GOP Lawmaker’s Wild Claim About Those Who ‘Hate Homosexuals’ Causes Literal Jaw-Drop
Ed Mazza – May 3, 2023
Fox News Flips Over ‘Woke’ Legos
The right-wing network has added another new enemy to its list — the Lego toy company.
There was a jaw-dropping moment on the floor of the Florida House of Representatives this week after a Republican lawmaker’s comment about who really hates the LGBTQ+ community.
“ISIS, the Taliban and al Qaeda. Those are the folks who discriminate,” state Rep. Jeff Holcomb said Monday. “Our terrorist enemies hate homosexuals more than we do.”
It’s not clear if he misspoke or intended to say it like that, but he was speaking in support of a bill that urges Congress to prohibit “woke social engineering and experimentation” that are “eroding” the military.
The implication that Republicans hate the gay community ― but terrorists hate them even more ― led to gasps in the audience, while Democratic Rep. Kelly Skidmore’s jaw literally dropped:
Florida GOP Representative Jeff Holcomb says the quiet part out loud on the House floor today.
“Our terrorist enemies hate homosexuals MORE THAN WE DO.”
The warning is in effect for Northeast and Central Florida from noon to 7 p.m. In some locations, the warning is in effect until 8 p.m., according to the National Weather Service.
Low humidity, breezy winds and critically dry conditions prompted the warning.
Winds of 15 mph are expected to be out of the west today, with gusts up to 25 mph. Relative humidity is forecast to be 20 percent to 30 percent.
Much of Florida is under a red flag warning May 3, 2023.
A red flag warning means warm temperatures, very low humidity, and stronger winds are expected to combine to produce an increased risk of fire danger, according to the National Weather Service.
Conditions also can cause reignition of any smoldering fires started by recent lightning strikes.
What are the dangers with a red flag warning?
Wildfires can grow quickly under these conditions.
What Florida counties are under a burn ban?
Conditions in Florida prompted a red flag warning for much of the state May 3, 2023. Burn bans in effect.
The Florida Forest Service reports the following counties are under a burn ban as of May 1:
Citrus
Collier
Desoto
Glades
Hendry
Hernando
Highlands
Lee
Pasco
Polk
Burning of yard debris is prohibited year-round under county ordinance in these locations:
Duval
Hillsborough
Pinellas
Sarasota
How dry is it in Florida?
Florida rainfall around the state from Jan. 1 through March 31, 2023.
As La Niña continues to make itself felt, for the southeastern U.S., that includes a dry and warm winter and a potentially active wildfire season for Florida, according to the Florida Forest Service.
A combination of above-average temperatures and below-average precipitation was in the forecast throughout all North Florida through March.
There may be good news on the horizon: The drought coverage and intensity may have peaked across Florida in recent past weeks, according to the Climate Prediction Center.
What should you do when under a red flag warning?
If you are allowed to burn in your area, all burn barrels must be covered with a weighted metal cover, with holes no larger than 3/4 of an inch.
Do not throw cigarettes or matches out of a moving vehicle. They may ignite dry grass on the side of the road and become a wildfire.
Extinguish all outdoor fires properly. Drown fires with plenty of water and stir to make sure everything is cold to the touch. Dunk charcoal in water until cold. Do not throw live charcoal on the ground and leave it.
Never leave a fire unattended. Sparks or embers can blow into leaves or grass, ignite a fire, and quickly spread.
Where are active wildfires in Florida?
There are 42 active fires covering more than 5,000 acres currently across the state. The Florida Forest Service maintains a map showing the location, size and percentage contained of current wildfires.
Former GOP Lawmaker Rips Republicans With ‘Simple’ Answer To Gun Violence
Lee Moran – May 2, 2023
Former Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.) on Monday suggested a “simple” political solution to America’s gun violence.
“I would say the political answer to gun violence in America is never again elect a Republican. It’s that simple,” Jolly told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace during an analysis of the latest mass shooting in Texas in which five people were killed.
“They are bad-faith actors,” Jolly, who left the GOP in 2018, said of his former Republican colleagues, further slamming them for focusing on “motive as opposed to the means.”
“Listen, there is no motive that can accomplish gun violence without the means and the means is the weapon and the access to that weapon and in cases like we just saw, to weapons of war,” he explained.
Jolly noted a general consensus nationwide about “common sense measures” for gun control but said he felt “we need to get more aggressive” and talk about “licensing and registration” and much deeper background checks.
"The political answer to gun violence…is never again elect a Republican, it's that simple… If they want to focus on motive as opposed to the means…there is no motive than can accomplish gun violence without the means" – @DavidJollyFL w/ @NicolleDWallacepic.twitter.com/oeWM19BsCr
This woman was told her mortgage was paid off: 10 years later, she received a foreclosure notice in the mail. She decided to fight.
Aarthi Swaminathan – May 2, 2023
Mortgages originated in the early 2000’s and largely forgotten are now being pursued by debt collectors. Government officials are concerned.
Rohit Chopra, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stands beside homeowner Rose Prophete during a field hearing in Brooklyn, N.Y. PHOTO: LEGAL SERVICES NYC
Rose Prophete bought her home in Canarsie, Brooklyn, N.Y. in May 2005. She thought she had paid off her loans until recently, when a company approached her about a debt she thought she had settled a long time ago.
The company expected Prophete to pay up over $130,000, or face foreclosure.
When refinancing her mortgage on the home, Prophete had split her mortgage into two. Prophete said she had been erroneously told that her second mortgage was paid off. That debt, having laid dormant for years, was now being pursued by a debt-collection firm.
Prophete is one of 13 plaintiffs in a 2021 federal lawsuit against the firm, and she recently testified at a field hearing into “zombie debts” held by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a government agency responsible for consumer protection in the financial-services sector.
The CFPB last week announced that it was issuing legal guidance for debt collectors trying to collect on mortgages that were long considered forgiven by borrowers, who in particular had no notices or statements sent over a decade about outstanding debt.
‘This is really frustrating — I don’t want to lose my home.’— Rose Prophete, who bought her home in Brooklyn, N.Y. in May 2005
The federal agency said that a debt collector “who brings or threatens to bring a state-court foreclosure action to collect a time-barred mortgage debt may violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” Time-barred refers to debt whose statute of limitations has run out.
“Debt collectors do not get to claim ignorance of the law or ignorance of the debt’s age,” Rohit Chopra, director of the CFPB, said during the hearing. “If the statute of limitations has expired, taking legal action threatening to bring a suit of foreclosure may be illegal no matter what the debt collector claims to have known. This is the law.”
Prophete, a Haitian immigrant and a hospital technician, said during the CFPB hearing that she had worked three jobs to afford the two-family Brooklyn home, on top of taking care of small children.
According to the lawsuit, a little more than a year after they completed the purchase, the broker who arranged the financing suggested she refinance the mortgage to lower her monthly payments. She agreed to refinance her mortgage into two, as the broker told her that this “financing structure would be the most financially advantageous to her,” per the filing. The first loan was for $504,000 and the second for $63,000 with an interest rate of 9%.
‘Debt collectors do not get to claim ignorance of the law or ignorance of the debt’s age.’— Rohit Chopra, director of the CFPB, speaking about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
After a couple of years, she received a note from her first lender that the second loan was fulfilled — that she didn’t need to pay for it. She said she didn’t receive any statements for the second mortgage, so she focused on paying off her first one, the lawsuit said.
She said she never heard back from the mortgage servicer, until over a decade later, in March 2021, when she received a foreclosure notice in the mail. The creditor was attempting to collect on payments due from Jan. 1, 2009 to the date of filing in 2021. The payments had ballooned from $63,000 to over $130,000, according to the lawsuit.
“This is really frustrating — I don’t want to lose my home,” Prophete said during the field hearing.
New York Attorney General Leticia James, who also spoke during the hearing, said that debt-collection firms were engaged in “predatory practices” to “rob individuals of the equity in their home.”
Debt buyers were acquiring these mortgages “often for pennies on the dollar,” James said, and they were now suing homeowners and “seeking to exploit rising housing values by reviving the long-dormant zombie debt.”
“I find this practice predatory and abusive and an affront to the American dream of sustainable home ownership,” she added. “I will fight this despicable practice.”
Florida’s insurance crisis: 2 special sessions, little help | Commentary
Scott Maxwell, Orlando Sentinel – May 2, 2023
For years, Florida lawmakers ignored a looming insurance crisis.
Then, with rates skyrocketing and companies fleeing the state, they scrambled to call not one, but two special sessions, vowing to help.
Well, my wife and I saw what the Legislature’s version of help looks like a few months ago when our insurance bill jumped from $4,000 to $7,000.
Any more “help “like that and we’ll be eating cat food.
In reality, we’ll be just fine. But a growing number of Floridians are facing bills they can barely afford as prices skyrocket throughout the state.
The Insurance Information Institute predicted increases of 40% throughout Florida this year. Some companies have requested 60% hikes. And scores of Floridians are still being dropped by their carriers while the state-run Citizens Property Insurance keeps bloating.
This is an undeniable, mounting mess.
So once again, GOP legislators – who have spent the better part of the past two years waging culture wars – have cobbled together another insurance bill.
But if you’re counting on this lowering your rates, bad news: It will not.
That’s not my take. It’s the take of former GOP Sen. Jeff Brandes – one of the few lawmakers who repeatedly warned his colleagues to take action years ago and was largely ignored.
“Nothing in this bill lowers rates,” Brandes, who now runs the Florida Policy Project, said this week. “Nothing in this bill encourages more companies to come.”
Brandes and I have differing views on some aspects of reform – particularly as it relates to the transparency measures and regulations that subsidized insurance companies should face.
But we agree on three key things:
1. Despite years of yapping about fraud claims driving up costs and rates, Florida lawmakers have never cracked down on bad actors in any meaningful fashion.
2. The solutions they’re talking about now aren’t going to do much, if anything, to bring down rates.
3. Any meaningful solution – in a state like ours that’s basically a bullseye for hurricanes and increasingly at risk of flooding – is going to involve a boatload of public money.
Brandes and I may have varied thoughts on how that money should be spent. But the reality is that this problem – where the state-run insurance company is now covering millions of Floridians at increasingly high rates – requires a major investment and serious policy reform.
And that’s not good news for a Legislature that specializes in divisive bumper-sticker priorities – dragging Disney, fuming about drag queens and decrying wokeism.
When it comes to hard, serious policy work, they are either unwilling or incapable of getting the job done. At least when it comes to insurance.
A clear example of that is fraud. For years, lawmakers have blamed fraudulent claims for driving up insurance costs and driving companies out of the state. But they haven’t done squat from an enforcement standpoint.
“If you want talent in the Office of Insurance Regulation – which should be one of the most talented in the state – you have to pay for it,” Brandes said.
That seems obvious. If your city had a rash of burglaries, you’d beef up your burglary patrol. But Florida politicians have whined about fraud without ever dedicating serious resources to exposing, punishing and stopping it.
If they can set up a statewide election-crime police force to deal with fever-dream problems, you’d think they’d beef up their insurance team to deal with an actual financial nightmare.
But to really bring down prices, we need more competition among providers. Or we need to invest more in Citizens – and basically accept that a giant, costly state-run insurance company is the only way we’re going to be able to cover everyone in a state that’s both storm-ravaged and low-wage.
Few people really want that second option. Certainly not Brandes. But many of us aren’t super keen either on just handing over tax dollars to an industry with a track record of hosing its policy holders.
Just a few weeks ago, the Washington Post published a maddening investigative report that found Florida insurance companies were financially victimizing hurricane survivors by gutting their claims and payments – sometimes by as much as 90% of what the companies’ own adjusters said the homeowners were due. The piece featured an adjuster who said one insurance company took his report – which estimated $200,000 in valid claims for one home – and whittled it down to just $27,000 without his knowledge or consent.
Brandes prefers offering companies incentives to write Florida policies. That may be worth exploring – with a lot of checks and balances added in.
But here’s the bottom line: Either scenario – majorly subsidizing private industries or growing/transforming Citizens into something like a Florida version of Medicare for homeowners – is painful. They’re both costly, politically unpopular and involve a lot of hard work.
Unfortunately, most Florida politicians don’t want to do hard work or make unpopular moves. So they just keep screaming about critical race theory and transgender athletes. And while they scream, your rates keep rising.
I think we’re heading toward a pain point – where even the Floridians who used to laugh at the culture wars are going to stop laughing once they realize they can barely afford to stay in their homes. That may be when they start finally putting people in office who are more interested in solving problems than creating them.
U.S. Supreme Court to examine whistleblower claims against financial firms in UBS case
Daniel Wiessner – May 1, 2023
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine how difficult it should be for financial whistleblowers to win retaliation lawsuits against their employers as the justices took up a long-running case involving Switzerland’s UBS Group AG.
The justices will hear an appeal by Trevor Murray, a former UBS bond strategist, of a lower court’s decision to throw out his 2021 lawsuit that accused the company of unlawfully firing him for refusing to publish misleading research reports and complaining about being pressured to do so.
The appeal involves a technical but important issue – whether whistleblowers who sue their employers for retaliation under the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act must prove that companies acted with “retaliatory intent.”
The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year decided that Murray was required to meet that bar and failed, creating a split with four other federal appeals courts. Those courts have said that defendants in Sarbanes-Oxley cases can raise the lack of intent as a defense, but that plaintiffs do not have to prove employers acted with intent.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of UBS could significantly curtail financial whistleblower lawsuits because it is often difficult for plaintiffs to prove a defendant’s motives.
Robert Herbst, a lawyer for Murray, said the 2nd Circuit decision ignored the text of the whistleblower law, adding that he looked forward to arguing the case before the Supreme Court.
A UBS spokesperson said, “We expect the court will uphold the 2nd Circuit’s decision.”
Murray, who worked in UBS’s mortgage securitization unit, accused UBS officials of pressuring him to issue skewed and bullish research on commercial mortgage-backed securities in order to support the bank’s trading and underwriting operations. He has said he was fired in 2012 about two months after complaining to supervisors and despite receiving excellent performance reviews.
UBS has denied wrongdoing and said Murray’s termination was part of a cost-cutting campaign that eliminated thousands of jobs.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was adopted in 2002 and created enhanced accounting standards for publicly traded U.S. companies after a series of accounting scandals, along with new legal protections for employees who report illegal conduct.
The Supreme Court is due to hear the case in its next term, which begins in October.
(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Will Dunham)
Al Franken blasts Supreme Court: It’s ‘illegitimate’
Julia Mueller – May 1, 2023
Al Franken blasts Supreme Court: It’s ‘illegitimate’
“The court is a very divisive entity now, institution right now. And the Supreme Court, to me, is illegitimate,” Franken said on “The Al Franken Podcast” in conversation with The Washington Post’s Dan Balz.
Former Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is calling the Supreme Court “illegitimate” and Chief Justice John Roberts a “villain,” citing a number of controversies surrounding the nation’s highest court.
Franked resigned from the Senate in 2017 amid sexual harassment allegations.
“The way they didn’t take up [Obama nominee Merrick] Garland and on saying, ‘It’s an election year,’ and then they, of course, put in Coney Barrett like eight days before the election. Then, of course, Dobbs and abortion.”
Balz said the court has “lost credibility” and has become “seen increasingly as one more partisan institution,” though he noted Roberts has tried to counter that perception.
“I think the Chief Justice is actually much more culpable for this division than people think,” Franken said, referencing some of Roberts’s decisions. “I think Roberts is much more the villain in this than people give him credit for.”
Polling has indicated a decline in Americans’ trust that the Supreme Court, with its nine lifetime-appointment Justices, is nonpartisan.
Franken’s comments also come amid new scrutiny over the Supreme Court’s ethics standards after reporting from ProPublica found Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose a series of luxury trips he’d taken, paid for by Republican donor Harlan Crow, and revelations that the same Texas billionaire had paid for the home Thomas’s mother was living in.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen speaks during a press conference at the Treasury Department in Washington, on April 11, 2023. (Yuri Gripas/The New York Times)
WASHINGTON — A vote by House Republicans last week to lift the nation’s debt limit in exchange for deep spending cuts was the first step in what is likely to be a protracted battle over raising or suspending the borrowing cap to avoid defaulting on United States debt.
But while Republicans and President Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats are gearing up for a fight, a key question is beginning to sow unease in Washington and on Wall Street: How much time is there to strike a deal?
The United States technically hit its $31.4 trillion debt limit in January, forcing the Treasury Department to employ accounting maneuvers known as extraordinary measures to allow the government to keep paying its bills, including payments to bondholders who own government debt. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said at the time that her powers to delay a default — in which the United States fails to make its payments on time — could be exhausted by early June. She cautioned, however, that the estimate came with considerable uncertainty.
With June now just a few weeks away, uncertainty around the timing of when the United States will run out of cash — what’s known as the X-date — remains, and determining the true deadline could have huge consequences for the country.
Tax receipts will be key to the X-date.
Determining the X-date depends on a complex set of factors, but ultimately what matters most is how much money the government spends and how much it takes in through taxes and other revenue.
The Bipartisan Policy Center, which tracks federal revenues, projected in February that lawmakers would need to raise or suspend the debt limit sometime between summer and early fall to avoid a default. The specific date would largely depend on how quickly tax revenues are coming into the government’s coffers.
There are signs that 2022 tax receipts are trickling in too slowly for comfort. Economists at Wells Fargo wrote in a note to clients last week that because tax collections appear to be weaker than expected, there is a chance the X-date could be as soon as early June. However, they continue to believe early August is the most likely default deadline.
“A low but not insignificant probability of a U.S. default is still very concerning, and we would think the last thing Treasury officials want is an X-date that sneaks up on Congress,” they wrote.
Tax day payments are still arriving. Goldman Sachs economists projected last week that by the second week of June, the Treasury Department could have around $60 billion of cash remaining, which would allow the government to keep making its payments until late July.
Natural disasters could fuel a debt disaster.
There is a surprising factor that could cause the X-date to arrive sooner: the weather. Severe storms, flooding and mudslides in California, Alabama and Georgia this year prompted the IRS to push the April 18 filing deadlines in dozens of counties to October.
The IRS said this year that, because of the storms, individuals and businesses in the affected areas could file their returns late. They were also given more time to make contributions to retirement and health savings accounts.
Farmers, who often file their tax returns by March 1, also have received a reprieve until Oct. 16, and estimated payments that normally would have been made in January were allowed to be pushed back to that date.
It is not clear how much tax revenue has been delayed by the storms, but the extensions have given the Treasury Department less wiggle room to keep paying the bills.
An update could come this week.
The Treasury Department is expected to send a letter to Congress in the coming days with a more precise estimate of when it could start running out of cash. It could also lay out new measures intended to stave off a default. This year, Yellen announced that she would redeem some existing investments and suspend new investments in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund.
In a speech last week, Yellen warned that a default would have real consequences for the economy.
“Household payments on mortgages, auto loans and credit cards would rise,” Yellen said in remarks to the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce in California. “And American businesses would see credit markets deteriorate.”
She added, “On top of that, it is unlikely that the federal government would be able to issue payments to millions of Americans, including our military families and seniors who rely on Social Security.”
Here’s what the X-date means for negotiations.
As the X-date approaches, it will put more pressure on lawmakers to take action.
Analysts at Beacon Policy Advisors predicted that if a default could really happen as soon as June, that would increase the likelihood that Congress will pass a short-term suspension of the debt limit through October. If the X-date is expected to hit in July, that might compel lawmakers to file legislation by early May so they have sufficient time to deal with procedural obstacles in Congress.
Although markets have broadly remained calm about the prospect of a default, there are some signs that investors are becoming nervous.
They have sold government bonds that mature in three months — around the time policymakers have said the United States could run out of cash — and snapped up bonds with just one month until they are repaid.
The cost of insuring existing bond holdings against the possibility that the United States will default on its debts has also risen sharply. Still, analysts say the market reaction would need to be much more pronounced to force a fast deal.
“This has caused some heartburn among policymakers but not enough to move the negotiating needle in a meaningful way,” the Beacon analysts wrote. “There needs to be a bigger market response and a more definitive X-date to get negotiations going in full.”
That has yet to happen, however. While Biden has indicated he is open to talking with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy about ways to get the nation’s fiscal situation on a better track, the two have yet to schedule a meeting after the House passage last week.
Why Republicans Want Voters to Fear Kamala Harris As President
Jessica Washington – May 1, 2023
GREENBELT, MARYLAND – APRIL 25: In this handout image provided by NASA, Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks during a tour of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center with President Yoon Suk Yeol of the Republic of Korea, on April 25, 2023
Just read what she said on Fox News last week; “He announced that he’s running again in 2024, and I think that we can all be very clear and say with a matter of fact that if you vote for Joe Biden, you really are counting on a President Harris because the idea that he would make it until 86 years old is not something that I think is likely,” said Haley, 51.
Rather than run against Biden and his record, Republicans like Haley want to make this election about Harris, says Jo Von McCalester, a Political Science Lecturer at Howard University. “To imply that [Biden] is not going to live and if you vote for him, it’s really going to be her,” says McCalester, “is to dog whistle to people that you could end up with a Black woman as President in your country.”
Nina Smith, a political strategist and former senior advisor to Stacey Abrams, agrees with McCalester’s assessment. “It’s definitely the GOP trying to weaponize an inherent bias that we have against women in leadership,” she says.
Ted Cruz Chimes in on Biden’s Age
Haley isn’t the only Republican trying to position this as a race against Harris, not the sitting President. In an interview last week, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz made similar jabs.
“Joe Biden is 142 years old,” said Cruz on Fox News. “Can you imagine Kamala Harris sitting across from Putin or Xi and just cackling?”
The imagery employed by Cruz is very intentional, says McCalester. “The idea of her sitting across from Putin gives two visuals,” she says. “It gives the visuals of a Black person that you don’t believe sounds intelligent enough to sit across from a ‘world power or leader.’ It also harkens to the fact that she’s a woman.”
This isn’t the first time Republicans have tried to make Harris the focus of their attacks on the Biden-Harris ticket, says Cliff Albright, Executive Director of Black Voters Matter Fund, a voting rights organization.
“They tried it to a certain extent in the last presidential election, right? But there, there really wasn’t a consensus on the strategy,” says Albright. “It’s likely to increase this time because now, unlike in 2020, it’s even more clear what Biden’s merits are. They’re starting to realize that we’re gonna have a hard time running against his record.”
Is Making The Election About Harris a Winning Strategy?
The bigger question is whether Republicans can win by making the election about Harris. According to Smith, it might be the most effective tool in their arsenal, especially for someone like Haley.
“Nikki Haley is barely registering in polls. She’s not making up any ground when it comes to beating Donald Trump in a primary,” says Smith. “I think they know they have to split this ticket up… if you split them up, then his age becomes a question, and her experience becomes a question.”
“It’s really pathetic,” says Albright. “It’s a sign that they know they can’t win just on the strength of their case… and so when all else fails in the Republican party, what do they lean on, and the usual answer is good old racism.”
None of these strategies are new, says Albright pointing to the infamous Willie Horton ads used against Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis. But in the modern era, he argues, they have their limits. “They’re effective to a certain extent with the base, but all recent elections are showing us that it can go only so far,” says Albright, adding. “So, will it be more effective than going after Biden? I think so. Will it be effective enough for them to win? I don’t believe so.”
Hillary Holley, Executive Director of Care in Action, a nonprofit progressive labor organization, and a former Democratic strategist in Georgia, says she doesn’t believe these tactics can win if Progressive groups are on the ground making a case for the administration and Harris’ accomplishments. “People may be concerned that voters may fall for these distractions, these lies,” says Holley. “Our allies have proven that we know how to talk to voters. We can tell voters the truth, and we once we do that massive robust outreach, they end up voting for progress.”
McCalester is more skeptical. This could “absolutely” be a winning message for Republicans, she says. “It’s the we’re gonna appeal to racists, we’re gonna appeal to sexists [strategy],” she says. Unfortunately, it’s worked repeatedly for Republicans, says McCalester, and there’s no reason to think it can’t work again.
Manchin’s ‘playing with fire’ — and some Democrats are tired of the drama
Josh Siegel – May 1, 2023
Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/AP Photo
Sen. Joe Manchin is losing patience with his fellow Democrats over their signature climate law — and the feeling is mutual.
The West Virginia Democrat has spent weeks escalating his attacks on President Joe Biden’s implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping bill that Manchin helped write in a deal that stunned Washington last summer. Last week, he threatened to join Republicans in voting to repeal the law, as the House GOP is demanding in its legislation for raising the nation’s debt limit.
Manchin’s comment caught his caucus colleagues off guard, even if such a repeal would be a long shot in Congress. It came just as Biden was launching a reelection campaign that rests heavily on that legislation’s climate and health care provisions.
“That surprises me that he wants to repeal it. I think it’s one of his greatest accomplishments,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a close colleague of Manchin’s on the Energy Committee, in an interview.
The IRA is far less of a political bright spot for Manchin, whose potential reelection hopes are clouded by growing disapproval ratings in his home state, partly driven by his support for the law. Manchin has yet to announce whether he’s running, but a formidable challenger entered the West Virginia Senate race last week — GOP Gov. Jim Justice.
Manchin’s fellow Democrats understand that his reelection could determine whether they retain their slim 51-seat Senate majority in 2024. But they are also growing weary of his attacks against their marquee climate law — even if they’ve come to expect it and know there’s little they can do to change his mind. And his votes against Democratic policies and Biden nominees have already complicated his party’s agenda in the 51-49 Senate.
Some Democrats fear that Manchin’s criticisms will do real damage by confusing the public about one of the law’s most debated-provisions: its $7,500 tax credits for electric vehicles. He has accused the Treasury Department of violating the law by flouting strict provisions he wrote designed to force electric vehicles to be made in the U.S. with American-made parts.
“When you’re Joe Manchin it never hurts to be seen butting heads with the administration, but I think this is genuine umbrage over the fact Congressional intent seems pretty clear, even if the statutory construction left room for Treasury to maneuver,” said Liam Donovan, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell who previously worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “And given that he would not have been on board for the bill at all had this been the understanding, it reads as a personal betrayal.”
Democrats counter that the administration has been doing its best to balance the IRA’s competing goals of lowering the cost of electric vehicles while promoting U.S. manufacturing and jobs.
“Fifty of us agree that [boosting electric vehicle deployment] is a priority,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said in an interview. “The law is what it is. If he doesn’t like implementation he can run for president.”
Manchin in recent weeks has also joined Republicans in supporting resolutions they’ve brought up for a vote disapproving of the administration’s energy and environmental policies, most recently on Wednesday when he was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans in overturning an EPA regulation on emissions from heavy-duty trucks.
And Manchin, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, has also expressed his ire with the administration by torpedoing a series of Biden’s nominees, including Richard Glick to chair the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Laura Daniel-Davis, Biden’s pick for assistant Interior secretary for land and minerals management, and Gigi Sohn as a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
The White House has supported fossil fuel projects that Manchin has backed — angering environmentalists — including the Willow oil and Alaska LNG projects, as well as the Mountain Valley Pipeline that would deliver natural gas produced in West Virginia.
Manchin did not comment for this article, but his spokesperson Sam Runyon said his objections were because the administration had strayed from the intent of the bill.
“President Biden, then-Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer were in full agreement with Sen. Manchin that the IRA was an energy security bill and the legislative language is crystal clear,” she said. “The Administration continues to blatantly violate the law in an effort to replace Congressional intent with their own radical climate agenda that simply didn’t, and wouldn’t have, passed.”
Some Republicans have expressed sympathy for Manchin’s position.
“Is it playing with fire? Sure. Does Joe care? I don’t think so,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Manchin’s frequent legislative partner when she chaired the Energy Committee. “Good for him for calling the administration out.”
Murkowski noted that the climate law had been seemingly dead for most of last year until Manchin’s support allowed Democrats to pass it on a party-line vote. The law includes $369 billion in incentives for clean energy and electric vehicles, as well as health measures such as a cap on insulin costs for Medicare recipients.
“They made a deal with him,” Murkowski said. “And it was a hard deal and they wanted his vote, and they got it — at some political cost to him and he would admit that. And now [the Biden administration is] trying to rewrite the bill, or interpret in the way they wished they had been able to get it passed. That’s their problem.”
Manchin has repeatedly denounced Biden’s electric vehicle policies in recent weeks, including by announcing he would support Republican efforts in Congress to overturn EPA auto pollution rules designed to speed up EV adoption. He accused the administration of “lying to Americans with false claims about how their manipulation of the market to boost EVs will help American energy security.”
“Y’all broke the law,” Manchin later told Biden’s Energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, at a hearing April 20, accusing the administration of “liberalizing” its rollout of the tax subsidy to stimulate sales of electric vehicles — and warning that that approach could send money and jobs to China.
Republicans are eager to pounce on Democratic dissension over how the administration is executing the climate law. GOP lawmakers, who unanimously opposed the law, argue that it spends too much money and say its twin goals — quickly weaning the U.S. economy off fossil fuels while reducing reliance on China for clean energy technologies — are incoherent.
“Maybe he’s looked at it [the IRA] more deeply and realized it’s not what he thought it was,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Manchin’s GOP counterpart from West Virginia, said in an interview. “I can’t believe he would be that naïve. But who knows?”
But other Democrats say the administration is carrying out the law that Congress passed.
“Almost all of us who voted for this legislation and contributed to it wanted to supercharge EV sales,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) in an interview. “Clearly Sen. Manchin did not. He thought he was maybe sabotaging the EV industry. And it’s driving him nuts that it’s not working out that way.”
Negotiations over the EV tax credit were fraught from the start.
After Manchin rejected Democrats’ climate and social spending agenda last July when it was packaged as Build Back Better — Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer quietly resumed negotiations. The electric vehicle tax credits were among the last items they haggled over.
During the preceding months, Manchin repeatedly criticized Democrats’ interest in subsidizing electric vehicle sales, calling the idea “ludicrous.”
Manchin, whose state is home to a non-unionized Toyota manufacturing facility, also derided Democrats’ original proposal to offer an extra incentive for electric vehicles made by union workers. He called the proposal “not American.” The version that became law dropped it.
Manchin, Schumer and their staffs finally forged a compromise on electric vehicles in secret talks, unveiling the renamed Inflation Reduction Act on July 27. It offered a credit of up to $7,500 for electric vehicles, but only for those meeting a thicket of stringent requirements on what countries their battery minerals and components come from. Those requirements have since sparked a major trade feud with European governments whose companies are blocked from the incentives.
“He [Manchin] does not support the credit at all. And really when he wrote it, he hoped nobody could use it. And so he’s disappointed there are a few vehicles that can use it,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from auto-industry-heavy Michigan.
Heinrich said a clash with Manchin over implementation was “inevitable” given the different ways Manchin and the White House characterized the end product, which Manchin sees as an energy security measure designed to shore up energy production of all types. Biden is using the law to push a rapid transition away from fossil fuels in the name of combating climate change.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the House Progressive Caucus, downplayed the idea of a rift within the Democratic Party.
“The majority of [the IRA] we are all together on,” Jayapal said. “I do think he [Manchin] believes we should have a renewable energy transition. We probably have different ideas for what the transition looks like and how we get there. “
But the law didn’t leave the Biden administration much wiggle room in developing regulations to fit its complex domestic content restrictions, energy experts say. Manchin contends the administration is abusing the leeway it got. He’s especially taken umbrage at the Treasury’s initial three-month delay in issuing rules, which until mid-April allowed electric vehicles to qualify for the tax credit without meeting any domestic sourcing requirements.
When Treasury finally announced the guidance in March, it offered some olive branches to automakers worried about the rules being overly restrictive, but still left the majority of EVs on the market ineligible for the credit.
Even so, Manchin cried foul, calling the Treasury rules too loose in allowing foreign suppliers to share in the tax credit bounty.
He took particular aim at the Biden administration’s classification of certain foils, powders and other components used in the batteries. By classifying the powders as “critical minerals,” rather than “battery components,” Treasury avoided placing even more severe restrictions on vehicles eligible for the tax credit.
Manchin has also criticized Treasury for allowing leased vehicles to qualify for full tax breaks as “commercial” vehicles, a workaround that skirts some restrictions in the law.
And a crucial piece of guidance is still missing: clarity on which companies’ vehicles could be barred from receiving the credit because of their connections to China. The Treasury Department says it expects to release that provision later this year.
“Manchin very clearly wanted to put deglobalization ahead of decarbonization,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, a research group. “He wants this stuff made here and if it slows down the transition so be it. Treasury is leaning toward trying to transition faster.”
Most Democrats, though, disagree that Biden has ignored congressional intent. They point to projections showing the IRA has already been a boon to the country’s clean energy jobs: It has prompted at least $243 billion in investments in battery plants, electric vehicles factories and other green energy projects since Biden signed the law in August.
Since Biden became president, there have been at least $95 billion in private-sector investments announced across the U.S. clean vehicle and battery supply chain, according to the Department of Energy, including $45 billion since the IRA passed.
Heinrich said he knows it may be “politically expedient” for Manchin to argue the IRA is not taking shape as he intended.
“But the reality is this legislation is working, and this administration is trying to manage both what we need to do long term, which is make all of this stuff here, but also build the runway to get there,” Heinrich said.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this report incorrectly quoted Kevin Book.
