Go to Source: Morning Joe
Richard Engel: We are preparing for a ground war here
Go to Source: Morning Joe
Biden Won’t Directly Address the Age Issue
The most pressing political challenge confronting President Joe Biden as he drifts uncontested toward renomination is that which he can do the least about: voters’ profound misgivings about his age and fitness to serve another full term.
Yet what’s striking, and to his allies increasingly unnerving, is Biden’s unwillingness even to try to fully address questions about his capacity to run for reelection next year, when he’ll turn 82.
Outside of testing a with-age-comes-wisdom riff in front of donors, the president has done little to confront perhaps the biggest threat to his reelection, let alone make any sustained effort to mitigate the concerns that dominate every survey and focus group.
Biden takes an exacting interest in the mechanics of his nascent campaign, insisting on approving advertisements and interviewing would-be staffers. He is, however, less willing to be handled, which makes it difficult for his advisers to raise such a sensitive matter.
Biden has conducted little polling on how to reassure voters about his age, complains bitterly about his intra-party critics who raise the issue in public and is unwilling to consider hearing aids, according to Democrats close to him.
He can’t slow the march of time, of course, and nor can he fully defuse the issue. But Biden can do more than to ad-lib a joke about being 110 years old. His own supporters and lawmakers are all but pleading with him to take the matter seriously, because simply saying “watch me,” as he often retorts when asked about his age, is precisely the problem: people are and it’s still the overriding issue troubling them the most about his candidacy.
Nobody, at least outside Biden’s inner circle, is more acutely aware of the threat posed by the president’s perceived limitations than those Democrats facing difficult reelections themselves, who invariably hear about voters’ alarm about Biden when at home. Rep. Hillary Scholten, who represents a historically Republican slice of Western Michigan, said Biden could be helped by an intraparty challenge because he’d be able to demonstrate his fitness.
“Only positive things could come from an open and competitive primary in the presidential election,” said Scholten, who wants Biden to run again. “It is a detriment to all of us if we are ignoring the concerns of the public around the president’s image.”
Democrats, she said, should “get more people out there, what are we afraid of? It’s problematic that we’re ignoring it. It makes us look out of touch, it makes us look afraid.”
With filing deadlines looming and nearly every ambitious Democrat falling in line behind Biden for fear of weakening him, and their own future prospects, ahead of a rematch against Donald Trump, a full-scale primary is unlikely. Yet Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) is still weighing a bid, and the Democratic lawmaker group texts are filled with admiration that somebody is at least highlighting the donkey in the room — if acknowledging that they could never say so publicly.
While Phillips is not yet ready to embark on a clean-for-Dean candidacy in New Hampshire, he’s warming to the idea ahead of the filing deadline there later this month and would likely plant a flag in the historically quirky state if he runs.
Phillips has telephoned a handful of Democratic strategists with high-level presidential experience to seek their opinions and is pursuing inspiration from an even higher power in the party: he was seen recently in the Capitol toting a copy of John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage.
With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. now embarking on an independent candidacy, the Minnesotan could pose the only challenge Biden faces in New Hampshire, where the president is not competing because of the party’s calendar change but could be the beneficiary of a write-in campaign organized by prominent local Democrats.
Not all House Democrats are so enamored with Phillips’ musings — Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) upbraided him at a recent caucus meeting, I’m told by attendees. He’s resigned from a junior House leadership position and is now facing the possibility of a primary of his own in his Twin Cities-area district from a member of the Democratic National Committee, an affiliation Phillips does not find coincidental.
Most House Democrats, though, are more anxious about Biden than they are about their colleague from Minnesota.
Last month at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, many lawmakers watched livestreams of focus groups with voters in Nevada and Michigan. Nearly all of them responded to questions about Biden the same way voters do in every focus group: by bringing up his age. (Though one attendee was heartened that the voters also cited Trump’s age and complained that both are too old.)
Every Democratic consultant I’ve talked to in recent weeks said that’s the only refrain they pick up on Biden.
One pollster, who late last month oversaw a focus group of North Carolina swing voters, said the first word or phrase the attendees used about Biden was “some combination of ‘old, slowing down’ or, if they were harsher, ‘dementia or feeble.’”
This pollster had to push participants to get any more impressions of Biden and there was scant recall of his accomplishments.
Democratic lawmakers couldn’t be more direct about how imperative it is for the president to try to assuage voters’ trepidation about his capacity to serve.
“I think you got to be as public as you possibly can in addressing issues, and that’s how you can settle it,” Sen. Jon Tester, the Montana Democrat, said about Biden’s age. “But it’s not going to be easy because he is [going to be] 82 years old.”
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) was even more to the point. “I think it’s important to confront it.”
Biden’s high command has plainly made a cost-benefit analysis that there’s far less to be gained than there is to lose by increasing the president’s public profile. One strong public performance that few may see would, at this moment in the political calendar, do less to bolster his image than another spill such as the one he suffered earlier this year at the Air Force Academy would exacerbate doubts about his capacity.
He does few interviews, and mostly with friendly interlocutors, rarely holds full-dress news conferences and his aides mitigate his international travel by lightening his schedule after the trips.
Biden has travelled more domestically since announcing his reelection bid because, unlike the internet-dependent Trump, the president must hold in-person fundraisers around the country to build his war chest. That Biden speech honoring the late John McCain in Phoenix, for example, was scheduled in concert with an Arizona fundraiser.
When he’s not on the road for finance trips, many of his messaging events take place in metropolitan Washington or Philadelphia, which he can easily get to from his Delaware home (Biden will, once again, return to Philadelphia this Friday for an economic event).
Biden’s decision to skip the San Francisco memorial service for Dianne Feinstein — his longtime colleague and early 2020 supporter — because it would have required a quick there-and-back surprised Democrats on both coasts.
More worrisome to them than Biden’s travel are his difficulties delivering an effective argument, particularly on the economy. Even when handed good news, as he was last week with the higher-than-expected jobs report, the president is unable to leverage it to make an affirmative case for himself or against Republicans.
Asked by a reporter why, despite the broad availability of work, Americans weren’t feeling better about the economy, Biden didn’t offer an empathetic response about the cost-of-living challenge posed by inflation. And he didn’t use the question to lash Republicans for their lack of solutions or ties to detested special interests. He answered by grumbling about press coverage and recounting an old saw about a dog in a lake.
Yes, Biden being Biden, he may have offered the same answer 20 years ago. Yet he wouldn’t have looked and sounded like he did last week — and the political moment wouldn’t have demanded that he, yes, do better.
To all this, Biden defenders can be counted on to trot out the argument that his critics have been mostly wrong about his political and legislative prospects since early 2019, before he even entered the primary. Said argument has the added value of being mostly true.
Yet like the claim that, because he beat Trump once he’s best suited to do so again, this argument is compelling right up until the moment it’s not.
In their more honest moments, even the most dedicated Biden defenders not on his payroll will nervously wonder if in the future they’ll look back at this moment and realize that the electorate had concluded he was too old for another term —- and he ignored the flashing red lights to barrel ahead anyway.
Most Democrats, though, are more fixated on the here and now and how exactly Biden can assuage doubts about his fitness. Of course, there’s no consensus on what he can do.
Some prefer a light touch, Ronald Reagan in that 1984 debate joking about Walter Mondale’s “youth and inexperience,” but with more consistency.
“Reagan didn’t go to Georgetown and give an hourlong address about the issue,” said Paul Begala, the longtime Democratic strategist.
Other influential Democrats, though, believe Biden owes the electorate more than humor.
One figure with extensive West Wing experience said the president should sit for a “60 Minutes” interview with the first lady and take every question about his age directly, explaining that they love the country and would never embark on another race if he was not up for it.
It may all seem like so much advice from the gallery, the same crowd that Biden likes to say never really got him, man.
At some point, though, Biden will need to grapple directly with the question: How can you assure the country you’re capable of serving another four-year term?
The president likes to cite the old line from former Boston Mayor Kevin White — compare me to the alternative not the Almighty — but I’m reminded of the bumper sticker from when the ethically flexible Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards was running against Klansman David Duke: “Vote for the Crook: It’s Important.”
Next year, it may be Biden running against the crook, and perhaps one about to be sentenced, but will he be willing to say: Vote for the Codger: It’s Important?
Go to Source: Politico
Biden struggles to find his message on immigration
The Biden administration is struggling with its message on immigration both at home and abroad, unveiling a series of surprising measures recently, including one that takes a page out of his predecessor’s much-maligned playbook.
The White House announced last week that it would use its executive authority to sidestep 26 environmental and historical protection regulations in order to build segments of border wall in Texas — contradicting a campaign-era promise that he would not build “another foot” of former President Trump’s wall.
President Biden cited appropriations laws forcing his hand to spend funds as directed by Congress, but officials were hard pressed to justify the environmental waivers, limiting themselves to citing precedent.
And in another move that stunned immigration advocates, the administration announced it would resume deportation flights to Venezuela even as citizens flee the authoritarian-led country by the tens of thousands each month.
Frustration on both sides
It’s whiplash from an announcement just last month that the U.S. would redesignate Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), allowing Venezuelans who arrived in the United States before July 31 to remain in the country given the danger of repatriation.
The Biden administration has also expended significant energy and political capital in calling on would-be migrants to stay where they are, drawing mockery from the right and accusations of callousness from the left.
While advocates’ reactions have ranged from confused to fuming, the White House has won no accolades from conservatives who see immigration and the border as one of Biden’s biggest vulnerabilities. Republicans have made an art form of transmuting any issue into a springboard to criticize Biden’s border policy.
Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) recently segued from the war between Hamas and Israel to the U.S.-Mexico border in an interview with The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website.
“We should wake up ourselves. We could have the same thing happen next week to us,” McCarthy said.
“We caught more people on the terrorist watchlist in February than we caught in the entire administration. We could have cells sitting inside of America right now.”
A statistical analysis by the Cato Institute found that between 1978 and 2022, no one on U.S. soil died in a terrorist attack committed by an undocumented immigrant.
House Republicans on Monday unveiled a report by the House Judiciary Committee that they said provides proof of an “open border.”
To make their case, Republicans categorized anyone crossing the southwest border without visas as “illegal aliens.” The report found that “southwest border illegal alien encounters exceeded 2.2 million in the first 11 months of fiscal 2023” and gave the administration credit for about 6,000 deportations from that group.
The report’s “illegal aliens” included asylum seekers and parolees using the Biden administration’s expanded legal pathways to entry — individuals who by law are not considered undocumented — though some may have weak claims that would make them eligible for deportation.
“This so-called report is full of lies from House Republicans who continue to play politics while sabotaging President Biden’s work to ramp up enforcement and personnel at the border,” a White House spokesperson said.
“Since May 12, we have removed or returned nearly 300,000 individuals, and there have been more than 3.6 million repatriations and expulsions since January 2021. Additionally, the Administration recently announced that it would restart repatriation flights to Venezuela and in September, [the Department of Homeland Security] announced a new series of actions to surge resources to the border to continue its enforcement efforts.”
Obama, Trump and Biden
The Biden administration, like previous Democratic ones, has tried to strike a balance between strict enforcement and a humanitarian vision, drawing criticism from the left while failing to appease the right.
Immigration advocates are accustomed to frustration: Prior administrations have also sought tough-on-the-border accolades against all political odds.
The Biden administration’s “do not come” messaging is at once a response to growing migration in the Americas and a reflection of the Obama administration’s mass deportation policy.
“I think there’s a sense of desperation at the White House. They won’t sit down with the advocates for immigration and put together a plan,” former Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) said in a recent interview with The Hill.
“So what I think the Biden administration is doing is simply — how would I say this? Just throwing out any solution, including bad ones, including bad ones, such as lifting all of the environmental and all of the other standards and allowing the continuation of Trump’s wall,” said Gutiérrez, who famously dubbed former President Obama the “deporter in chief.”
In essence, the Biden administration is facing a continuation of the migration phenomenon that caused Obama headaches, though on a different scale.
In 2014, the Obama administration faced its own “crisis” when nearly 70,000 Central American unaccompanied minors showed up at the border.
The more than 150,000 encounters with unaccompanied minors in fiscal 2022 represented only a fraction of the nearly 2.4 million total encounters at the border.
Hitting the wall
Though advocates have called for a focus on order rather than deterrence in the face of a phenomenon with no easy answers, the Biden administration has opted for the carrot-and-stick approach, which now includes its publicly reluctant wall construction.
Biden, when running for office, was fundamentally opposed of the concept of a wall.
“There will not be another foot of wall constructed in my administration, No. 1,” he said during an interview with a group of journalists in August 2020.
“I’m going to make sure that we have border protection, but it’s going to be based on making sure that we use high-tech capacity to deal with it.”
And many of his actions in office have backed that stance — including trying to claw back funding otherwise designated for the wall.
But Biden and Homeland Security officials both offered conflicting statements about plans to build new segments of wall.
“They have to use the money for what it was appropriated. I can’t stop that,” the president said of the funding last week.
Biden gave an exasperated one-word answer when asked if he believes border walls work: “No.”
And Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas also bashed the idea of a wall.
“I want to address today’s reporting relating to a border wall and be absolutely clear. There is no new administration policy with respect to border walls. From day one, this administration has made clear that a border wall is not the answer. That remains our position, and our position has never wavered,” he said.
Still, the posting on the Federal Register noting the policy change wrote that it was “necessary” to construct both barriers and roads in areas of “high illegal entry.”
Mayorkas criticized contrasts being raised between the register and public statements, saying the register language “is being taken out of context and it does not signify any change in policy whatsoever.”
‘That’s not a plan’
The administration’s announcement on Venezuela came just hours after it quietly posted its plans on the wall and marked the latest in the Biden administration’s back-and-forth on the country.
Earlier this year, the administration barred Venezuelans from seeking asylum at the border, a move that was paired with a new program that allowed those with financial sponsors in the U.S. to apply to get preapproval to be waived in for up to two years through a process known as parole.
When in September the administration announced TPS for Venezuela, it was seen as a way to provide relief to Venezuelans, especially those in crowded shelters otherwise stuck waiting on work permits.
But the announcement of deportations to Venezuela seeks to push back on a rising number arriving outside of the parole program.
According to data compiled by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), Customs and Border Protection reported more than 30,000 monthly encounters with Venezuelans in April, May and August of this year, and reporting by CBS News detailed that more than 50,000 Venezuelans showed up in September, representing about a quarter of all border encounters.
The WOLA numbers also show that in August, only 30 percent of Venezuelans encountered at the border showed up at ports of entry, despite the country’s nationals being eligible for the Biden administration’s expanded pathways to legal entry. That month, 22,090 Venezuelans were apprehended by the Border Patrol after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border at nondesignated locations, while 9,373 were encountered at ports of entry by Customs and Border Protection.
“We need to have a plan. We need to have a plan for Central America; we need to have a plan for South America. There really is no plan other than ‘don’t come.’ Those two words are not a plan. That’s not a plan. That’s not a plan,” Gutiérrez said.
“And you know, there are things you could do pretty quickly — like in Venezuela and Latin American countries, allow people to petition for their asylum locally. But make sure that their answer is given in a timely manner, otherwise people won’t believe it’s legitimate and won’t believe it’s a true way to find relief from the dangers that they confront each and every day.”
Go to Source: Administration News | The Hill
FTC proposes rule to ban ‘junk fees’
The White House on Wednesday announced new actions against so-called “junk fees,” including a proposed Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule that would ban the “hidden and bogus” charges.
The new FTC rule would require corporations to include all mandatory fees when communicating a price to consumers, a move that the administration says would make it easier for customers to compare prices — and encourage companies to compete to offer the lowest price.
“The proposed rule would prohibit corporations from running up the bills with hidden and bogus fees, requiring honest pricing and spurring firms to compete on honesty rather than deception,” said FTC Chair Lina Khan in a call with reporters.
The White House says this move would prohibit surprise or mislabeled fees in event ticketing, banking, hotel booking, car and apartment rentals, as well as other industries — which the administration says currently costs Americans tens of billions every year — and require the full price be shown upfront.
The rule, as proposed, would also give the FTC “enforcement teeth,” giving the agency the power to secure refunds for customers and seek penalties against companies where possible, according to a release.
President Biden promised last year to take action against the extra charges as a means of combatting inflation, and his White House has stressed that junk fees unnecessarily strain American consumers.
“Some people have asked me why the President of the United States is concerned about a $50 fee here and a $35 fee there,” said National Economic Council (NEC) Director Lael Brainard.
“Those sneaky fees might not matter a lot to the wealthiest Americans, but they sure do matter for hard working Americans sitting around a kitchen table trying to stay on top of their bills and have a little left over.”
As part of the administration’s action against junk fees, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is issuing an advisory opinion on the existing legal requirement for large banks and credit unions to let their customers get information about their accounts without paying excessive fees.
The CFPB is also set to propose a rule later this month that would require financial companies to let customers send their banking transaction data to other banks and companies, making it “easier for people to break up with their bank” while avoiding junk fees, the White House said in a release.
Brainard said that the new announcements represent some of the administration’s most comprehensive action on the issue to date.
The White House announced earlier this year that Ticketmaster’s parent company Live Nation, SeatGeek, Airbnb and other companies had promised to roll out all-in pricing numbers.
Top housing rental companies Zillow, Apartments.com and AffordableHousing.com have also committed earlier this year to being upfront about all fees for prospective renters on their websites.
Go to Source: Administration News | The Hill
Which Republican presidential candidate will be next to drop out of the 2024 GOP nomination race?
A culling of the field is underway in the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race.
With the thresholds to qualify for the next GOP presidential debate rising, crucial fundraising reports from the campaigns due in the coming days, and facing upcoming filing deadlines for the first two primaries, the still relatively-large field of Republican White House hopefuls may be further slashed in the weeks to come.
Former Rep. Will Hurd, facing a steep climb for the Republican nomination, ended his bid on Monday.
“It has become clear to me and my team that the time has come to suspend our campaign,” the former CIA spy turned three-term congressman from Texas said in a statement.
WILL HURD ENDORSED THIS RIVAL AS HE DROPPED OUT OF THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Hurd, who fell short of qualifying for the first two GOP nomination debates, became he second Republican presidential candidate to drop out of the race. Mayor Francis Suarez of Miami, Florida called it quits in August after failing to qualify for the first showdown.
THIS IS HOW MUCH DONALD TRUMP HAULED IN THE PAST THREE MONTHS IN FUNDRAISING
So who could be next?
All eyes are on two other long-shot contenders who, like Hurd, were unsuccessful in making the first two debates — Larry Elder and Perry Johnson.
Elder, a former nationally syndicated radio host and 2021 California gubernatorial recall election candidate, is no longer at the statehouse in Concord, New Hampshire, to file paperwork to appear on the ballot in the first-in-the-nation primary.
And Elder is also no longer on the New Hampshire GOP’s schedule to speak Friday at the First in the Nation Leadership Summit, which is a major Republican presidential cattle call in the state that holds the second overall contest in the GOP nominating calendar.
But Elder’s campaign manager told Fox News Digital that “he’s still in.”
Elder, asked by Fox News if he’s still a White House contender, responded that “Yes, I am still a candidate for president.” He said that “clearly, the way the RNC [Republican National Committee] shafted me-by preventing me from participating in the first debate despite my meeting their criteria-has hurt my campaign.”
He pledged to “remain committed to campaigning on several issues.”
HAMAS ATTACK ON ISRAEL INSTANTLY ROCKS THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Johnson, a business leader and quality control industry expert, is now mulling a pivot to run for the open Senate seat in his home state of Michigan.
“Obviously, it’s no secret that I’ve had a lot of calls to run for this seat because they do want to win this seat. But at this point in time, my focus is right on the presidential [race], and, believe me, that’s taking all my time and energy at this point,” Johnson told Fox News Digital earlier this month.
Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, the only one of the eight candidates on the stage at the first debate in August who failed to qualify for last month’s second showdown, is back campaigning in New Hampshire this week.
His campaign told Fox News that he would file on Wednesday morning to place his name on the state’s presidential primary ballot.
But Hutchinson has said if he fails to make the stage at the third GOP presidential nomination debate, he’ll consider dropping out.
“If I don’t make that, we’ll re-evaluate where we are,” Hutchinson told reporters two weeks ago, as he referred to the third debate, which will be held Nov. 8 in Miami, Florida.
When asked for clarification if his response meant he would consider dropping out, Hutchinson answered, “Sure.”
Besides the RNC’s rising debate thresholds to make the stage at the next showdown, the candidates also face upcoming filing deadlines. They have until Oct. 27 to place their names on the ballot in New Hampshire, and face an Oct. 31 deadline in South Carolina, which holds the fourth contest — and first southern primary in the GOP nominating calendar.
The candidates also must file their July-September third quarter of fundraising figures with the Federal Election Commission by Oct. 15.
A lackluster fundraising report could be the death knell for some of the candidates struggling to make the debate stage.
“The third quarter report is incredibly important for all the campaigns, but certainly those who are struggling to break out right now and garner attention, this will be the last financial indicator we see until very close to Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary for these campaigns,” longtime New Hampshire based Republican consultant Jim Merrill told Fox News.
Merrill, a veteran of numerous GOP presidential campaigns, said that “whether it’s making the next debate stage or just evidence in grassroots momentum for the campaign, it’s going to be really important for these campaigns to show that they not only have strong numbers of cash on hand, but also grassroots support for a growing national audience.”
Alex Castellanos, a GOP strategist with decades of experience, also pointed to the fundraising reports and predicted that some of the candidates will “soon run out of gas as they try to drive to the next debate in Miami.”
Fox News’ Andrew Murray contributed to this report
Go to Source: Latest Political News on Fox News
Biden admin issues eco regulations impacting air conditioners, refrigerators
The Biden administration issued regulations impacting air conditioners and refrigerators in an effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but experts warn the rules will drive consumer prices higher.
As part of the administration’s efforts to combat “climate-damaging” hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule to accelerate an economy-wide transition to more advanced refrigeration and cooling technologies that don’t use HFCs, and proposed a second rule to manage HFCs in existing products. HFCs are chemicals common in household appliances, but environmentalists say they contribute to global warming.
“Today’s actions embody President Biden’s leadership on the climate crisis by tackling these planet warming chemicals while investing in American technology and innovation,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement after unveiling the regulations late last week.
“This final rule supports our transition away from HFCs and positions our nation to be competitive on the global stage, while the proposed emissions reduction and reclamation program will help ensure we achieve our national HFC phasedown,” he continued.
BIDEN ADMIN CRACKS DOWN ON AIR CONDITIONERS AS WAR ON APPLIANCES CONTINUES
White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi added that the “ambitious new action from EPA” would combat “climate-damaging HFCs” and create jobs.
However, energy experts warned that the EPA’s regulations targeting HFCs will ultimately drive prices higher for new products and repairs while harming consumers.
FAILED BIDEN NOMINEE QUIETLY APPOINTED TO TOP ROLE OVERSEEING WAR ON HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES
“This is likely to raise the costs — it may raise it substantially — of your next new air conditioning system,” Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Fox News Digital in an interview. “One of the issues is that the new refrigerants, the new eco-friendly refrigerants, are classified as flammable. So, there are all kinds of precautions that have to be taken when you have an air conditioning system with flammable refrigerants.”
“This is putting the climate agenda above the best interests of consumers,” Lieberman continued. “Anybody who wants the eco-friendly version is free to buy it regardless. The only thing that these regulations do is make the more expensive, but supposedly environmentally-friendly option, the only option. And that could only be bad news for prices, especially when you’re restricting competition in this manner.”
The actions Friday, which are set to go into effect in early 2025, came years after Congress passed and former President Donald Trump signed bipartisan American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act in December 2020 as part of a sweeping omnibus package. The legislation authorized the EPA to implement the 15-year phase-down of HFCs and was first introduced by Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., in 2019.
Additionally, in September 2022, Democrats and more than a dozen Republicans voted in favor of ratifying the Kigali Amendment, a global agreement first introduced in 1987 under the United Nations’ Montreal Protocol which requires signers to reduce usage of HFCs by 85% by 2033. The provision has been ratified by 138 international parties including the European Union.
“We’re dealing with a situation now where American consumers are being hit by inflation on goods such as food, fuel, products, appliances and then we’re going to add on top of that a regulatory restriction that increases costs for all Americans related to something that is really important for people — especially in hot climates in southern states or in the southwest — which is air conditioning,” Brett Schaefer, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, previously told Fox News Digital.
“It also deals with businesses such as convenience stores, grocery stores, and others who use a lot of air conditioning and cooling equipment in the course of their normal businesses,” he added. “So, this potentially could add significant costs for Americans down the road.”
Schaefer argued the federal government should pursue HFC restrictions via domestic legislation to allow a reversal if consumer costs become too onerous.
In 2018, Schaefer co-authored a report highlighting how the Kigali Amendment would lead to higher costs. The report stated that the Kigali Amendment is mainly supported by environmentalists who advocate for the elimination of all greenhouse gasses and business interests “who stand to profit from the phase-out of cheaper HFCs.”
BIDEN ADMIN ISSUES RESTRICTIONS ON GAS FURNACES IN LATEST WAR ON APPLIANCES
At the same time, industry groups — including the National Association of Manufacturers; the Chamber of Commerce; American Chemistry Council, Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI); and the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy — have supported federal efforts to curb HFC usage.
“We are heartened that the EPA respected our sincere comments on the Technology Transitions Rule, addressing many of our concerns, and creating the certainty that is so important for industry innovation and job creation,” AHRI president and CEO Stephen Yurek said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital.
“The rule establishes a very reasonable, 3-year sell-through period for HFC-containing equipment; and establishes effective dates that are within the first major step-down period under the AIM Act,” Yurek said. “While we and our member companies will – as always – carefully review the rule, we appreciate what we’ve seen in our initial review.”
Climate activists and Democrats broadly have pushed for HFC reductions, arguing that the chemical is a potent greenhouse gas which contributes to climate change.
“Pound for pound, HFCs are one of the most potent sources of climate pollution, and this is a significant step forward in reducing the products that use them,” Alex Hillbrand, a technical director on the industry team at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a far-left environmental group, said in a statement following the EPA announcement last week.
“Climate-friendlier alternatives to these HFCs are available that make these products work as well as – or better than – before,” Hillbrand continued. “Industry, environmental advocates and lawmakers from both parties are united in support of phasing down the use of these super pollutants. Now we will need to get to work bringing these climate-friendlier appliances to market while preventing the release of HFCs already in use out in the world.”
Go to Source: Latest Political News on Fox News
House speaker race: Republicans to select a candidate to replace McCarthy in closed-door vote
House Republicans are gathering behind closed doors on Wednesday morning to select their candidate for speaker after ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s historic ouster last week.
GOP lawmakers are expected to hold their inter-party election at 10 a.m. after getting briefed on the unfolding crisis in Israel – which adds a sense of urgency as lawmakers scramble to restore order in Congress.
“I don’t know if by the end of this week we will have a speaker. If you were to ask me a couple days ago, pre-Israel being horrifically attacked by Hamas, I would have told you that it would have been a month before we had a speaker,” Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., told reporters after a closed-door GOP meeting on Tuesday night.
‘UNMITIGATED S—SHOW’: HOUSE REPUBLICANS FUME OVER SPEAKER VACANCY AMID ISRAEL CRISIS
The two candidates formally in the race are Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., was doubtful a candidate will be chosen by the end of the day.
“I think there’s some [lawmakers] that have some problems with past behavior and each other, and so I think it’s going to take more than one day to get this done,” Murphy told Fox News Digital.
HOUSE VOTES TO REMOVE KEVIN MCCARTHY AS SPEAKER IN HISTORIC FIRST
Another factor in the mix is an expected rules vote ahead of the vote on whether to raise the threshold for choosing a speaker within the GOP conference.
Under the current rules, a speaker nominee is chosen by a simple majority vote of the party. But more than 100 lawmakers have signed onto a letter calling for that threshold to be 217 — a majority of the House overall.
“That’s first thing we’ve got to consider is our rules, that’s going to be tomorrow morning, I believe,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who led calls for the rule change along with Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas.
Asked if he believes that rule with pass, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., told reporters, “I hope it does.”
“I think that if we’re going to have a mess, we should have it in private,” Buck said.
It’s not yet clear when the full House will vote on a speaker. That vote is likely to be scheduled sometime after Republicans pick their candidate.
Go to Source: Latest Political News on Fox News
Homeland GOP report blames Mayorkas for ‘devastating human costs’ of migrant crisis
A new report by Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee is blaming DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for what it says are the “devastating human costs” of the migrant crisis at the southern border.
“These devastating human costs fall squarely on Mayorkas’ shoulders, and no amount of excusemaking, blame-shifting, or political prevaricating can change that fact,” the report says.
The latest report is the third of its kind from the committee to detail Mayorkas’ handling of the crisis. It comes amid blistering criticism from Republicans, including calls by some for his impeachment for the implementation of policies which they say have fueled the border crisis — including reduced interior enforcement and expanded “catch-and-release.”
It follows a committee hearing in September where members heard about the human effects of the crisis — including child trafficking, overwhelmed Border Patrol agents, and the ongoing effects of fentanyl trafficking in from Mexico.
Fentanyl, which is responsible for tens of thousands of death each year, is primarily trafficked across the southern border after being produced in Mexico using Chinese precursors. The report notes a dramatic increase in seizures at the border, including between ports of entry, and warns it is possible that more is getting past overwhelmed agents.
“As [cartels] push record numbers of illegal aliens across the border, stretching Border Patrol resources to—and often past—the breaking point, they have increased their ability to push drugs like fentanyl across, as well,” the report says.
The administration says it has been cracking down on fentanyl smuggling, and that it is showing results. Officials have pointed to two operations, Operations Blue Lotus and Four Horseman, which have stopped nearly 10,000 lbs in two months. A spokesperson said in response to the report that it has arrested more criminals for fentanyl-related crimes in two years than in the previous five fiscal years.
“DHS has launched unprecedented campaigns, working with our allies, deploying new high-tech solutions, and leading investigations that are cracking down on criminal smuggling networks,” they said.
The Republican report also outlines an immense cost on Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and agents, pointing to evidence of stress, increased workload and concerns about suicide. It blames the increased fatigue on the crisis, which it says is caused by the administration, as well as instances such as the blaming of Border Patrol agents for their actions during the since-debunked “whipping” controversy in Del Rio in 2021.
“The heroism of the men and women who sign on the dotted line to serve and protect their fellow countrymen is unparalleled. Tragically, the policies of Secretary Mayorkas spurn that heroism,” it says.
A DHS spokesperson rejected criticism about Border Patrol morale, saying it has taken “significant strides to support our workforce” and had prioritized providing resources and support, including over 1,000 additional processing coordinators and 300 additional agents.
“This Administration has secured historic levels of funding that include the first increase in hiring for the U.S. Border Patrol in a decade and new resources across the Department for employee mental health and well-being,” they said.” The best way to support personnel handling historic levels of migration is for Congress to pass the Biden-Harris administration’s proposal to fully fund our work, invest in new technologies, and finally fix our broken immigration system.”
The lengthy report also outlines the impact of illegal immigrants on crime and public safety, citing fewer arrests of criminal illegal immigrants by ICE due to reduced enforcement and crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Finally, it points to the increase suffering and deaths of migrants who have been attracted to the southern border. Republicans cite an increase in migrant deaths during this crisis, the suffering endured by migrants at the hands of smugglers, the abandonment of children by smugglers and the increased human trafficking of children into the labor market.
“This self-inflicted crisis has exacted a terrible human cost all across our country,” Chairman Mark Green said in a statement. “Since Secretary Mayorkas took office, we’ve watched in horror as fentanyl has increasingly spread into our communities, criminal illegal aliens have poured across the border, and law enforcement has been completely overwhelmed. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of vulnerable people, including children, have been trafficked or smuggled across the border by the cartels into forced labor, the sex trade, and other horrific situations.
“Secretary Mayorkas’ dereliction of duty is central to these horrors, and instead of changing course on the policies that brought us here, he has only doubled down in their defense,” he said. “It’s unacceptable, and we’re going to keep informing the public about what this crisis has cost all of us.”
Democrats on the committee also took aim at the report.
“Republicans can write as many reports as they want baselessly attacking the Secretary and forcing their xenophobic rhetoric on the American people, but they’ve done nothing to move the needle on improving border policy,” Ranking Member Bennie Thompson said in a statement. “Instead, they criticize to distract from the fact that Republicans simply have no ability to govern and no desire to work with Democrats on real solutions.”
DHS officials have repeatedly pushed back against the criticism Mayorkas has received from Republicans, saying it is up to Congress to provide more funding and fix a “broken” immigration system. Officials have also previously highlighted anti-smuggling campaigns and additional funding to counter human and drug smuggling.
“While the House Majority has wasted months trying to score points with baseless attacks, Secretary Mayorkas has been doing his job and working to keep Americans safe,” a DHS spokesperson said in response to the report. ” Instead of continuing their reckless attacks, Congress should work with us to keep our country safe, build on the progress DHS is making, and deliver desperately needed reforms for our broken immigration system that only legislation can fix.”
Go to Source: Latest Political News on Fox News
Anti-Israel statements sweep more colleges; critics slam leaders for staying out of fray
Elite U.S. universities are getting sharp criticism in response to statements by anti-Israel campus groups that have gone unchecked by campus leaders.
On Sunday, a day after Hamas terrorist attacks on Israelis killed over 1,000, including children, and wounded over 2,000, nearly 30 “Palestine solidarity groups” at Harvard University issued a statement saying “the apartheid regime” of Israel “is the only one to blame” for the atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists.
“Today’s events did not occur in a vacuum,” the statement said. “In the coming days, Palestinians will be forced to bear the full brunt of Israel’s violence.”
Roughly 24 hours later, on Monday, Harvard University President Claudine Gay released a statement, saying, “Let there be no doubt that I condemn the terrorist atrocities perpetrated by Hamas.”
PROTESTERS FACE OFF NEAR HARVARD, MAN CALLS PRO-ISRAEL DEMONSTRATORS ‘NAZIS’ AND ‘PIGS’
She added that while students have the right to speak for themselves, “no student group — not even 30 student groups — speaks for Harvard University or its leadership.”
But Lawrence H. Summers, president emeritus of Harvard, says the school’s “delayed statement fails to meet the needs of the moment.”
“Why can’t we find anything approaching the moral clarity of Harvard statements after George Floyd’s death or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine when terrorists kill, rape and take hostage hundreds of Israelis attending a music festival?” Summers, who served in senior leadership posts under presidents Clinton and Obama, asked in a post Tuesday on X, formerly Twitter.
“Why can’t we give reassurance that the University stands squarely against Hamas terror to frightened students when 35 groups of their fellow students appear to be blaming all the violence on Israel?”
DEMOCRAT BLASTS ‘SQUAD’ MEMBERS OVER CALLS TO END ISRAEL ASSISTANCE: ‘IT SICKENS ME’
Prior to Gay releasing her statement, Summers said he had never felt so “disillusioned and alienated” during his 50-year affiliation with the university.
The former Clinton Treasury secretary compared the school administration’s silence on the attacks in Israel to Gay’s nearly 500-word “powerful” statement condemning police violence when George Floyd was killed in 2020.
In the more than 48-hour window before Gay published her statement, Summers said Harvard was “being defined by the morally unconscionable statement apparently coming from two dozen student groups blaming all the violence on Israel.”
Northwestern University Students for Justice in Palestine issued a similar statement on Monday, saying Israel is not “the aggrieved party.”
“The events of October 7th are more than just isolated incidents; they’re symptomatic of decades-long desperation stemming from subjugation and systemic oppression,” the statement said.
“Israel’s portrayal as the aggrieved party is not only historically inaccurate, but also contradicts the very dynamics they’ve established. A party that controls the resources, dictates movement, dominates military might, and infringes upon the rights of another, cannot, by any logical construct, claim victimhood,” the statement says.
Guy Benson, political editor for Townhall and a Northwestern alumnus, called the statement “morally inverted” and “disgusting.
University of Virginia (UVA) Students for Justice in Palestine said Sunday that following the brutality carried out by Hamas, it was “hopeful for the future.”
“Over the past two days, many of us have been afraid, worried, and even hopeful for the future of Palestine,” the group said.
HARVARD WAS RANKED LAST FOR FREE SPEECH. HERE’S WHAT THE STUDENTS ARE SAYING
“Students for Justice in Palestine at UVA unequivocally supports Palestinian liberation and the right of colonized people everywhere to resist the occupation of their land by whatever means they deem necessary.
“We mourn the loss of human life and hope for long-lasting peace which cannot be achieved without the firm establishment of equality and justice. In an unprecedented feat for the 21st century, resistance fighters in Gaza broke through the illegitimate border fence, took occupation soldiers hostage, and seized control of Israeli settlements that are illegal under international law.”
On Tuesday, Israeli media reported Israel’s military had discovered unspeakable horrors, including the bodies dozens of beheaded babies, in an Israeli community attacked by Hamas Saturday.
According to local Israeli outlet i24News, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers moved into Kfar Aza, one of the communities Hamas terrorists invaded early Saturday morning, and discovered about 40 dead babies, some decapitated.
IDF soldiers were removing the bodies of victims found in the area when they found the children’s remains. Israeli soldiers are attempting to use bones to identify the victims, according to the report.
Harvard, Northwestern and the University of Virginia did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Go to Source: Latest Political News on Fox News