The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell personally blocked Sen. Chuck Schumer's request for an up or down vote on $2,000 survival checks on Tuesday. Following that, Sen. Bernie Sanders blocked McConnell's effort to get unanimous consent to have a veto override on a defense bill on Wednesday, the other must-pass bill for the week. That sets up a showdown in which McConnell appears to be trying to have the $2,000 survival check but make sure it fails.

A growing number of Republicans, including Georgia Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue (who are desperate because of their runoff races), Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, and even Deb Fischer are supporting hiking the direct payments to $2,000. Or perhaps more pointedly, supporting the idea of having a vote on $2,000 survival checks. Because that appears to be what McConnell is working toward—allowing the Senate to vote, but poisoning the bill before it happens to make life difficult for Democrats. And millions of Americans, but they don't count to him. Because that's what he does.


www.youtube.com

On the floor Tuesday, McConnell showed his hand. He noted Trump's ridiculous statement, issued when he signed the stimulus/spending bill, that Congress was going to "start the process for a vote that increases checks to $2,000, repeals Section 230, and starts and investigation into voter fraud." "Those are the three important subjects the President has linked together," he said. "This week the Senate will begin a process to bring these three priorities into focus." So McConnell is going to try to have the $2,000 survival check vote and poison it, too. He's going to tie Section 230—the Communications Act provision that Trump insists is allowing Twitter to censor him (it's not)—and "voter fraud" to critical assistance to Americans.

Because that's what he does. There's a rarely used floor procedure Democrats could try to stop him nicknamed the "clay pigeon" maneuver. A single senator can call for an amendment that has multiple proposals to be broken into individual components, requiring separate debate and separate votes. The last time it was used was in 2010, when then-Sen. Tom Coburn hijacked a debt limit increase bill, bringing an amendment with 17 spending cuts that had to be considered separately. Prior to that, in 2007, then-Senate Majority Harry Reid used it on a comprehensive immigration bill in an effort to ward off poison pills from Republicans. Democrats could try it with McConnell's surely poisoned survival check bill.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less

Billionaires

YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}