For the past six months, Democrats have been glued together in a unified front against President Donald Trump, but haven’t articulated many plans of their own. On Monday, for the first time since Trump took the White House, Democrats presented their vision for the 2018 midterms and beyond. Democratic leaders unveiled the plan in Berryville, Virginia, in a predominantly Republican district currently represented by Republican Representative Barbara Comstock.

Titled “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future,” the Democratic message is a grab-bag of populist ideas nicked from both the Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) schools of thought, as well as long-running Democratic policies. It lays out a plan to boost jobs and lower the costs of living, including prescription drug prices. The plan also includes a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Here is what else you need to know:

Better Jobs

On jobs in particular, the new agenda borrows heavily from the Trump campaign playbook of attacking “special interests” and “elites.” But Democratic leaders also sought to draw a line between their working-class promises and the promises Republicans and the Trump Administration have failed to deliver on. “Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans’ health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) said in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Monday. “Our agenda is focused on efforts to create jobs and raise incomes for American workers, to lower the cost of living for American families, and to build an economy that gives every American the tools to succeed in the 21st century,” Pelosi continued.

The minority leader, who some progressives view as embodying the elite image the party needs to rid itself of, promised “good-paying, full-time jobs” for 10 million more Americans over the next five years. Tax credits for employers to train employees, she said, would help achieve that lofty goal. Pelosi also said Democrats envision a “massive new national commitment to expanding apprenticeships and paid on-the-job training that advances their skills and careers.”

“Rigged Economy”

“A Better Deal” was not drafted by Sanders. But in their public statements about the plan, Democratic leaders have peppered their vernacular with Sanders-style rhetoric, calling the economy “rigged” and railing against “vulture capitalists.”

The second page in the new Democratic playbook concerns reforming America’s antitrust laws to increase competition and innovation, and stifle consolidation and mergers in a number of fields, from airlines to communications companies. Pelosi said the party would focus on “breaking the grip of the special interests and confronting the rising everyday costs that families have endured for too long.”

“Over the past thirty years, growing corporate influence and consolidation has led to reductions in competition, choice for consumers, and bargaining power for workers,” the Democratic plan states. “The extensive concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations hurts wages, undermines job growth, and threatens to squeeze out small businesses, suppliers, and new, innovative competitors.”

To fix these issues, Democrats promise to “prevent big mergers that would harm consumers, workers, and competition.” The party also proposed a tougher post-merger review process.

“Reorienting Government”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) echoed Pelosi in an op-ed published Monday in the New York Times, but framed the agenda in simple, rhetorical strokes. He wrote: “American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests.”

But Schumer also did what Democrats have largely failed to do since election night: admit that voters were unclear on where the party stood. “Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for,” Schumer wrote.

But a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests voters are still unsure of what Democrats believe in. A slim majority of those polled–52 percent–said the party only espouses an anti-Trump message, while 37 percent said the Democratic Party “currently stands for something.” With less than a year and a half until the 2018 mid-term elections, Democrats are trying to change that perception: “Our better deal is not about expanding the government, or moving our party in one direction or another along the political spectrum,” Schumer said. “It’s about reorienting government to work on behalf of people and families.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democrats’ “A Better Deal”: Classic Liberal Priorities and a Dash of Populism appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Betsy DeVos Called Historically Black Schools “Pioneers” of “School Choice”

Betsy DeVos hasn’t had an easy start to her new position as education secretary. Now she’s in hot water again for some off-base comments about historically black colleges and universities. She called the schools “pioneers” of “school choice” and wrote that their founders had identified that the school system wasn’t working and created their own solution. This peculiar statement was met with outrage on social media, where people wondered whether she was aware that HBCUs weren’t created by choice, but because black students literally were not allowed in white schools.

Betsy DeVos said HBCUs were about school choice. As if white/colored water fountains were about beverage options. pic.twitter.com/I3tNlER43n

— Resist Dystopia (@AynAyahSteenkur) February 28, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is preparing to submit a budget proposal for the coming fiscal year that would increase military spending by $54 billion, a 10 percent spike, according to an administration official. To offset the increase, a similar amount would need to be shaved from other programs and agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department.

“This budget follows through on my promise to focus on keeping Americans safe,” Trump said during a meeting with governors on Monday. The president said that the budget will include “a historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States.” He added that the budget will send a “message to the world, in these dangerous times, of American strength, security, and resolve.”

While a final budget will not be set for at least a few months, Trump’s wish list sets the tone for how he plans to spend the government’s money during his first year in office. It also seems to send the message that he is doing what he said he would: pare down a bloated government, while increasing military spending.

“We have to start winning wars again–when I was young, in high school and college, people used to say ‘we haven’t lost a war’–we never lost a war– you remember,” Trump said at the governors meeting. “We either got to win, or don’t fight it at all.”

The administration official, who talked to reporters on the condition of anonymity, said foreign aid would see massive reductions in funding. Foreign aid, which is often tied to security concerns that could ultimately affect the U.S., takes up one of the slimmest slices of the federal budget.

On Tuesday evening, Trump is expected to discuss his budget proposals to a televised joint session of Congress. In the months ahead, the initial budget request will get hemmed and altered by Republicans in Congress. Democrats are expected to staunchly oppose certain proposals, such as the proposed cuts to the EPA.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) said the additional $54 billion in military spending “almost certainly means cuts to agencies that protect consumers from Wall Street excess and protect clean air and water.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said the cuts will have “far-reaching and long-lasting damage to our ability to meet the needs of the American people and win the jobs of the future.”

But Trump sees his proposal as him cashing in on a campaign promise to increase the bang of America’s buck. “We are going to do more with less and make the government lean and accountable to the people,” he said during a White House address preceding his meeting with the governors. “We can do so much more with the money we spend.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Budget Blueprint Seeks Dramatic Military Spending Increase appeared first on Law Street.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would fine lawmakers for photographing or recording events in the chamber, in what is likely a direct response to a June sit-in staged by Democrats. After the House cut the CSPAN video feed during the sit-in, which was a response to the House refusing to take up a gun-control bill, the Democratic lawmakers pulled out their phones, took photographs, and live streamed the protest on Periscope, garnering millions of views.

The new rules “will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people’s work,” Ryan’s  spokeswoman said in a statement. First violations will incur a $500 fine–deducted from the guilty lawmaker’s salary–and subsequent breaches will lead to a $2,500 fine. The next Congress will vote on the bill on January 3, and lawmakers from either party can propose amendments to the 34-page bill before that date.

Led by Georgia Representative John Lewis, a Democrat, the 25-hour sit-in was a response to Ryan’s refusal to allow a vote on gun control measures proposed after the Orlando nightclub shooting. While most happenings in the chamber are streamed by CSPAN, Ryan effectively shut off the cameras when he called for recess after Lewis and dozens of other lawmakers began the demonstration. To ensure the public still had a window into the chamber, the participants used their phones to live-stream the event, and CSPAN picked up the feed. The movement was referred to as #NoBillNoBreak on social media.

After Ryan, who received plenty of flack from GOP lawmakers after failing to respond to the sit-in, announced the bill, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), tweeted his reaction:

Dear @HouseGOP, you can fine me & @HouseDemocrats all the way into bankruptcy for #gunviolence sit-in, but we will always speak for victims.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) December 26, 2016

Some experts say that the rules could potentially violate Article 1 of the Constitution. Mike Stern, a former lawyer for the nonpartisan House counsel’s office, told Politico that the Constitution “gives the House the authority to discipline members; I have never heard of anything where an officer of the House was given that authority.” Rather than have fellow lawmakers handle disciplinary action, Ryan’s bill would grant the House Sergeant-at-Arms unilateral authority. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), responded by saying the bill’s language “appears to raise constitutional concerns.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Lawmakers May Be Fined if They Take Photographs in the Chamber appeared first on Law Street.

News broke this morning that Speaker of the House John Boehner will be resigning from Congress at the end of October. While some are rejoicing that the congressman, perhaps best known for his slightly orange visage and very active tear ducts, is stepping down, it’s also indicative of the identity crisis that is threatening to consume the Republican Party.

Boehner has long clashed with the more conservative, tea party side of his party. Most recently, members of the Freedom Caucus, some of Boehner’s biggest antagonists, threatened to oust him from the leadership if he didn’t make defunding Planned Parenthood a priority in the ongoing budget fight. This isn’t the first time they’ve tried–this has been a long-waged battle. But if they were successful this time around, Boehner was most likely going to have to rely on liberal support to keep his seat, which would be both an unpredictable and embarrassing situation.

But, by stepping down, Boehner also gains some freedom. No longer held hostage by the fact that he may lose a seat he no longer wants, Boehner now has the ability to advocate for a bill that will avoid a government shutdown. A clean spending bill, without the Planned Parenthood provisions, seems likely to pass. A Boehner aide stated about his decision:

The Speaker believes putting members through prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution. He is proud of what this majority has accomplished, and his Speakership, but for the good of the Republican Conference and the institution, he will resign the Speakership and his seat in Congress, effective October 30.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House before Boehner took the stage for a press conference around 10:45 this morning, pointing out that Boehner’s resignation is indicative of the struggles that the Republican Party is facing right now.

No one is entirely sure who is going to take over Boehner’s seat. Right now, the most likely candidate seems to be Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the highest ranking Republican in Congress after Boehner. But McCarthy falls more in line with Republican establishment than the more conservative members trying to oust Boehner. Whether or not there will be a challenge from the right will be interesting to watch–this battle could get incredibly divisive. Given the infighting currently taking place in the Republican Party over who will be the 2016 nominee, it will be interesting to see if the battle for the House leadership gets just as messy.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Boehner Resigns: Another Establishment Republican Bites the Dust appeared first on Law Street.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been an outspoken opponent of marriage equality for years. She’s campaigned on traditional marriage and supported it at both the state and federal levels. In an interview after yesterday’s Values Voter Summit however, Bachmann responded to a question about gay marriage by calling it “boring” and “not an issue.” Oh really? That’s interesting news considering the source. Just for giggles (or let’s be honest, groans), let’s take a look at some of Bachmann’s greatest hits on gay marriage and what she so sweetly terms the “gay lifestyle” and cross our fingers that she’s actually going to give this topic a rest during future diatribes to her hometown paper after leaving congress this year.

1. In response to the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA. What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.

This, of course, is the statement that garnered the very best Nancy Pelosi response of all time: “Who cares?”

2. In response to Arizona’s vetoed ‘Right to Discriminate’ bill:

The thing that I think is getting a little tiresome is the gay community have so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere.

3. In response to Minnesota legalizing gay marriage:

I’m proud to have introduced the original traditional marriage amendment, and I thank all Minnesotans who have worked so hard on this issue.

4. In response to the question, ‘Why can’t same-sex couples get married?:

They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.

5. Ahead of Minnesota’s legalization of gay marriage:

The Bible is very clear on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it. Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God, and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next…These are very scary times. I don’t want my family to be the last ones out.

6. On the ‘deviancy’ of the gay community:

(The gay community will) abolish age of consent laws, which means we will do away with statutory rape laws so that adults will be able to freely prey on little children sexually. That’s the deviance that we’re seeing embraced in our culture today.

7. On the possibility of gay marriage in Minnesota:

We will have the immediate loss of civil liberties for five million Minnesotans. In our public schools, whether they want to or not, they’ll be forced to start teaching that same-sex marriage is equal, that it is normal and that children should try it.

8. In response to President Obama’s support of same-sex marriage:

The President’s announcement today shows how out of touch he is with the values of American families…Americans know better and support traditional marriage…I will do everything in my power to support and preserve traditional marriage and to protect American families…despite our president’s decision to thumb his nose at the traditional institution of marriage.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michele Bachmann Calls Gay Marriage Boring, But Her History Says Otherwise appeared first on Law Street.

Monday night I was watching Late Night with Seth Meyers  with the hilarious Bill Hader and Representative Nancy Pelosi as his guests. The House Minority Leader is no stranger to late night television, especially in recent months as she has been interviewed not just by Meyers but also by Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher.

One of the agendas Rep. Pelosi talks about in most interviews is her economic plan for women under the slogan, “When Women Succeed, America Succeeds”. I love this for several reasons, but most of all because we have the most powerful woman in American politics promoting equal rights for all genders. She shows that it is not only possible for women to succeed, but also that once they do, they have the platform to promote women’s rights on a larger scale.

My favorite quote of hers from the night was:

“Whether it’s about respect for women, a woman’s right to choose…equal pay for equal work… whether it’s protecting women from domestic violence, violence in the military, violence on the campus; all of it is about one word, and that is respect. The opposite is disrespect, and that’s what we have to fight.”

Nailed it!

Rep. Pelosi is not the only woman in congress promoting women’s rights, but as the first female Speaker of the House and current leader of Democrats in the House, she certainly has a larger following. According to the Center for American Women and Politics however, in 2014 women hold only 18.5 percent of the seats in Congress.

While 18.5 percent is leagues ahead of where women were 50 years ago, it is not very reflective of the American population. Women make up 51 percent of American citizens, yet we hold less than a fourth of the seats in the national government? No wonder women’s rights continue to simmer on the back burner!

The list of excuses for this imbalance is long and varied. Growing up in a conservative small town, I heard numerous insults thrown at women who dared to go for higher political office. They ranged from “Well, women just aren’t interested in politics” (FALSE) to, “If Hillary Clinton wins, I’ll see you all in Canada!” to “Think about what would happen when Aunt Flow comes to town!”

Yes, because every woman would be so emotionally unbalanced during her period days that she would no doubt get mad at some country for a minor slight and end up starting a war.

As silly as some of these sound, they reflect a long-running and deep-set opinion that women are somehow unfit to hold public office. We still see the disconnect between male leaders being “powerful” or “strict” to female leaders being “bitchy” or “emotional.” As Rep. Pelosi so sagely put: “All of it is about one word, and that is respect.“

Look at it this way. On the Forbes list of most powerful women, American politics are hardly represented. Rep. Pelosi shows up, as she should, along with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama.

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Courtesy of Shawn via Flickr.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Courtesy of World Bank Photo Collection/Simone D. McCourtie via Flickr.

First Lady Michelle Obama, Courtesy of Barack Obama/Christopher Dilts for Obama for America via Flickr.

Whether you agree with them or not, all three of these women have been fundamental in promoting women’s health and equality. It should also be noted that all three are part of the Democratic Party. There are definitely women who hold office as conservatives, but in a party notorious for blocking women’s rights, they cannot hope to rise very far.

Many other American women on the list are part of the entertainment, technology, or business industries, and foreign women in politics, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel who ranked number one, outrank American women across the board. Does this show that other countries, especially those in Europe, have a higher respect for women? Absolutely.

Disrespect for female leaders runs deep in American politics, but as those like Pelosi, Clinton, and Obama show, it is possible and necessary for women to keep fighting that disrespect. Our goal should be equality, because without it we will always be considered the lesser sex.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

Featured image courtesy of [Nancy Pelosi via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s All About Respect: We Need More Women In Politics appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, was shot and killed by police last weekend in Ferguson, Missouri. He was supposed to start college this week. The incident sparked days of protest in the town, and showed a growing divide between law enforcement and citizens. The police originally said that prior to being killed, Brown tried to take the officer’s gun. A witness to the crime, Brown’s friend, said the boy’s hands were up and it was clear he was trying to cooperate. Now law enforcement claims that he was involved in a strong-arm robbery prior to the shooting. The story is unclear, muddled, and deeply problematic.

Incidents like this are not uncommon. Some have drawn parallels to the killing of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner. And like those incidents, Michael Brown’s killing got big, quickly.

Social media, especially Twitter, exploded with hashtags, pictures, and stories of other similar situations. Michael Brown’s story didn’t stay in Ferguson for too long. In a matter of hours, it was all over the country. What started as raging fire on social media turned into protests and riots in Ferguson. Police responded quickly, and situation has continued to escalate. Many have called for the name of the police officer who killed Brown to be released, and despite the fact that the name has now been released, there are still more questions than answers.

And people besides social media activists and residents of the town have taken notice. Missouri’s Governor made a statement, The FBI announced it would conduct an investigation of the incident, and both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have made statements.

But much of the rhetoric surrounding this event has been about the bigger issue at hand here. While the death of Michael Brown is a tragedy in itself, the nation-wide dialogue has been focused on the killings and discrimination by police of young black men. Ferguson is a small town, and two thirds of its residents are black. But on the police force, there are 50 white officers, but only three black ones. Situations like this are repeated in towns around the country.

Many point to what happened in Ferguson as a microcosm of what is happening in the rest of America. And through social media, there has been increased awareness on the issues–both in Ferguson, and beyond. One of the biggest hashtags to come out of the incident was #IfIWasGunnedDown. People posted two pictures of themselves–one in a very flattering light, and one in a light in which they thought the media would portray them should they be killed.

Another picture that went viral was from students of Howard University. Thousands gathered and stood with the same pose–hands in the air–and Tweeted the picture out. In a matter of hours, it had thousands of favorites and re-tweets.

This pic from last night at Howard U is crazy powerful. Thanks @the_blackness48 @tasneemraja http://t.co/z4hxOR3QHU pic.twitter.com/EyAqYLT49A

— Julia Lurie (@julia_lurie) August 14, 2014

And though the narrative has been similar for some time now, with many young people taking part in the conversation, it seems that more and more leaders on the national level are taking notice and getting involved. Not only are they discussing this specific instance of violence, but the larger, deeply rooted problems in American society. Obama discussed transparency in local police departments. Nancy Pelosi made a statement imploring the Justice Department to investigate Brown’s death. And Rand Paul wrote in Time about a “systematic problem with today’s law enforcement.”

It remains unclear what will happen as a result of Michael Brown’s death. And there is absolutely no way to know whether the calls for change in the justice system, police force, and overall mentality in America will come to fruition. But with these all too common events going viral more often, it may just be a matter of time until something substantive comes as a result of these tragic losses.

[Huffington Post] [Huffington Post] [Holder Statement] [Pelosi Statement] [Howard Picture]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michael Brown’s Death Sparked a National Dialogue appeared first on Law Street.