Author: PolitCens

The Justice Department is investigating Postmaster General Louis DeJoy over political fundraising activity at his former business, a DeJoy spokesman said Thursday.Federal authorities in recent weeks have subpoenaed DeJoy and interviewed current and former employees of DeJoy’s and his business, The Washington Post reported. Mark Corallo, a DeJoy spokesman, confirmed an investigation in a statement to The Associated Press.”Mr. DeJoy has learned that the Department of Justice is investigating campaign contributions made by employees who worked for him when he was in the private sector. He has always been scrupulous in his adherence to the campaign contribution laws and has never knowingly violated them,” Corallo said.The agency declined to comment on news of the investigation.DeJoy, a wealthy former logistics executive, has been mired in controversy since taking over the Postal Service last summer and putting in place policy changes that delayed mail before the 2020 election, when there was a crush of mail-in ballots.Urged to write checksLast year, DeJoy faced additional scrutiny after the newspaper reported that five people who worked for his former company, New Breed Logistics, said they were urged by DeJoy’s aides or DeJoy himself to write checks and attend political fundraisers at his North Carolina mansion. Two former employees told the newspaper that DeJoy would later give bigger bonuses to reimburse for the contributions.It’s not illegal to encourage employees to contribute to candidates. It is illegal to reimburse them as a way of avoiding federal campaign contribution limits.DeJoy, who has not been charged with a crime, denied he had repaid executives for contributing to former President Donald Trump’s campaign, amid questioning before a congressional committee last year.Campaign finance disclosures show that between 2000 and 2014, when New Breed was sold, more than 100 employees donated a total of about $610,000 to Republican candidates supported by DeJoy and his family. He and his family have contributed more than $1 million to Republican politicians.A district attorney in Wake County, North Carolina, earlier this year decided not to pursue a criminal investigation into the allegations, saying the matter was out of her office’s jurisdiction.DeJoy to cooperateCorallo said DeJoy would cooperate with the investigation.”Mr. DeJoy fully cooperated with and answered the questions posed by Congress regarding these matters. The same is true of the Postal Service Inspector General’s inquiry, which after a thorough investigation gave Mr. DeJoy a clean bill of health on his disclosure and divestment issues. He expects nothing less in this latest matter, and he intends to work with DOJ toward swiftly resolving it,” Corallo said.
…

The administration of U.S. President Joe Biden is formally establishing the fight against corruption as a core national security interest. Biden on Thursday issued his first national security memorandum, outlining his anti-corruption agenda. “Corruption threatens United States national security, economic equity, global anti-poverty and development efforts, and democracy itself,” the president said in his directive. “But by effectively preventing and countering corruption and demonstrating the advantages of transparent and accountable governance, we can secure a critical advantage for the United States and other democracies.” Biden’s memorandum is important because it serves as a formal notification from the president “that he expects all relevant federal departments and agencies to up their anti-corruption game in very specific ways,” a senior administration official told reporters on a briefing call Thursday.  In part, the memo calls for combatting all forms of illicit finance in the country and with the international financial systems. It calls for American companies to report their beneficial owners to the Treasury Department and reduce offshore financial secrecy.Treasury’s beneficial ownership registry is intended to effectively bar illicit assets from being hidden behind anonymous shell companies.  “It’s a massive undertaking,” acknowledged the senior administration official, who spoke to reporters on condition of not being named. “We have seen several instances over past years in which the proceeds of corruption have been funneled through shell companies and wound up in major metropolitan areas in the United States to offshore those ill-gotten gains. And so we’re going to be taking additional steps to make sure that that doesn’t happen in the future.” In the action, the president calls for “corrupt individuals, transnational criminal organizations, and their facilitators” to be held accountable, including by taking criminal enforcement action against them. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Central Intelligence Agency will also be involved in the anti-corruption effort, which will use “all the tools at our disposal to make sure that we identify corruption where it’s happening and take appropriate policy responses,” said a senior U.S. official. Biden’s memo requests an interagency review to be completed within 200 days with a report and recommendations to be submitted to him for further direction and action.“The United States will lead by example and in partnership with allies, civil society, and the private sector to fight the scourge of corruption,” said the president in a statement. “But this is a mission for the entire the world. And we must all stand in support of courageous citizens around the globe who are demanding honest, transparent governance.”
…

U.S. President Joe Biden visits Europe later this month on what will be his first trip abroad since taking office, the White House announced Thursday. Biden, who became president on January 20, will meet with world leaders in the United Kingdom, Belgium and Switzerland during his visit June 10-16.  “This trip will highlight America’s commitment to restoring our alliances, revitalizing the transatlantic relationship, and working in close cooperation with our allies and multilateral partners to address global challenges and better secure America’s interests,” White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said in a statement. The U.S. president will meet in the United Kingdom with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on June 10 and attend the June 11-13 G-7 summit in the county of Cornwall in southwest England. FILE – Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II delivers a speech in the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament, at the Palace of Westminster in London, May 11, 2021.Biden will meet with Queen Elizabeth at Windsor Castle on June 13 before traveling to Brussels, Belgium, for the NATO summit on June 14, when he will “affirm the United States’ commitment to NATO, transatlantic security and collective defense,” Psaki said. While in Brussels, Biden will also meet with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan “to discuss the full range of bilateral and regional issues” and participate in the U.S.-EU Summit on June 15, when leaders will discuss international health security, global economic recovery, climate change and other matters. Biden will also meet with Belgium’s King Philippe and Prime Minister Alexander De Croo. His European trip will also take him to Geneva, Switzerland, “where he will hold a bilateral summit with Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin on June 16,” according to Psaki. Biden will also meet with Swiss President Guy Parmelin and Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis. 
 
…

With his online presence all but obliterated since leaving office in January, former U.S. President Donald Trump has permanently shut down the webpage blog that he started less than a month ago. His blog, From the Desk of Donald J. Trump, has been scrapped from the webpage of the former U.S. leader, senior aide Jason Miller told CNBC on Wednesday. Miller said the blog, on which Trump commented on U.S. political and social issues and foreign affairs, “will not be returning.”   “It was just auxiliary to the broader efforts we have and are working on,” Miller said, but he offered no timeline for any new Trump online site. Trump once drew tens of millions of social media followers, with multiple pronouncements almost daily when he was president. He was a prolific poster on social media platforms, pillorying the Democratic political opposition, endorsing Republican candidates he liked and trashing those he didn’t, and offering his commentary on the events of the day.   FILE – President Donald Trump’s Twitter feed is photographed on an Apple iPad in New York, June 27, 2019.But both Facebook and Twitter banned him from posting on their sites. Their decisions came after he urged his supporters to “fight like hell” to confront lawmakers at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 as they were certifying the Electoral College outcome. Trump had lost the November election to Democrat Joe Biden, who was inaugurated as president two weeks later. Trump and his political allies have long accused social media companies of being hostile to conservative viewpoints. Trump assailed Facebook as “a total disgrace and an embarrassment to our country” when an internal review panel recently upheld the ban against him, pending further review. FILE – Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Donald Trump, speaks to media at Trump Tower in New York, Nov. 16, 2016.Trump’s blog at first was billed as a new “communications platform.” Trump aide Miller called the Desk page “a great resource” to find the former president’s statements. But Miller also acknowledged it was “not a new social media platform.” Now it is apparent that Trump’s efforts to reengage online with followers have fallen flat, with The Washington Post reporting that social engagement around Trump — online comments and reactions about him — has plunged 95% since January, to its lowest level since 2016, when he won the presidency. Trump has never called Biden to formally concede the election and has continued to claim that voting irregularities cost him another four-year term in the White House. He says he is considering running for another term in the 2024 election but won’t decide until after the 2022 congressional elections.  Since leaving office, he has lived at his coastal mansion in Florida and made just a handful of political appearances, although he is planning more in the coming weeks. He has granted interviews to some conservative-leaning media outlets, and several Republican lawmakers have traveled to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate to visit with him and talk politics. Meanwhile, reports surfaced this week that Trump has been telling some supporters that he expects to be reinstated as president by the end of August, as he encourages rogue reviews of the vote counts in key states where election authorities have long since ruled that Biden legitimately won. There is no legal mechanism in the U.S. by which Trump could reclaim the presidency while Biden is in office. Biden’s term ends in January 2025. FILE – Former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.But Trump maintains wide influence in Republican political circles, even if his online presence has all but disappeared.  In line with his wishes, a big majority of Republican lawmakers recently voted against creation of an independent congressional commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol in which hundreds of Trump supporters rampaged into the building, smashed windows, occupied both chambers of Congress and scuffled with police. Five people were left dead, and more than 400 protesters were arrested and are awaiting adjudication on an array of criminal offenses. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives approved creation of the commission, but Democrats failed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster against the legislation in the Senate.
 
…

The United States is calling on Central American countries to confront corruption and poverty as Washington examines root causes and strategies to manage irregular migration flows. Wednesday in Costa Rica, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard discussed “a variety of issues to promote the prosperity and security” in the region. The top U.S. diplomat thanked Ebrard “for the Mexican government’s continued collaboration on addressing the root causes of irregular migration in the region.”  Both also “discussed progress toward addressing COVID-19 and economic recovery, as well as issues related to regional democracy and governance, and security,” according to the U.S. State Department. Blinken embarked on his first in-person trip to the Western Hemisphere this week when he traveled to San Jose, Costa Rica. U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris stands by as President Joe Biden delivers remarks in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building’s South Court Auditorium at the White House in Washington, June 2, 2021.The top U.S. diplomat’s trip comes ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris’s upcoming visits to Guatemala and Mexico.   Harris has been tapped by U.S. President Joe Biden to lead diplomatic efforts in Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to address the underlying causes of migration in hopes of halting the flow of Central American migrants to the U.S. Some experts see Blinken’s visit to Costa Rica as laying the foundation for a successful visit by Harris. “The U.S. is also looking for cooperation on immigration, and we’re more likely to get that cooperation when governments see the carrot of a broad-based economic integration program,” said Professor Richard Feinberg, who teaches international political economy at University of California, San Diego. Feinberg suggested including Caribbean Basin countries in the U.S. “transportation networks” and “economic integration” as Biden is eyeing large expenditures on infrastructure, roads, ports, and airports in the United States. COVID vaccinesBlinken’s trip to the region also comes as China actively positions itself as the dominating provider of COVID-19 vaccinations in Latin America. FILE – Refrigerated containers with supplies to produce China’s Sinovac vaccines against the coronavirus disease arrive at Sao Paulo International Airport in Guarulhos, Brazil April 19, 2021.As countries in Latin America continue to get doses, three Chinese vaccines — CanSino, Sinopharm, and Sinovac — are reaching wider distribution in the region.  The U.S. has announced its goal to ship 80 million vaccine doses abroad by the end of June. Blinken said Washington will detail this global distribution plan in the next two weeks. “We will be announcing the process by which we will distribute those vaccines, what the criteria are, how we will do it,” said Blinken during a joint press conference with Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado on Tuesday. “Among other things, we will focus on equity — on the equitable distribution of vaccines; we’ll focus on science; we’ll work in coordination with COVAX; and we will distribute vaccines without political requirements of those receiving them,” added Blinken. Asked if he was worried that getting Chinese vaccines would come with certain conditions and caveats, Costa Rican President Alvarado said there should be “no strings attached.” “Our condition is that those vaccines that we buy or receive as donations should be qualified by a strict agency,” he said. In May, the United States said it would share an additional 20 million coronavirus vaccine doses with other countries, in addition to the 60 million it has already committed. Officials said the U.S. will distribute according to need, and not to curry favor.US to Distribute 80 Million Vaccine Doses Globally, on Basis of Need  Sharing is caring: US distribution of vaccines is, president says, a case of ‘the fundamental decency of American people’  Blinken also attended a regional meeting of the Central American foreign ministers held Tuesday under the auspices of the Central American Integration System, where collaborating on migration challenges, combating the COVID-19 pandemic, improving economic growth, as well as reinforcing democratic institutions, were said to be high on agenda. VOA’s Cindy Saine contributed to this report.
 
…

When Democrat Joe Biden ran for vice president in 2008, he delivered a speech in which he repeated a saying he attributed to his father: “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.”At the time, it was delivered as a criticism of the policies of Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president who was running against Biden’s ticket-mate, Barack Obama. Last week, though, when Biden unveiled the first budget request of his own presidency, some of his supporters in the more liberal corners of the Democratic Party may have found themselves wondering about Biden’s values.While the $6 trillion budget request for fiscal year 2022 proposes significant spending on many of the party’s priorities, including education, support for families, clean energy and more, there are zero dollars allocated for a number of things Biden campaigned on heavily during his presidential run, including student loan forgiveness, a public option for health insurance and reform of the unemployment insurance system.FILE – Rep. Pramila Jayapal, (D-WA), speaks during a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law on Capitol Hill, in Washington on July 29, 2020.Democratic criticism mutedReaction from Democrats on the party’s left flank to the Biden budget was muted, but members plainly noticed the absence of key proposals.Congresswomen Barbara Lee and Pramila Jayapal, two prominent progressives among House Democrats, published an essay in Newsweek the day after the budget release that pointedly called for some of the items missing from the Biden proposal.“Alongside expanded social welfare programs and unemployment insurance, we’re calling for a national, universal single-payer health care program that puts people before profits,” they wrote.FILE – In this Oct. 24, 2019, file photo students walks in front of Fraser Hall on the University of Kansas campus in Lawrence, Kan.Student loan debtOn the campaign trail, Biden came around to a call from activists to institute debt forgiveness for people struggling under the burden of student debts. But he has never been willing to go as far as some in the party who have demanded blanket cancellation of student loans.Still, he has called for forgiveness of up to $10,000 in loans for individuals earning less than $125,000 per year.In an interview with The New York Times published on May 20, Biden said he didn’t support such an expansive program, saying that students who elect to go to pricey private universities ought not be subsidized by the public.“The idea that you go to Penn, and you’re paying a total of 70,000 bucks a year, and the public should pay for that? I don’t agree,” he told columnist David Brooks.Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks during a primary election night rally, March 3, 2020, at Eastern Market in Detroit.Second disappointmentThe Biden administration’s decision not to include student debt relief in the budget was the second major disappointment for activists seeking debt relief. The administration had originally signaled it wanted to include $10,000 in student debt relief in its COVID-19 relief package, but no such provision was in the final bill.Activists have been muted in their criticism, because many do not want Biden to go through Congress at all, preferring that he simply sign an executive order eliminating student debt. It’s a position that some in the party, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, loudly embrace.”Student loan cancellation could occur today,” Warren told the publication Insider last week. “The president just needs to sign a piece of paper canceling that debt. It doesn’t take any act of Congress or any amendment to the budget.”This image shows the main page of the HealthCare.gov website on Feb. 15, 2021.Public option for health insuranceBiden also campaigned on a promise to expand access to health care by adding a “public option” to the health insurance policies sold on the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act signed into law by Obama. Biden repeatedly described such a move as “building on” the existing foundation of the ACA, and rejected calls to create a nationwide government-funded health insurance program — “Medicare for All” — advocated by others in the Democratic Party.Last week’s budget request restated his commitment to “providing Americans with additional, lower-cost coverage choices by: creating a public option that would be available through the ACA marketplaces; and giving people age 60 and older the option to enroll in the Medicare program with the same premiums and benefits as current beneficiaries, but with financing separate from the Medicare Trust Fund.”But the administration set aside no additional funding for such a program.“Health care is a right, not a privilege,” according to the budget document. “Families need the financial security and peace of mind that comes with quality, affordable health coverage. In collaboration with the Congress, the president’s health care agenda would achieve this promise.”A hiring sign shows outside of restaurant in Prospect Heights, Illinois, March 21, 2021.Unemployment insurance reformCampaigning during a pandemic that cost millions of Americans their jobs, Biden also pledged to create a more responsive unemployment insurance program that would be less variable from state to state, would automatically expand during economic downturns to prevent relief being blocked by partisan fighting in Washington, and would be more resistant to fraud.However, as with debt relief and the public option, the administration set aside no funds for that, either. Instead, the administration argued that the pandemic relief efforts already passed have amounted to “setting the stage for broad changes to modernize the program.”This and other omissions from the budget frustrated more than just the Democratic left. Budget hawks concerned about the deficit found the addition of items to the Biden agenda without identified spending to pay for them troubling.Other spending“The budget doesn’t include all parts of the agenda,” said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Leaving the cost of other administration priorities out of the equation presents a distorted version of what the administration plans to spend, he said.“We know there’s interest in health care, there’s interest in student debt changes. So, this is a lot of money, and a lot of borrowing.”While he said he is pleased that Biden is offering measures to pay for some of his biggest proposals, Goldwein pointed out that there are no “pay-fors” associated with these additional agenda items, such as unemployment insurance, public option for health care and student loan forgiveness.
…

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is ruling out a presidential commission to study the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, telling House Democrats that having President Joe Biden appoint a panel is unworkable even after the Senate blocked an independent probe last week.  
Pelosi on Tuesday laid out possible next steps after last week’s Senate vote, in which Senate Republicans blocked legislation to create an independent, bipartisan panel to investigate the siege by former President Donald Trump’s supporters. She proposed four options for an investigation of the attack, according to a person on the private Democratic caucus call who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations.  
The first option, Pelosi said, is to give the Senate another chance to vote on the commission. Six Republicans voted with Democrats to move forward with the bill, and a seventh missed the vote but said he would have backed it. That means Democrats would only need support from three additional Republicans to reach the 60 votes needed for passage. The commission would be modeled after a highly respected panel that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  
The other options involve the House investigating the attack, meaning the probes would be inherently partisan. Pelosi suggested that she could appoint a new select committee to investigate the siege or give the responsibility to a single committee, like the House Homeland Security panel, which wrote the original bipartisan bill to create the commission. Alternately, Pelosi said committees could simply push ahead with their own investigations that are already underway.
But the speaker said she believed a commission appointed by Biden — an idea pitched by some in her caucus after Friday’s Senate vote — was “not a workable idea in this circumstance” because Congress would still need to approve money and subpoena authority for the panel.  
Pelosi’s comments come as members of both parties have pushed for a deep dive into the insurrection, which was designed to interrupt the presidential electoral count and was the worst attack on Congress in two centuries. Four rioters died in the attack, including a woman who was shot by police as she tried to break into the House chamber while lawmakers were still inside. The rioters brutally beat police and broke in through windows and doors as they hunted for lawmakers and called for Trump’s defeat to be overturned.  
The White House has not yet said whether Biden would try to appoint a commission without Congress. On Friday, White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that “the president has been clear that the shameful events of Jan. 6 need to be independently and fully investigated” and that he remains committed to that.  
“We will continue to work with Congress to find a path forward to ensure that happens,” she said.  
After the Senate vote, some Democrats urged Biden to move on his own.  
“In light of the GOP’s cowardly filibuster of a bipartisan January 6th commission, I urge President Biden to form and appoint a Presidential Commission to fully investigate the insurrection at the United States Capitol, to identify the individuals and organizations who plotted or were involved in those violent acts, and to make recommendations to prevent such an attack from ever recurring,” said Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly in a statement over the weekend.  
It’s uncertain whether the Senate would hold another vote on the commission and whether any additional Republicans would support it. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., left open the possibility of a second attempt, saying after the vote that “the events of Jan. 6 will be investigated.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., opposes the commission, saying he believes the panel would be partisan even though it would be divided evenly between the two parties.
McConnell’s criticism came after Trump opposed it and called the legislation a “Democrat trap.”
Still, six in McConnell’s caucus defied him, arguing that an independent look was needed, and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey would have brought the total to seven but for a family commitment, his office said. The Republicans who voted to move forward on the bill were Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Rob Portman of Ohio and Mitt Romney of Utah.  
The House passed the bill in May, with 35 Republicans voting with Democrats to pass it.
…

On Tuesday, Joe Biden became the first sitting American president to commemorate the anniversary of the destruction of a prosperous Black community by a white mob that left up to 300 people dead and 10,000 homeless.  “Just because history is silent, it doesn’t mean that it did not take place,” Biden said in remarks to survivors of the massacre and their families at the Greenwood Cultural Center. “Some injustices are so heinous, so horrific, so grievous, they can’t be buried, no matter how hard people try.” A hundred years ago on May 31 and June 1, Greenwood, a neighborhood including what was then known as Black Wall Street, was looted and burned to the ground by Tulsa’s white residents with support from the virtually all-white Tulsa Police Department. The massacre was triggered by accusations that a 19-year-old Black man had assaulted a 17-year-old white girl in an elevator.  Michelle Brown-Burdex, program coordinator of the Greenwood Cultural Center, speaks as she leads President Joe Biden on a tour of the center to mark the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa race massacre, June 1, 2021, in Tulsa, Oklahoma.For decades after the massacre, the violent attack was covered up and not well known nationally. But as the national conversation increasingly focused on the issue of systemic racism and police violence, the incident has received more attention in the media and pop culture. Biden met with three surviving members of the massacre — Viola “Mother” Fletcher, Hughes “Uncle Red” Van Ellis and Lessie “Mother Randle” Benningfield Randle — who are all now over 100 years old.  Survivors and siblings Viola Fletcher and Hughes Van Ellis listen as U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the centennial anniversary of the Tulsa race massacre during a visit to the Greenwood Cultural Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, June 1, 2021.”My fellow Americans, this was not a riot. This was a massacre,” Biden said, after leading a moment of silence for the victims. The president announced steps to narrow the racial wealth gap. His administration plans to invest tens of billions of dollars in disadvantaged communities, expand federal contracting with minority-owned businesses, and repeal two Trump-era rules that restrict fair housing practices.  The Tulsa massacre’s centennial came just over a year since the death of George Floyd, a Black man, at the hands of a white police officer — an event that triggered the Black Lives Matter movement in the U.S. and around the world. For months, Republicans and Democrats have struggled to reach consensus on police reform legislation activists have pushed since Floyd’s death. Activists said Biden’s visit serves to communicate the history and reality of the oppression of African Americans. “And, really, the erasure of black wealth and an all-out racial domestic terrorist attack within this country,” said Steve Phillips, founder of the political media organization Democracy in Color and author of the book Brown Is the New White. “People need to know that that is part of what this country’s history has been.”  But Phillips said the steps the Biden administration is taking to address the racial wealth gap is not nearly enough to address a problem. In the century since the massacre in Tulsa, Black Americans continue to be discriminated in housing, banking, education and employment. FILE – Crowds of people watch fires during the Tulsa Race Massacre in Tulsa, Okla., on June 1, 1921. (Department of Special Collections, McFarlin Library, The University of Tulsa via AP)The legislation, first introduced in 1989, would establish a commission to examine slavery and discrimination in the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies. “What is owed to African Americans who did the labor to pick the cotton that got sold that made America wealthy?” Phillips said. “And that we’ve been locked out of for most of the country’s history from participating in the economic largesse?” The Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act was introduced again by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, in January 2021. Lee said the descendants of slaves continue to suffer from the legacy of that brutal system. Voting rights Biden’s visit comes as many conservative states, including Texas, are pushing for voting legislation that supporters say would reduce fraud. Critics, however, see it as undermining Black and other minority voters. The president criticized those state laws in his remarks. “This sacred right is under assault with incredible intensity like I’ve never seen,” he said. Biden said he will “fight like heck” for the Senate to pass the For the People Act, a federal voting-rights bill passed by the House of Representatives in March that would counteract many of the voting restrictions passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures. Republicans have called the bill a “power grab.” Vice President Kamala Harris will lead the administration’s efforts on voting rights, Biden said. 
 
…

When Democrat Joe Biden ran for vice president in 2008, he delivered a speech in which he repeated a saying he attributed to his father: “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.”At the time, it was delivered as a criticism of the policies of Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president who was running against Biden’s ticket-mate, Barack Obama. Last week, though, when Biden unveiled the first budget request of his own presidency, some of his supporters in the more liberal corners of the Democratic Party may have found themselves wondering about Biden’s values.While the $6 trillion budget request for fiscal year 2022 proposes significant spending on many of the party’s priorities, including education, support for families, clean energy and more, there are zero dollars allocated for a number of things Biden campaigned on heavily during his presidential run, including student loan forgiveness, a public option for health insurance and reform of the unemployment insurance system.FILE – Rep. Pramila Jayapal, (D-WA), speaks during a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law on Capitol Hill, in Washington on July 29, 2020.Democratic criticism mutedReaction from Democrats on the party’s left flank to the Biden budget was muted, but members plainly noticed the absence of key proposals.Congresswomen Barbara Lee and Pramila Jayapal, two prominent progressives among House Democrats, published an essay in Newsweek the day after the budget release that pointedly called for some of the items missing from the Biden proposal.“Alongside expanded social welfare programs and unemployment insurance, we’re calling for a national, universal single-payer health care program that puts people before profits,” they wrote.FILE – In this Oct. 24, 2019, file photo students walks in front of Fraser Hall on the University of Kansas campus in Lawrence, Kan.Student loan debtOn the campaign trail, Biden came around to a call from activists to institute debt forgiveness for people struggling under the burden of student debts. But he has never been willing to go as far as some in the party who have demanded blanket cancellation of student loans.Still, he has called for forgiveness of up to $10,000 in loans for individuals earning less than $125,000 per year.In an interview with The New York Times published on May 20, Biden said he didn’t support such an expansive program, saying that students who elect to go to pricey private universities ought not be subsidized by the public.“The idea that you go to Penn, and you’re paying a total of 70,000 bucks a year, and the public should pay for that? I don’t agree,” he told columnist David Brooks.Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks during a primary election night rally, March 3, 2020, at Eastern Market in Detroit.Second disappointmentThe Biden administration’s decision not to include student debt relief in the budget was the second major disappointment for activists seeking debt relief. The administration had originally signaled it wanted to include $10,000 in student debt relief in its COVID-19 relief package, but no such provision was in the final bill.Activists have been muted in their criticism, because many do not want Biden to go through Congress at all, preferring that he simply sign an executive order eliminating student debt. It’s a position that some in the party, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, loudly embrace.”Student loan cancellation could occur today,” Warren told the publication Insider last week. “The president just needs to sign a piece of paper canceling that debt. It doesn’t take any act of Congress or any amendment to the budget.”This image shows the main page of the HealthCare.gov website on Feb. 15, 2021.Public option for health insuranceBiden also campaigned on a promise to expand access to health care by adding a “public option” to the health insurance policies sold on the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act signed into law by Obama. Biden repeatedly described such a move as “building on” the existing foundation of the ACA, and rejected calls to create a nationwide government-funded health insurance program — “Medicare for All” — advocated by others in the Democratic Party.Last week’s budget request restated his commitment to “providing Americans with additional, lower-cost coverage choices by: creating a public option that would be available through the ACA marketplaces; and giving people age 60 and older the option to enroll in the Medicare program with the same premiums and benefits as current beneficiaries, but with financing separate from the Medicare Trust Fund.”But the administration set aside no additional funding for such a program.“Health care is a right, not a privilege,” according to the budget document. “Families need the financial security and peace of mind that comes with quality, affordable health coverage. In collaboration with the Congress, the president’s health care agenda would achieve this promise.”A hiring sign shows outside of restaurant in Prospect Heights, Illinois, March 21, 2021.Unemployment insurance reformCampaigning during a pandemic that cost millions of Americans their jobs, Biden also pledged to create a more responsive unemployment insurance program that would be less variable from state to state, would automatically expand during economic downturns to prevent relief being blocked by partisan fighting in Washington, and would be more resistant to fraud.However, as with debt relief and the public option, the administration set aside no funds for that, either. Instead, the administration argued that the pandemic relief efforts already passed have amounted to “setting the stage for broad changes to modernize the program.”This and other omissions from the budget frustrated more than just the Democratic left. Budget hawks concerned about the deficit found the addition of items to the Biden agenda without identified spending to pay for them troubling.Other spending“The budget doesn’t include all parts of the agenda,” said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Leaving the cost of other administration priorities out of the equation presents a distorted version of what the administration plans to spend, he said.“We know there’s interest in health care, there’s interest in student debt changes. So, this is a lot of money, and a lot of borrowing.”While he said he is pleased that Biden is offering measures to pay for some of his biggest proposals, Goldwein pointed out that there are no “pay-fors” associated with these additional agenda items, such as unemployment insurance, public option for health care and student loan forgiveness.
…

Harvey Wasserman is a resident of Florida and a veteran of the U.S. Air Force. He voted for Republican Donald Trump in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections but watched in horror as hundreds of supporters of the former president stormed the Capitol Building January 6.  “My stomach was in knots,” he told VOA. “The sheer ignorance of those so-called Trump supporters was doing nothing more than showing the world the dark side of the Republican Party. It made me feel a little embarrassed to have voted for him.” More than 800 people are believed to have entered the building, temporarily halting Congress’ attempt to certify the Electoral College votes and formalize Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the November 3 elections. Five people died as a result of the events of that day and many law enforcement officers were injured.  But nearly five months later, Wasserman has a different interpretation of that violent day’s events.   “As I look back and try to understand what happened, I believe a good portion of the more aggressive agitators were plants from radical groups,” he explained, echoing the disproven claims that leftist groups like antifa were responsible for the attacks. “Patriots’ honor and respect for our nation’s symbols and place of government is sacred,” Wasserman continued. “Trump supporters would never use the American flag and pole to break into the Capitol Building.” But the facts have shown a different story. As of earlier May, federal prosecutors have arrested more than 440 people sympathetic to Trump’s assertion that the election was rigged against him and expect to charge at least 100 more. A congressional witch-hunt Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would create a 10-person bipartisan commission to investigate the riots. Last week, Republicans in the Senate killed that effort by rejecting a similar bill. American voters are split on how to proceed, many by political affiliation.  In a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll conducted May 19-20, nearly 70% of Democratic voters say the storming of the Capitol Building warrants a congressional investigation.Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, departs the Senate chamber after final votes before the Memorial Day recess, at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, May 28, 2021. 
However, 62% of Republican voters believe that ongoing investigations conducted by the FBI and Department of Justice are sufficient. Independent voters were split evenly on the issue.  “Like so many things that happened in America, we may never know the truth,” Wasserman said of who caused the January 6 riots, “but we don’t need to waste more money on another congressional witch hunt.” One week after the deadly riot, the House impeached Trump on grounds of “incitement of insurrection.” Biden was sworn in as the nation’s 46th president one week later, on January 20. Trump did not attend the inauguration. Jillian Dani is also a Trump voter from central Florida. Like Wasserman, she doesn’t believe an additional commission is needed. But any further investigation, she said, should include questioning about the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests and riots for racial justice that predominantly took place last summer. “In both the D.C. riots and the BLM riots, there were mostly peaceful protesters in attendance, but a smaller group of people ruined that for everyone,” she said. “All rioting is wrong, and more people died at the BLM protests. I don’t think there are some reasons for rioting and killing that are better than others.”A demonstrator holds a “Black Lives Matter” flag during a protest at the state Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Jan. 20, 2021.Further investigation needed Many of the Democratic voters who spoke to VOA for this article don’t see the two protests as equal. They note that the January 6 protests and riots were held with the goal of disrupting the certification of Biden’s victory, a victory proven several times to be the result of a free and fair election. Black Lives Matter protests and riots, some argue, were in response to police brutality against African Americans. While critics of BLM say there was a higher death toll at those protests, the movement’s supporters note that the violence was rare and spread over a far larger number of events. According to an analysis by the U.S. Crisis Monitor, a joint effort by Princeton University and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, out of more than 10,000 demonstrations in 2020, in more than 2,700 locations across the country, 94% of the events happened with no violence. At least 25 deaths have been linked to the protests.Abby Rae Lacombe lives in Pennsylvania and says she doesn’t belong to either political party, although she voted for Democratic candidates over Trump in the last two presidential election cycles. Lacombe says she believes that if Americans want the protests and rioting from last summer investigated, they should reach out to their representatives to do just that. “But just because you want the BLM protests and riots investigated doesn’t mean we shouldn’t investigate the events from January 6,” she said. “What we do with one doesn’t disqualify the other.” And for Lacombe and others, further investigating those events is essential. “I worry if we don’t punish those responsible, those involved, those who consorted and those who planned this,” she said, “then this country is going to devolve into waste in the best-case scenario, or war in the worst case.”  
Another Pennsylvania voter who supported Democrats, Jordan Smith, believes that the coronavirus pandemic made it difficult for Americans to summon the kind of response the Washington riots require. “People are exhausted after more than a year of a global pandemic,” he said, adding “but we need to figure out how to look into and care about what January 6 says about us, that Americans are our own worst enemy right now.” FILE – Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump protest in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021.What January 6 says about America Smith acknowledged any deeper investigation should be done in a way that doesn’t alienate half the country’s voters. “We’ve got to do it in a thoughtful way that doesn’t blame 73 million voters, including those who showed up to Washington, D.C., to protest peacefully,” he said. “But we have to continue to investigate and discuss the events of that day without fear. We can’t sweep it under the rug merely to placate those who identify politically with those who stormed the Capitol.” Kyle Kondik, director of communications at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Republican politicians in Congress opposed a commission for political reasons. “I would think that getting to the bottom of what happened that day is important to the future of the United States,” he said, “but most Republicans don’t seem to share that view. Likely because they feel it could hurt them from a political standpoint — their politicians fanned the flames, and their voters led the attack.” Many Republican voters like Dani agree with Democrats that those involved in the storming of the Capitol Building should be punished. “People who broke the law should be prosecuted and charged as applicable as is being done now,” she said, “but I don’t think politicians like Trump should be charged with inciting that violence. If we do that, then there are plenty of examples of Democratic politicians using their words to incite violence, as well.” She’s worried this is all part of a never-ending cycle of riots and doubt in the nation’s electoral system. “I think there was a lot of sketchy stuff that went into this election,” she said, despite multiple recounts and the repeated debunking of rumors calling the 2020 presidential election into question. “And I think election results are always going to be fought over at this point — largely because of big wig politicians in Washington.” Kondik fears the impact those persistent doubts on our election system will have on the future of the United States. “It was basically a group of weekend warriors that broke into the United States Capitol and disrupted our election because of a lie pushed by conservative politicians. How weak does that make us look?” he said. “And if the story of this country in the 21st century turns out to be that internal rot caused our decline, it’s going to be hard to look at January 6, 2021, and not see an important moment in that story. We need to continue to investigate that day.” But Kondik doesn’t believe a congressional commission is the only way to do that, citing the courts, the U.S. Justice Department as well as hearings led by Democrats in Congress as other potential options. “But I think it’s important we project an internal cohesiveness and strength to the world right now,” he added, “and a bipartisan congressional commission would have been an important way to do that.”  
…

Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives boycotted a legislative session late Sunday, blocking a vote on an election reform bill critics say would make it harder for Blacks and Hispanics to vote. With just over an hour before a midnight deadline to pass the measure, Republican members of the House said that Democrats had walked out to deny the House a quorum for a vote. The Texas House went into recess until 10 a.m. local time on Monday – beyond the midnight Sunday deadline to pass legislation in this session. A vote on the measure is certain to pass the Republican-dominated house. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who strongly supports the bill, said in a late Sunday emailed statement that the bill would be added to a special legislative session planned for this fall. Supporters of the legislation said it is needed to bolster election security. The country’s second-most-populous state already has some of the most restrictive electoral laws in the United States, even without the pending bill. The proposed bill states that the changes “are not intended to impair the right of free suffrage” but are necessary to “prevent fraud in the electoral process.” Republican U.S. Representative Michael McCaul of Texas told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the intent is to “give the American people more trust in our elections.” Democrats and civil rights groups argue that such legislation disproportionately burdens or discourages voters of color, as well as the elderly and disabled. There were no substantial allegations of fraud in Texas in last year’s election and Republicans maintained their three-decade grip on all statewide offices. Republican state lawmakers across the country have pursued more stringent voting restrictions following former President Donald Trump’s false claim that he lost the 2020 election because of widespread election fraud. So far, 14 other U.S. states have enacted 22 laws this year that make it more difficult for Americans to vote, according to a report released on Friday by the Brennan Center for Justice. Scrapping innovationsThe Texas bill would strike down innovations used during last November’s election because of the coronavirus pandemic. Drive-through voting, credited with helping spark record voter turnout in Houston, will no longer be allowed. The bill also limits early hours to vote, makes it more difficult to cast absentee ballots and does away with drop boxes. The bill would forbid voting on Sundays before 1 p.m. Critics called that a blatant strike on the “Souls to the Polls” effort at Black churches, when worshippers have traditionally traveled in caravans to polling sites to cast votes after morning services. The legislation would also scrap 24-hour polling sites and ban mobile units or temporary structures from being used as polling places. The bill would also make it easier for courts to overturn elections where fraud is alleged.  Instead of requiring evidence that fraudulent votes directly resulted in a candidate’s win, a court could overturn  an election if the number of fraudulent votes is equal to the margin of victory, regardless of who those fraudulent votes were cast for. New requirements would take effect as well for Texans who want to vote through the mail and election officials would be barred from sending unsolicited mail-in ballot applications to voters. The legislation would also make the removal of disruptive, partisan poll watchers more difficult. Democratic President Joe Biden said in a statement on Saturday that the legislation in Texas “attacks the sacred right to vote.” Earlier this month, dozens of companies – including American Airlines Group Inc, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co and Microsoft Corp – urged legislators to reject any law restricting access to ballots. ‘In their place’Members of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus and the state’s NAACP civil rights organization said the bill hearkened back to the Jim Crow-era, when laws were enacted to block Blacks from voting and to maintain racial segregation in the U.S. South from the late 19th century into the 1960s. “This is a clear case of taking power and putting minorities in their place so they can never share power in Texas,” Gary Bledsoe, president of the state’s NAACP chapter, said ahead of the vote. Julian Castro, secretary of housing and urban development under former President Barack Obama and a former mayor of San Antonio, told a Democratic Party news conference that the rapidly shifting demographics of Texas had Republicans “running scared because they know that this state is changing and they’re afraid of the consequences.” Hispanics are forecast by the official Texas state  demographer to surpass non-Hispanic whites as the largest group later this year. Former Democratic Representative Beto O’Rourke, speaking during the same news conference, urged the U.S. Congress to pass expanded voting rights to stymie the vote-restriction efforts in Republican-controlled states, so that the United States would not revert to “Jim Crow 2.0.” 
…

Majority Republicans in the Texas Senate on Sunday approved one of the most restrictive new voting laws in the U.S. after rushing the bill to the floor in the middle of the night.The sweeping measure, known as Senate Bill 7, passed along party lines around 6 a.m. after eight hours of questioning by Democrats, who have virtually no path to stop it from becoming law. But the bill must still clear a final vote in the Texas House in order to reach Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it.“I have grave concerns about a bill that was crafted in the shadows and passed late at night,” said Democratic state Sen. Beverly Powell.Under revisions during closed-door negotiations, Republicans added language that could make it easier for a judge to overturn an election and pushed back the start of Sunday voting, when many Black churchgoers head to the polls. The 67-page measure would also eliminate drive-thru voting and 24-hour polling centers, both of which Harris County, the state’s largest Democratic stronghold, introduced last year.Texas is a key battleground in the GOP’s nationwide efforts to tighten voting laws, driven by former President Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Georgia and Florida have also passed new voting restrictions. President Joe Biden on Saturday condemned the measures as “an assault on democracy.”The vote in the Texas Senate came after a final version of the bill had been made public Saturday. Around midnight, Republicans wielded their majority to suspend rules that would normally prohibit taking a vote on a bill that had not been posted for 24 hours, which Democrats protested as a breach of protocol that denied them and the public time to review the language first. The bill would newly empower partisan poll watchers by allowing them more access inside polling places and threatening criminal penalties against election officials who restrict their movement. Republicans originally proposed giving poll watchers the right to take photos, but that language was removed from the final bill that lawmakers were set to vote on this weekend. Another provision could also make it easier to overturn an election in Texas, allowing for a judge to void an outcome if the number of fraudulent votes cast could have changed the result, regardless of whether it was actually proven that fraud affected the outcome.Election officials would also face new criminal penalties, including felony charges for sending mail voting applications to people who did not request one. The Texas District and County Attorneys Association tweeted that it had counted in the bill at least 16 new, expanded or enhanced crimes related to elections.GOP legislators are also moving to prohibit Sunday voting before 1 p.m., which critics called an attack on what is commonly known as “souls to the polls” — a get-out-the-vote campaign used by Black church congregations nationwide. The idea traces back to the civil rights movement. Democratic state Rep. Nicole Collier, chairwoman of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, said the change is “going to disengage, disenfranchise those who use the souls to the polls opportunity.”Pressed on the Senate floor over why Sunday voting couldn’t begin sooner, Republican Sen. Bryan Hughes said, “Election workers want to go to church, too.”Collier was one of three Democrats picked to negotiate the final version, none of whom signed their name to it. She said she saw a draft of the bill around 11 p.m. Friday — which was different than one she had received earlier that day — and was asked for her signature the next morning.Major corporations, including Texas-based American Airlines and Dell, have warned that the measures could harm democracy and the economic climate. But Republicans shrugged off their objections, and in some cases, ripped business leaders for speaking out.Texas already has some of the country’s tightest voting restrictions and is regularly cited by nonpartisan groups as a state where it is especially hard to vote. It was one of the few states that did not make it easier to vote by mail during the pandemic.The top Republican negotiators, Hughes and state Rep. Briscoe Cain, called the bill “one of the most comprehensive and sensible election reform bills” in Texas’ history.“Even as the national media minimizes the importance of election integrity, the Texas Legislature has not bent to headlines or corporate virtue signaling,” they said in a joint statement.Since Trump’s defeat, at least 14 states have enacted more restrictive voting laws, according to the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice. It has also counted nearly 400 bills filed this year nationwide that would restrict voting.Republican lawmakers in Texas have insisted that the changes are not a response to Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud but are needed to restore confidence in the voting process. But doubts about the election’s outcome have been fanned by some of the state’s top GOP leaders, including Attorney General Ken Paxton, who led a failed lawsuit at the U.S. Supreme Court to try to overturn the election.Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who chaired Trump’s presidential campaign in Texas, offered a $1 million reward to anyone who could produce evidence of voter fraud. Nonpartisan investigations of previous elections have found that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. State officials from both parties, including in Texas, as well as international observers have also said the 2020 election went well. 
…

The Biden administration has responded to Iran’s mass disqualification of candidates for its upcoming presidential election by saying Iranians should be free to choose their own leaders.The White House statement coincides with sharp criticism of Iran’s electoral system from Iranian rights activists and U.S. conservatives as neither free nor fair.Iran’s Guardian Council, which vets election candidates, on Tuesday approved a final list of seven contenders for the June 18 vote to replace outgoing two-term President Hassan Rouhani. The 12-member council of jurists and clerics overseen by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei disqualified 583 other people who applied to run in the election, leaving only the seven conservative Khamenei loyalists, of whom judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi is the most prominent.Asked by VOA Persian for a reaction to the disqualifications, a White House National Security Council spokesperson said, “Iranians should be allowed to exercise their right to choose their own leaders and freely participate in the political process, including during elections.”Iran’s unelected Guardian Council has long controlled its presidential and parliamentary election processes by routinely disqualifying candidates based on political or other considerations, according to the State Department’s March report on Tehran’s human rights record. Khamenei, who has served as supreme leader since 1989, appoints half of the council’s members, while the judiciary chief, whom he also appoints, selects the other half.Secretary of State Antony Blinken declined to express a view about the Iranian election process earlier this month, when a Financial Times reporter asked him how the likely victory of a hard-line candidate would affect indirect U.S. talks with Iran in Vienna concerning a mutual return to compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers.”Look, it’s very hard to predict, and certainly, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals about what one outcome or another in Iran’s elections — what impact that would or wouldn’t have on any nuclear negotiations,” Blinken told the British newspaper.’Reasoned leadership’U.S. President Joe Biden has said he wants to revive the 2015 deal, in which the U.S. and other world powers offered Iran sanctions relief in return for limits on Iranian nuclear activities that could be weaponized. His predecessor Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, saying it was not tough enough on Iran, and began tightening U.S. sanctions. Iran, which denies seeking nuclear weapons, retaliated in 2019 by starting an ongoing process of exceeding the deal’s nuclear restrictions.Speaking to VOA Persian in a May 20 interview, U.S. Representative David Price, a Democrat and Biden ally, expressed hope that Iran’s presidential election will produce a “reasoned leadership” that will agree to resume JCPOA compliance in return for the Biden administration’s proposed lifting of some Trump-era sanctions against Tehran.”I am hopeful that the election does not derail us or make it more difficult to reach agreement,” Price said.Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sharply criticized the upcoming vote in a May 17 interview with VOA Persian.”It’s going to be fraudulent. It’s going to be unfair to have disqualified candidates. It will be a complete joke,” said Pompeo, the top Trump diplomat.Iranian rights activists in Iran and abroad have been using social media in recent weeks to urge fellow Iranians to boycott the vote in protest of the Islamic republic’s authoritarian political system and government mismanagement of an economy crippled by U.S. sanctions and a still-severe coronavirus pandemic.Recent Iranian state-run public opinion surveys have suggested turnout for the June presidential vote could fall below 40% for the first time since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, in which its ruling Shiite clerics seized power from a collapsing monarchy.”Any time you have lower turnout, it means your election is less representative of the people that you’re claiming to rule over,” Pompeo told VOA.’Free and fair’The Biden administration’s less combative messaging on the Iranian election drew support from Atlantic Council analyst Barbara Slavin, an advocate of reviving the JCPOA.”I don’t think the U.S. should or could game Iranian politics. It won’t work and would probably only increase Iranian distrust of U.S. motives,” Slavin said in a message to VOA Persian. “The best course is to proceed with the Vienna talks and see if Iran will agree to a schedule for a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA.”Heritage Foundation analyst and JCPOA critic James Carafano told VOA Persian that the Biden administration and its supporters’ statements about Iran’s election are dishonest.”We all wish that the election would be free and fair and produce a government that was more amenable to a better deal that addresses U.S. vital interests and those of our allies in the region,” Carafano said. “But the Biden administration statement (calling for Iran to allow free participation in the vote) is incredibly misleading, because that is not going to happen, and I know that they know that,” he said.A victory for one of the Khamenei loyalist candidates in the election is also likely to “harden the Iranian negotiating position toward the U.S., not the opposite,” Carafano said.Judiciary chief Raisi, considered the favorite by many observers, criticized Rouhani’s handling of JCPOA negotiations while running as a candidate in Iran’s 2017 election that saw Rouhani win a second term. Raisi accused Rouhani in a televised debate of demonstrating weakness toward world powers.Raisi maintained his criticism of Rouhani’s administration last month, with Iranian state media quoting Raisi as questioning the wisdom of pursuing negotiations with the West while Iran struggles under U.S. sanctions.”If (some politicians) had dedicated the time they spent on seeking the West’s concessions toward boosting domestic production, the problems would have been solved,” Raisi said, without mentioning Rouhani by name.Regardless of who wins the Iranian presidential contest next month, the final decision on whether Iran resumes compliance with its JCPOA commitments rests with Khamenei.This article originated in VOA’s Persian Service. Click here for the original Persian version of the story. 
…

U.S. President Joe Biden sent his first formal budget request to Congress on Friday afternoon, detailing a proposal to spend nearly $6 trillion in 2022 that includes significant increases in funding for foreign aid, diplomacy and climate change while providing a modest increase in Defense Department spending.The U.S. will still have the largest military budget in the world under the proposed $715 billion Pentagon request for 2022, but the relatively small 1.7% increase drew immediate opposition from Republican defense hawks in Congress, who called the proposal “wholly inadequate.”In a meeting with reporters Friday afternoon, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks said Pentagon leadership was confident that the budget request “positions the Department of Defense to meet the array of security challenges that we face today and in the future.”The massive budget document was accompanied by a message from Biden saying the proposal was consistent with a promise he made to a joint session of Congress in April that “America is on the move again, and that our democracy is proving it can deliver for our people and is poised to win the competition for the 21st century.”Throughout the more than 1,700 pages of charts, tables and text, the fiscal 2022 budget request reflects Biden’s inclination to work with allies and presents a sharp contrast with the administration of the previous president, Republican Donald Trump, who favored a go-it-alone approach in international relations.“From the COVID-19 pandemic to climate change, from the growing ambitions of China to the many global threats to democracy, successfully addressing global challenges will require working alongside and in partnership with other nations,” the document says.“After years of neglect, the budget makes critical investments in diplomacy and development that would restore the health and morale of the nation’s foreign policy institutions, as well as America’s relationships with key partners and allies,” it says. “Diplomacy would once again be a centerpiece of American foreign policy, and America would once again be a leader on the world stage.”Domestic focusWhile the international elements of the budget proposal are substantial, there is no mistaking the fact that the bulk of the new Democratic administration’s focus in the budget is domestic.FILE – Kim Lewis, an associate dean at Howard University in Washington, autographs an American Jobs Plan sign after participating with Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a discussion at the university, May 3, 2021.Biden’s plan contains funding for his two main domestic policy efforts: the $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan and the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan.The spending proposals are consistently referred to as investments in the country’s future — language that tacitly acknowledges the near-term costs, which will drive spending as a percentage of gross domestic product to historically high levels and add more than $1.3 trillion to the national debt every year for a decade.In a briefing for reporters Friday morning, Shalanda Young, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration does not look at the rising national debt with the same level of alarm as so-called fiscal hawks who want to see an end to deficit spending.“For the near term and the medium term, we believe the most important test of our fiscal health is real interest payments on the debt,” she said. “That’s what tells us whether debt is burdening our economy and crowding out other investments.”Young added, “This budget takes advantage of the fiscal space created by historically low interest rates to make urgently needed investments that will contribute to growth and shared prosperity.”Swift reactionsIn Washington, reaction to the president’s budget request broke along predictable party lines. John Yarmuth, the Kentucky Democrat who chairs the House Budget Committee, called it “transformative” and said it “will ensure we emerge from these past 14 months of crisis stronger and better prepared for the future than ever before.”FILE – House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., speaks with reporters before the House votes to pass a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package, during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Feb. 26, 2021.He added, “Investing in the American people has always been a good bet, but with interest rates low and the need high, it’s a sure thing. As past crises have shown, doing too little will cost us far more in the end.”Mara Rudman, executive vice president of the liberal Center for American Progress, said in a statement:  “President Biden’s budget tackles the country’s most urgent challenges. Along with the priorities outlined in the American Jobs Plan, and the American Families Plan, the policies released today will help the country recover from the pandemic and build a clean energy future, while also investing in workers and families who will create long-lasting, inclusive economic growth.”Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell led a Republican response that thoroughly condemned the plan.FILE – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky speaks at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Feb. 13, 2021.“President Biden’s proposal would drown American families in debt, deficits and inflation,” McConnell said in a statement. “Even after the massive tax hikes Democrats want to force on the American people, they’d still have the government running trillion-plus-dollar deficits every year. Democrats want to borrow and spend on a scale that America has not seen since we had to fight and win World War II. Our debt burden would break all records, eclipsing even the 1940s.”Right-wing activist groups were similarly upset. Adam Brandon, the president of FreedomWorks, released a statement that said the budget puts the country on a “fast track to fiscal disaster.”“The term ‘fiscally irresponsible’ doesn’t even begin to cover it,” Brandon said. “ ‘Intentional malice’ is more appropriate. President Biden is sacrificing our nation’s future for his own political expediency, enabled by profligate spenders from all around.”International aidAfter several years in which the Trump administration sought to cut spending on diplomacy and international aid, the Biden administration is planning to reinvest in both. The budget for diplomatic engagement and foreign assistance is set to increase to $63.8 billion under Biden’s plan, an increase of $6.1 billion over last year. That includes $58.5 billion for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development, an increase of $5.4 billion over last year.The budget request for the foreign assistance funding would increase by $4.4 billion to $43.7 billion. The bulk of that increase would go to bilateral economic assistance, on which the administration proposes to spend $28.1 billion in fiscal 2022.Also increasing would be funding to multilateral aid programs, such as the Global Health Program managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, rising sharply by $1.45 billion to $3.5 billion, and contributions to multilateral development banks such as the International Development Association and the African Development Fund, up $1.4 billion to $3.1 billion.Funding for international security assistance, including narcotics control, military training and peacekeeping operations, would jump $265 million to $9.2 billion in 2022.FILE – The blades of wind turbines catch the breeze at the Saddleback Ridge wind farm in Carthage, Maine, March 19, 2019.Climate changeIn addition to the climate change-related elements of the president’s infrastructure plan, which includes multiple green energy initiatives, the budget would increase the U.S. commitment to the global fight against a warming planet.The administration is proposing $36 billion more in investment in climate resilience and clean energy, backing up the president’s pledge to put the country on a path to net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.It also includes a $1.2 billion contribution to the international Green Climate Fund and $485 million for other multilateral climate change reduction programs. That comes on top of $700 million of the State Department and USAID budget directed toward international climate assistance.Military spendingThe federal budget is made up of two broad components: discretionary spending, which Congress must approve each budget cycle, and mandatory spending, which is required under existing law. The former includes funding for the executive branch agencies and programs; the latter is made up of spending on programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.This year’s budget was the first in a decade in which the administration was not constrained by rules that required that discretionary defense spending and nondefense discretionary spending to rise at roughly the same rate. For that reason, Biden was able to propose a budget that increased nondefense discretionary spending by 16%, but raised defense spending only by 1.7%.The U.S. will still have military spending at a level greater than the next 10 largest militaries combined under the proposed $715 billion Pentagon budget for fiscal 2022, but the relatively small increase drew sharp criticism from congressional conservatives.In a joint statement, Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Republican Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, called the proposal “wholly inadequate.”“A budget like this sends China and our other potential adversaries a bad signal — that we’re not willing to do what it takes to defend ourselves and our allies and partners,” they said in a joint statement.FILE – Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks during a briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, May 6, 2021.Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Thursday in an appearance before the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense that “this budget provides us the ability to create the right mix of capabilities to defend this nation and to deter any aggressors.“It adequately allows us to begin to prepare for the next fight,” he added. “It in fact does provide us the ability to go after the capabilities that we need.””It strikes an appropriate balance between preserving present readiness and future modernization,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley said at the same hearing. “It is biased towards [the] future operating environment and the readiness it’s going to take in the future for this fundamental change in the character of war that we are currently undergoing.”VOA’s Carla Babb contributed to this report.
…

Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted Friday to block legislation that would create a panel to investigate the deadly January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, where lawmakers were meeting to certify Joe Biden’s presidential election victory over Donald Trump. VOA’s Laurel Bowman has more.Producer: Bakhtiyar Zamanov.
…

Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked legislation Friday that called for the creation of a bipartisan panel to investigate the deadly January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump to prevent the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential victory.As expected, Republicans used a procedural tactic known as a filibuster to block the bill, which would have launched a bipartisan investigation into the insurrection. It was the first successful use of a filibuster during the Biden presidency to stop Senate legislative action.The 54-35 vote was shy of the 60 votes need to advance the measure.Because the 100-member Senate is equally divided, Democrats needed 10 Republicans to vote in favor of the bill.In this image from video, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky speaks on the Senate floor at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Feb. 13, 2021.That was unlikely because many Republican senators remain loyal to Trump and followed the guidance of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who opposed the commission.McConnell, who once said Trump was responsible for “provoking” the riot, more recently dismissed the legislation as nothing more than a “political exercise” since Senate committees are already investigating Capitol security shortcomings.US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 18, 2021.After the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that “Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans’ denial of the truth of the January 6th insurrection brings shame to the Senate. Republicans’ cowardice in rejecting the truth of that dark day makes our Capitol and country less safe.”“Democrats worked across the aisle, agreeing to everything that Republicans asked for. We did this in the interest of achieving a bipartisan Commission. In not taking yes for an answer, Republicans clearly put their election concerns above the security of the Congress and country,” Pelosi added.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas acknowledged in a statement Friday that the “January 6 terrorist attack on the Capitol was a dark moment in our nation’s history, and I fully support the ongoing law enforcement investigations into anyone involved. Everyone who attacked the Capitol must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and brought to justice. I also support the Senate committees of jurisdiction who are exercising their proper oversight roles to provide an in-depth and complete account of the attack.”He said, though, that “with multiple investigations already underway, I do not support the politically motivated January 6 Commission led by Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi.”On January 6, Trump implored thousands of supporters who had come to Washington for a protest rally “to “fight like hell” to overturn his defeat shortly before the riot that left five people dead, including a federal police officer.A vote on the measure had been expected Thursday but was delayed by lengthy consideration of another bill.The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, which has 435 voting members, previously passed the legislation with some Republican support.
…

Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked legislation Friday calling for the creation of a panel to investigate the deadly January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol aimed at preventing the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential victory over incumbent Donald Trump. As expected, Republicans used a procedural tactic known as a filibuster to block the bill, which would have launched a bipartisan investigation into the insurrection. It was the first successful use of a filibuster during the Biden presidency to stop Senate legislative action.The 54-35 vote was shy of the 60 votes need to advance the measure.Because the 100-member Senate is equally divided, Democrats needed 10 Republicans to vote in favor of the bill.FILE – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky speaks on the Senate floor at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Feb. 13, 2021.That was unlikely because many Republican senators remain loyal to Trump and followed the guidance of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who opposed the commission.McConnell, who once said Trump was responsible for “provoking” the riot, more recently dismissed the legislation as nothing more than a “political exercise” since Senate committees are already investigating Capitol security shortcomings.On Jan. 6, Trump implored thousands of supporters who had come to Washington for a protest rally “to “fight like hell” to overturn his defeat shortly before the riot that left five people dead, including a federal police officer.A vote on the measure had been expected Thursday but was delayed by lengthy consideration of another bill.The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, which has 435 voting members, previously passed the legislation with some Republican support.
…