House Democrats are Backing off on Nancy Pelosi
Most recently, Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) gave his support for Pelosi for a major infrastructure bill early in the next Congress and a commitment to let Higgins lead the charge on a proposal to let Americans buy into Medicare at age 50. I am hoping they design the Medicare buy-in as it is not cheap in its present form and doses not include vision or dental.
Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) abandoned her quest to be the House Speaker. Instead, Fudge will head up the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Elections which Pelosi will recreate and Fudge will chair. Marcia Fudge:
“Leader Pelosi has granted me the opportunity to create the record necessary to satisfy the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, so that the protections of the Voting Rights Act will be reinstated and improved. She has also assured me that the most loyal voting bloc in the Democratic party, Black women, will have a seat at the decision-making table. I am now confident that we will move forward together and that the 116th Congress will be a Congress of which we can all be proud. I now join my colleagues in support of the leadership team of Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn.”
An important role considering what has happened in Florida since 2000 and in Georgia recently with striking voters from the rolls by then Secretary of State Kemp who was also running for Governor.
As PGL pointed out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has backed Nancy Pelosi.
Were earmarks as bad as advertised? How much bad/or not could have Boehner delivered with earmarks for example?
I’ve been thinking about earmarks recently. I was always a bit dubious of the ‘evil earmarks’ narrative. I think history has reinforced what I was thinking about the upsides and downsides.
Without earmarks reps can’t deliver specific visible benefit for their constituents. This plays right into the ‘the gubmit does nothing’ narrative that the evil billionaires want. Without earmarks its harder to drag along the last few votes for any policy that might be a bit unpopular in a district for whatever reason. Without earmarks it becomes all about the top line policy. Without earmarks reps of different parties but the same region have far less incentive to ever gang up together to get something for their region.
Basically: earmarks are more an example of exactly what reps ought to be doing than an example of corruption.
Could there be a more perfect name for a CONgresscritter than “Fudge?” Reminds me of Mel Brooks’s Count deMoney of the French court right before the revolution who kept insisting his name was pronounced “deMONET.”