full repeal.

While 62 percent disapprove of how the Mr. Trump is handling the issue.

The poll also found more than half of respondents describe Mr. Trump’s presidency as “chaotic.”

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the three Republican senators who voted against the GOP health bill on Friday, said she’s troubled by Mr. Trump’s claims that the insurance payments are a “bailout.” She said Mr. Trump’s threat to cut off payments would not change her opposition to the GOP health bill and stressed the cost-sharing reduction payments were critical to make insurance more affordable for low-income people.

“The uncertainty about whether that subsidy is going to continue from month to month is clearly contributing to the destabilization of the insurance markets, and that’s one thing that Congress needs to end,” said Collins, who wants lawmakers to appropriate money for the payments.

“I certainly hope the administration does not do anything in the meantime to hasten that collapse,” she added.

Mr. Trump previously said the law that he and others call “Obamacare” would collapse immediately whenever those payments stop. He has indicated a desire to halt the subsidies but so far has allowed them to continue on a month-to-month basis.

Conway spoke on “Fox News Sunday,” Mulvaney appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” and Collins was on CNN as well as NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Source: US Government Class

Putin orders cut of 755 personnel at U.S. missions

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Sunday that the U.S. diplomatic missions in Moscow and elsewhere in the country will have to reduce their staffs by 755 people, signaling a significant escalation in the Russian response to American sanctions over the Kremlin’s intervention in the 2016 presidential election.

The United States and Russia have expelled dozens of each other’s diplomats before — but Sunday’s statement, made by Putin in an interview with the Rossiya-1 television channel, indicated the single largest forced reduction in embassy staff, comparable only to the closing of the American diplomatic presence in the months following the Communist revolution in 1917.

In the interview, Putin said that the number of American diplomatic and technical personnel will be capped at 455 — equivalent to the number of their Russian counterparts working in the United States. Currently, close to 1,200 employees work at the United States’ embassy and consulates in Russia, according to U.S. and Russian data.

“More than a thousand employees — diplomats and technical employees — have worked and are still working in Russia these days,” Putin told journalist Vladimir Solovyov on a nationally televised news show Sunday evening. “Some 755 of them will have to terminate their activity.”

Putin’s remarks came during a 3½ -day trip by Vice President Pence to Eastern Europe to show U.S. support for countries that have chafed at interference from Moscow — Estonia, Georgia and Montenegro.

“The president has made it very clear that Russia’s destabilizing activities, its support for rogue regimes, its activities in Ukraine are unacceptable,” Pence said, when asked by reporters in Tallinn, Estonia, whether he expects Trump to sign the sanctions. “The president made very clear that very soon he will sign the sanctions from the Congress of the United States to reinforce that.

“As we make our intentions clear, we expect Russian behavior to change.”

On Sunday night, a senior State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said, “The Russian government has demanded the U.S. Mission to Russia limit total Mission staffing to 455 employees by September 1. This is a regrettable and uncalled for act. We are assessing the impact of such a limitation and how we will respond to it.”

The Kremlin had said Friday, as the Senate voted to strengthen sanctions on Russia, that some American diplomats would be expelled, but the size of the reduction is dramatic. It covers the main embassy in Moscow, as well as missions in St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Vladivostok.

The U.S. Embassy in Russia has been unable to provide exact numbers on the number of staff it employs in Russia. But according to a 2013 review by the State Department, of 1,200 employees of the American Mission in Moscow, 333 were U.S. nationals and 867 were foreign nationals, many of them probably local Russian support staff, including drivers, electricians, accountants and security guards. That would suggest that the majority of the 755 who must be cut would not be expelled from the country.

“This is a landmark moment,” Andrei Kolesnikov, a journalist for the newspaper Kommersant who regularly travels with Putin and has interviewed him extensively over the past 17 years, told the Post in an interview Friday. “His patience has seriously run out, and everything that he’s been putting off in this conflict, he’s now going to do.”

The Russian government is also seizing two diplomatic properties — a dacha, or country house, in a leafy neighborhood in Moscow and a warehouse — following the decision by the Obama administration in December to take possession of two Russian mansions in the United States.

The move comes as it has become apparent that Russia has abandoned its hopes for better relations with the United States under the Trump administration.

“I think retaliation is long, long overdue,” deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

“We have a very rich toolbox at our disposal,” Ryabkov said. “After the Senate . . . voted so overwhelmingly on a completely weird and unacceptable piece of legislation, it was the last drop.”

Hours later, Putin said during his evening interview that he expected relations between the United States and Russia to worsen and that Russia was likely to come up with other measures to counter American financial sanctions, which were passed by the House and Senate last week and which President Trump has said he will sign.

The reduction in U.S. diplomatic and technical staff is a response to President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats in December in response to the alleged Russian hacking of the mail servers of the Democratic National Committee. The United States also revoked access to two Russian diplomatic compounds on Maryland’s Eastern Shore and on Long Island. American officials said they were used for intelligence collection.

It is not yet clear how the State Department will reduce its staff in Russia. Some of the local staff were hired to help with a significant expansion of the U.S. embassy compound in Moscow.

After the State Department, the next largest agency presence in Moscow in the 2013 review belonged to the Defense Department, which had 26 employees working for the Defense Intelligence Agency (20 of them U.S. nationals) and 10 working for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (of whom nine were U.S. nationals).

The Library of Congress had two U.S. staff and two foreign staff, and NASA had eight U.S. staff and four foreign staff members.

There were 24 Marine security guards.

The move increases the likelihood of new, perhaps asymmetrical reprisals by the United States in coming days.

Michael McFaul, former ambassador to Russia, tweeted Sunday: “If these cuts are real, Russians should expect to wait weeks if not months to get visas to come to US.”

Ashley Parker in Tallinn, Estonia, and Carol Morello and Madhumita Murgia in Washington contributed to this report.

Source: US Government Class

Senate passes sanctions bill targeting Russia, Iran and North Korea

CBS News – The Senate has passed a sweeping sanctions package targeting Russia, Iran and North Korea with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, 97-2.

The U.S. House passed the sanctions package Tuesday in a 419-3 vote, sending the legislation to the Senate. The White House has not definitively said that President Trump will sign the bill, but the the measure won a veto-proof majority in both the House and Senate.

The measure — a reprimand for Russian interference in the 2016 election cycle, among other things — requires congressional approval before the president can ease or lift sanctions. The White House had criticized attempts to limit the president’s sanctions powers, but the legislation’s solid bipartisan support may be forcing the president’s hand. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Monday night aboard Air Force One said the president is “looking over” where the legislation stood.

Negotiators from the House and Senate came to an agreement on the legislation in recent days after it garnered overwhelming support in the Senate but stalled in the House. The Senate originally passed the legislation in a 98-2 vote in mid-June, but the House claimed the measure violated a clause in the Constitution that says bills that raise revenue for government must originate in the House.

Although the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act also punishes North Korea and Iran for their aggression, the Russia portion of the legislation has received the most attention, given Mr. Trump’s reluctance to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin or acknowledge Russian meddling in the election. The White House has focused on the need to stand up to Russia instead because of its intervention in Ukraine and Crimea.

According to the latest version of the legislation, Mr. Trump would have to send a report for any plan to ease sanctions to Congress, and Congress would have 30 days to accept or reject the plan.
© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Source: US Government Class

Senate Health Care Vote: What to Expect

New York Times – The Senate is expected to hold a procedural vote, called a motion to proceed, on health care as early as Tuesday afternoon. If successful, that vote would allow debate to begin on repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. The exact timing of the vote is not yet known, but the Senate is not scheduled to convene until noon. To follow all of the action on Capitol Hill, stay on this site for live coverage, including vote tracking, video and analysis.

What is the vote?
For years, Republicans have promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which was President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement. But they have struggled to find a consensus on how, exactly, to go about
dismantling the law and installing a replacement.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, says it is time for a vote.
On Tuesday, he will have the Senate vote on a motion to proceed — in this case, on whether to take up a health care repeal bill that narrowly passed the House in May.

Nobody expects that bill to become law. Instead, it would essentially serve as the vehicle for the Senate’s legislation. The House bill’s text would be swapped out for the Senate’s preferred language, whatever that ultimately is.
How does the vote math break down?

Republicans hold 52 seats in the Senate, and to be successful, they need a majority for the motion to proceed. In a deadlock, Vice President Mike Pence would break the tie in favor of proceeding.

Only days after announcing he has brain cancer, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, plans to return to the Senate on Tuesday. His presence means Mr. McConnell can afford for only two Republicans to vote against the motion. If Mr. McCain had been absent, Mr. McConnell would have been able to lose only a single Republican.

At least one defection is all but certain: Senator Susan Collins of Maine indicated on Monday that she would vote against proceeding in just about every imaginable circumstance.

Which senators are pivotal votes?
One big factor is what Mr. McConnell plans to do after the procedural vote. For example, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is an expected “no” vote if after On the other hand, Senators Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska indicated last week that they would not vote to proceed if Mr. McConnell afterward scheduled a vote on a bill to repeal the health law without providing a replacement.

In addition, a number of other Republican senators have expressed varying qualms, with varying degrees of certitude. They include Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Rob Portman of Ohio and Dean Heller of Nevada.
What happens if the vote succeeds?

Such a vote would start the debate in the Senate on health care. At some point, Mr. McConnell is expected to offer an amendment that would substitute a new measure for the text of the bill that passed the House. But it remains to be seen what that new measure would be. Republicans are trying to pass the bill using special budget rules that limit debate to 20 hours and prevent a Democratic filibuster.

What happens if the vote fails?
Republicans are not expected to abandon their repeal effort, but its future would appear bleak, at least in the short term.
“We’ll go back to the drawing board,” Senator John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the Republican leadership, said on “Fox News Sunday.” Of voting to repeal and replace the health law, he said, “It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when.”
Recent history provides some support for Mr. Thune’s optimism. The repeal bill in the House was declared dead before coming back to life — and Republicans there ultimately were successful in passing a bill.

Source: US Government Class

Employment rate improves in N.M. as tourism, construction hiring picks up

Santa Fe New Mexican – New Mexico’s unemployment rate improved last month but still ranked as the second-highest in the country, according to a national survey released Friday.

The state Department of Workforce Solutions said 6.4 percent of New Mexico workers were unemployed in June, down from 6.6 percent in May.

Only Alaska posted a higher unemployment rate last month, and New Mexico’s jobless numbers remained far above the national rate of 4.4 percent.

New Mexico has gained about 19,300 jobs during the last year, with the construction and hospitality industries driving that growth. But months of declines in manufacturing, mining and government employment have continued.

“In effect, what you’re seeing is gains in the private sector being offset by losses — and fairly steep losses — in the government sector,” said Jeff Mitchell, director of The University of New Mexico’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research. “That is why the overall employment growth isn’t so great.”

State and local governments, including public schools and universities, have shed jobs as budgets shriveled, in part because of a sharp downturn in oil and gas prices. Oil and gas exploration are pivotal industries in New Mexico because governments rely on them for tax revenue.

“It’s not so much that we’re overdependent on government [jobs],” Mitchell said. “It’s that government is too dependent on oil and gas.”

Though the energy industry has adjusted and is now pumping out record quantities of oil and gas in New Mexico, albeit it with fewer workers, the government agencies that relied on tax revenue from that sector are still feeling the consequences of the bad years.

The number of government jobs grew by 400 from June 2017 to July 2017, according to preliminary data from the Department of Workforce Solutions, the first such gain after similar reports over the last six months showed declining public employment.

Most of the state’s job growth came from the private sector. The hospitality industry added about 7,500 jobs during the last year and 3,500 people found work in construction.

Carol Wight, chief executive officer of the New Mexico Restaurant Association, said the restaurant industry has grown steadily for the last several years. She cited tourism in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, and said the uptick in oil drilling in the Permian Basin has buoyed restaurants in the southeast section of the state.

“What we hear from our members it that things are even better this year,” she said.

New Mexico has also boasted growing numbers of visitors.

In the construction industry, Joey Atencio, business manager at Local 16 of the Laborers International Union of North America, said work has picked up in the last year. He pointed to Presbyterian Healthcare Services’ construction of a new hospital in Santa Fe and expansion of a medical center in Rio Rancho. Facebook’s construction of a data center near Los Lunas is expected to provide construction jobs for the next several years, he said.

At International Brotherhood of Electric Workers Local 611, business manager Carl Condit said: “From what we’re seeing, it looks construction will continue to rise for a little bit.”

But Atencio said that the same financial problems squeezing government budgets are also casting uncertainty over funding for some construction projects.

Atencio and Condit said that many construction workers have gone looking for work outside New Mexico after years of economic stagnation.

“The economy had been so bad for so long, a lot of workers had left the state,” Atencio said.

“A lot of people are flocking to Colorado,” he added, referring to New Mexico’s northern neighbor where the unemployment rate is among the lowest in the country at 2.3 percent.

That has left the construction sector with what Atencio as well as Condit describe as a shortage of skilled laborers.

And it means some workers are no longer counted in the state’s unemployment rate.

The number of New Mexicans in the workforce only returned to 2005 levels at the end of last year, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. By December 2016, about 866,000 New Mexicans were in the labor force, a number the state has not seen since about April 2005.

“We’ve had a lost decade for job growth and wage growth,” Jon Clark, chief economist for the Legislative Finance Committee, told lawmakers earlier this week.

And while the health, hospitality and leisure sectors have grown, he added that those industries tend to pay less than the oil and gas business.

Source: US Government Class

Fox News Poll: 74 percent want GOP to reach out to Democrats on health care

FoxNews – Republican lawmakers are well aware they need to fulfill their seven-years-and-counting promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

A clear reminder came in November, when more than eight in ten of those who voted for Donald Trump said ObamaCare “went too far,” according to the Fox News Exit Poll.

Yet a Fox News Poll taken Sunday through Tuesday finds support continues to fall for the GOP plans being offered to replace President Obama’s signature law.  Only 25 percent of voters favor the Senate’s latest health care bill (which was pulled late Monday).  That’s a bit less than the 27 percent who favored last month’s Senate draft, and falls considerably short of the 40 percent who supported the House bill in May.

READ THE FULL POLL RESULTS

Among Republicans, a narrow majority, 52 percent, favors the second Senate bill, down from 75 percent support for the House overhaul in May.

If the existing law isn’t repealed, 47 percent of all voters, and a hefty 40 percent of Republicans, say congressional Republicans deserve all or most of the blame.

Monday night, after learning he wouldn’t have the votes to pass a replacement bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced he will move forward with just repeal.

Voters have a different idea.  Six in 10 want to keep ObamaCare and make it better (60 percent).  Far fewer, 33 percent, prefer throwing it out and starting over.

A 63 percent majority wants changes made so more people have health insurance, even if it increases government spending.  That’s more than twice the number who want the changes to focus on cutting spending, even if it means some people lose insurance (27 percent).

Plus, 74 percent want GOP lawmakers to reach out to Democrats and try to find a compromise.  That includes 86 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of Republicans.

President Trump receives his lowest marks on handling health care.  Thirty-two percent of voters approve, while 59 percent disapprove.  That matters when your party is trying to do a major legislative overhaul on the issue.

In addition, of 10 issues tested, more voters are concerned about health care (82 percent) than any other.  It not only tops worry about the economy (75 percent), but it also edges out concern over the “future of the country” (81 percent).

Pollpourri

Here’s part of the struggle McConnell faces in replacing the health care law: two-thirds of those in favor of the Senate’s second bill say they like it because it gets rid of ObamaCare (67 percent).  At the same time, two-thirds of those opposed say they dislike it because it gets rid of ObamaCare (66 percent).

Meanwhile, the ongoing battle is taking a toll on Republicans.  In 2014, voters were equally frustrated with both sides of the aisle (44 percent each).  The new poll shows that by a 9-point margin, more are extremely or very “frustrated and upset” with congressional Republicans (57 percent) than with congressional Democrats (48 percent).

More voters feel “extremely” frustrated with Trump (37 percent) than congressional Republicans (33 percent), congressional Democrats (24 percent) or the news media (27 percent).

For comparison, 28 percent were “extremely” frustrated with Obama in 2014 (the last time the question was asked).

Fifty percent of Republicans were extremely upset with Obama then, while 69 percent of Democrats feel that way about Trump now.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cellphone interviews with 1,020 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from July 16-18, 2017.  The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.

Source: US Government Class