USA. Elezioni. Bloomberg annuncia un piano di 5,000 mld di tasse.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-02-08.

Sembrerebbe essere cosa ragionevole che il senato americano in tempi brevi rigetti l’istanza di impeachment formulata dal congresso nei confronti di Mr Trump, consentendo in questa maniera l’avvio di una campagna elettorale per le presidenziali di novembre combattuta alla fine sul nodo centrale: quello delle tasse che finanziano ogni azione governativa.

Da quanto sembrerebbe delinearsi, alcuni sono i punti al momenti di interesse.

– La corsa alla presidenza americana sembrerebbe essere gerontocratica: Mr Trump ha 74 anni, Mr Bloomberg ha 78 anni, Mr Joe Biden 78 anni, Mr Bernie Sanders 79, Mrs Elisabeth Warren 71 anni. Non in lizza ma di grande peso decisionale, Mrs Nancy Pelosi ha 80 anni. Se è vero che l’età avanzata ha una grande esperienza sulle spalle, sarebbe altrettanto vero considerare come età di questo livello siano usualmente associate a capacità fisiche e mentali ben minori di quelle godute da un quarantenne. Nel contempo, la persona vecchia di norma risulta essere oltremodo radicata nelle proprie idee, maturate nei decenni precedenti e tetragona a recepire le nuove istanze emergenti. Infine, si constata come embolo lavori prevalentemente in questa fascia di età.

– Al momento è impossibile prognosticare quale possa essere il candidato democratico per la White House, ma tratto comune a tutti gli attuali potenziali candidati è l’aumento sostanziale delle tasse sugli abbienti per finanziare un generoso welfare.

– Sembrerebbe quindi delinearsi uno scontro tra un Mr Trump teso alla riduzione ed un candidato democratico portato all’aumento delle tasse. Al contrario della campagna elettorale fatta a suo tempo da Mrs Clinton, questi argomenti toccano da vicino tutti gli Elettori americani, molto sensibili ai problemi dei loro portafogli.

* * *

«Billionaire candidate Mike Bloomberg unveiled a tax plan on Saturday would unwind corporate tax-breaks granted by President Donald Trump and impose at 5% surtax on incomes above $5 million a year»

«Billionaire Democratic candidate Mike Bloomberg unveiled a tax plan on Saturday that would unwind corporate tax breaks granted by President Donald Trump and impose an additional 5% “surtax” on incomes above $5 million a year»

«According to the campaign, the plan in total would generate roughly $5 trillion and would be sufficient to help fund Bloomberg’s initiatives, including his healthcare plan, education, combating climate change and more than $1 trillion infrastructure plan»

«The campaign did not state how much it would generate from its surtax on incomes above $5 million a year, though noted it would only impact less than 0.1% of taxpayers»

«Bloomberg, like fellow moderate candidate Joe Biden, thinks Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went too far. Both want to hike the corporate tax rate up to 28%, after Trump lowered it from 35% to 21%.»

«Both want to reverse the Trump tax changes that lowered taxes on high-income households from 39.6%. to 37%. Both propose raising capital gain taxes for high-income taxpayers.»

«Bloomberg’s tax plan comes as the economy and taxes take center stage in the 2020 presidential election»

«Critics have argued the move is unconstitutional»

* * * * * * *

Queste elezioni 2020 saranno cruciali.

Non solo per quella che sarà la figura umana e politica del presidente eletto, ma anche perché nel prossimo quadriennio dovranno essere rinnovati centinaia di giudici federali nelle corti di appello ed in quelle distrettuali. Una riconferma del presidente Trump sancirebbe la fine del potere giudiziario dei liberal democratici ed inizierebbe una periodo di molti decenni di predominio giuridico dei repubblicani.

*

---

Usa 2020: Bloomberg, nuove tasse su ricchi

Ma non imposta sui paperoni voluta da Sanders e Warren

Un aumento delle tasse per 5.000 miliardi di dollari per i ricchi e le grandi aziende. E’ il piano di Michael Bloomberg, l’ex sindaco di New York candidato alla Casa Bianca. L’iniziativa prevede l’eliminazione del taglio delle tasse di Donald Trump e un aumento delle imposte sul capital gain per gli americani che guadagnano oltre un milione di dollari l’anno. Pur trattandosi di un piano ambizioso, l’iniziativa di Bloomberg non prevede alcuna maxi tassa sui ricchi simile a quella per cui spingono i rivali Bernie Sanders e Elizabeth Warren. Secondo lo staff di Bloomberg, una imposta simile potrebbe infatti essere ritenuta incostituzionale, parere condiviso anche da molti esperti legali progressisti.

*

---

‘I will pay more’: Bloomberg unveils $5 trillion tax plan targeting the wealthy and corporations

– Billionaire candidate Mike Bloomberg unveiled a tax plan on Saturday would unwind corporate tax-breaks granted by President Donald Trump and impose at 5% surtax on incomes above $5 million a year. 

– Bloomberg has a net worth of more than $59 billion and courted business leaders as part of his campaign.

– He said “it is only right” that he pay more in taxes. 

*

Billionaire Democratic candidate Mike Bloomberg unveiled a tax plan on Saturday that would unwind corporate tax breaks granted by President Donald Trump and impose an additional 5% “surtax” on incomes above $5 million a year.

According to the campaign, the plan in total would generate roughly $5 trillion and would be sufficient to help fund Bloomberg’s initiatives, including his healthcare plan, education, combating climate change and more than $1 trillion infrastructure plan.

The campaign did not state how much it would generate from its surtax on incomes above $5 million a year, though noted it would only impact less than 0.1% of taxpayers.

Bloomberg, like fellow moderate candidate Joe Biden, thinks Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went too far. Both want to hike the corporate tax rate up to 28%, after Trump lowered it from 35% to 21%. Both want to reverse the Trump tax changes that lowered taxes on high-income households from 39.6%. to 37%. Both propose raising capital gain taxes for high-income taxpayers.

“The plan I am releasing today raises rates on wealthy individuals and corporations, closes loopholes, cracks down on tax avoidance, expands the estate tax, and reduces the tax advantages that investors have over workers,” said Bloomberg in a statement.

“And, most importantly,” he added, “my plan is achievable” in a seeming swing at more liberal policies put forward by rival Democrats, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

For Bloomberg, who has a net worth of more than $59 billion and courted business leaders as part of his campaign, a focus on high-income taxpayers is notable. It is an acknowledgment of rising income inequality and a 2020 presidential campaign that has centered on populist rhetoric. It echoes language by millionaires and billionaires like Warren Buffett and Abigail Disney who have said they should pay higher taxes.

Bloomberg, who founded financial and media company, Bloomberg LP, said in a statement on Saturday he already gives nearly all his company’s profit to charity.

“Under my plan, I’ll continue doing that,” he noted. “But I will also pay more in taxes to make sure all Americans have the same opportunities I did. That’s only right.”

Bloomberg could take the debate stage for the first time in Nevada later this month. The Democratic National Committee on Friday unveiled new debate rules that dropped the requirement for candidates to obtain a minimum number of campaign contributors, opening a previously closed door for Bloomberg.

He is polling in fourth place in national surveys, earning approximately 8% support.

Economy and taxes take center stage

Bloomberg’s tax plan comes as the economy and taxes take center stage in the 2020 presidential election. President Trump has argued the economy has thrived under his watch. Amid deregulation and tax cuts, GDP in 2018 hit 2.9%, beating any calendar year since the financial crisis (though that growth appears to be slowing amid geopolitical uncertainty.)

Democratic candidates, though, have argued Trump’s policies primarily benefit the rich. Most of the leading Democratic candidates have offered up their solutions to a shrinking middle class, while still seeking tax-receipts to fund their initiatives.

Senators Sanders and Warren have proposed taxing wealth directly, with their versions of a “millionaire tax.” Both argue such a tax could generate trillions to fund their proposals. Critics have argued the move is unconstitutional.

Former Vice President Biden, meantime, is going after corporate tax bills. He has proposed a minimum income tax of 15% on the country’s most profitable companies, targeting companies like Amazon, which paid no federal income tax in 2018. Bloomberg has no such proposal.

For Bloomberg, a presidential campaign touting raising taxes stands in contrast to his first run for mayor of New York, which culminated in a 2002 inauguration speech in which Bloomberg implored, “We cannot drive people and business out of New York. We cannot raise taxes. We will find another way,”

That approach to taxes evolved as the city he ran faced a budget crisis, spurred in part by the 2001 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center. He signed legislation raising the city’s property tax rates by 18.5%, a move he said was “probably the largest property tax increase in the history of the city.” He later offered, then canceled, temporary rebates for those taxes. Bloomberg again raised property taxes in 2008 as the city grappled with the Great Recession.

According to the Bloomberg campaign, during his time as mayor, he increased taxes on the wealthy by nearly $18 billion. The campaign also says that low and middle-income taxpayers held very little or no tax liability during his tenure.

Bloomberg’s taxes helped to balance the city’s budget, a move for which he earned praise. But he also received a fair share of criticism for allowing the poor to fall behind under his watch, even as the city prospered. His successor, Bill de Blasio, called New York under Bloomberg’s run “a tale of two cities.”

But Bloomberg’s defenders point to efforts to combat poverty as mayor, including a push to boost filings under the City Earned Income Tax Credit program, which his campaign says put over $15 million in the pockets of New Yorkers.

Mentire come un liberal democratico, come Nancy Pelosi …. Un video la incastra.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-02-06.

Secondo la vulgata corrente, Mrs Nancy Pelosi avrebbe strappato il discorso del Presidente Trump perché questi non le avrebbe stretto la mano.

Come tutto ciò che dicono i liberal democratici è una grossolana panzana, smentita dal video allegato.

Ah, non fanno più i liberal di una volta, che sapevano mentire ad arte!

Eppure Mrs Pelosi è ben datata, come la sua dentiera traballante.

La stracciatura dei fogli era stata accuratamente programmata.

«Vice President Mike Pence, who was seated next to the California Democrat, told “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday that it felt like she’d planned to rip the speech because “it felt like such an immediate moment.”»

* * * * * * *

---

Nancy Pelosi ‘pre-ripped’ pages of Trump’s SOTU speech, video shows

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently made tiny tears into her copy of President Trump’s State of the Union address — so that her speech-ripping moment could go off without a hitch.

As Trump introduced cancer-stricken radio host Rush Limbaugh — who received the Medal of Freedom during the speech — Pelosi could be seen grabbing the pages off the table.

Video shows her making what seemed to be a tearing motion and then placing the pages back on the table.

Photos of the sheets of paper show them face down on the table with small slits on the side, near where Pelosi would eventually rip them into pieces.

Vice President Mike Pence, who was seated next to the California Democrat, told “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday that it felt like she’d planned to rip the speech because “it felt like such an immediate moment.”

Pelosi’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump. Discorso sullo Stato dell’Unione. Pelosi lo straccia platealmente.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-02-05.

«”Il socialismo distrugge le nazioni”»

---

«Nancy Pelosi, strappa la copia del discorso sullo Stato dell’Unione di Donald Trump»

«Le immagini mostrano chiaramente come la speaker della Camera, appena il presidente ha terminato il suo intervento, ha strappato la copia del discorso»

«Stiamo andando avanti a un ritmo che era inimmaginabile poco tempo fa, e non ci torneremo mai più!»

«”gli anni del decadimento economico sono finiti”»

«”in soli tre brevi anni abbiamo infranto la mentalità del declino americano e abbiamo respinto il ridimensionamento del destino americano”»

«”Non permetteremo mai al socialismo di distruggere l’assistenza sanitaria americana!”»

«”Il socialismo distrugge le nazioni, ma ricorda sempre che la libertà unifica l’anima”»

«”Le nostre scoperte più brillanti non sono ancora note. Le nostre storie più elettrizzanti non sono ancora state raccontate. I nostri più grandi viaggi non sono ancora stati fatti”»

* * * * * * *

Nancy Pelosi ed i liberal democratici odiano di odio viscerale e mortale Mr Trump, e lo dimostrano con ogni mezzo: sono socialisti fin nel midollo.

Ma i successi economici e politici del presidente possono essere contrapposti solo producendo idee politiche ed economiche adeguate a convincere gli Elettori americani.

Tutti i potenziali candidati democratici alla White House sono vecchietti ottuagenari, le idee dei quali affondano in settanta anni or sono: ma il mondo è cambiato. Lo si voglia o meno.

*

---

Pelosi strappa copia discorso Trump

Gelo fra i due, Trump non le stringe la mano.

Nancy Pelosi, strappa la copia del discorso sullo Stato dell’Unione di Donald Trump. Le immagini mostrano chiaramente come la speaker della Camera, appena il presidente ha terminato il suo intervento, ha strappato la copia del discorso. Ma la serata era già iniziata all’insegna del gelo fra i due, con Trump che ha evitato di stringerle la mano e Pelosi che lo ha presentato accantonando i rituali dell’occasione.

*

---

Stato Unione, Trump e il “grande ritorno americano”

Il presidente degli Stati Uniti Donald Trump ha salutato il “grande ritorno americano” nel suo terzo discorso sullo Stato dell’Unione, della durata di un’ora e 18 minuti. “Stiamo andando avanti a un ritmo che era inimmaginabile poco tempo fa, e non ci torneremo mai più!”, ha detto in linea con il tono ottimistico scelto per il discorso, affermando che ”gli anni del decadimento economico sono finiti”. Riferendosi, senza citarlo, al suo predecessore Barack Obama, Trump ha quindi detto che “in soli tre brevi anni abbiamo infranto la mentalità del declino americano e abbiamo respinto il ridimensionamento del destino americano”.

Trump non ha risparmiato colpi ai democratici, compresi i candidati di sinistra come Bernie Sanders che lo sfidano alla corsa alla presidenza. “Non permetteremo mai al socialismo di distruggere l’assistenza sanitaria americana!”, ha detto il presidente. “Il socialismo distrugge le nazioni, ma ricorda sempre che la libertà unifica l’anima”, ha aggiunto Trump. “Le nostre scoperte più brillanti non sono ancora note. Le nostre storie più elettrizzanti non sono ancora state raccontate. I nostri più grandi viaggi non sono ancora stati fatti”, ha concluso.

Trump. Impeachment. Ecco cosa ne pensa il Presidente.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-12-22.

---

Negli Stati Uniti è in corso la procedura di impeachment nei confronti del Presidente Trump. Il Congresso ha approvato l’atto di accusa che è quindi passato al Senato, che si riunirà in tribunale per giudicare il corpo accusatorio.

Come tutte le convocazioni in giudizio, gli esiti sono sempre incerti, anche se molti elementi suggerirebbero la concreta possibilità di un pieno proscioglimento di Mr Trump.

Due le motivazioni di codesto cauto ottimismo.

L’accusa portata non trova corresponsione della giurisprudenza americana e le prove addotte sono davvero molto sfumate. In processi del genere, le prove dovrebbero essere schiaccianti.

Il secondo motivo è più sottile, da usarsi con cautela. Se è vero che la maggioranza del Senato è del partito repubblicano, sarebbe altrettanto vero constatare come i senatori siano persone oneste, che emetteranno giudizio secondo scienza e coscienza. Considerare che un Senato a maggioranza repubblicana emetta sentenze meramente politiche sarebbe oltraggioso per questa Istituzione.

* * *

La stampa mondiale, a governo liberal democratico, si è profusa a riportare il testo di accusa, dandolo quasi fosse verità rivelata. Non è stato lasciato alcun spazio a quanto il Presidente Trump avesse detto in proposito.

Nel nostro microbico, vorremmo invece dare ampio risalto alla difesa. Un procedimento giudiziario che imbavagli la difesa sarebbe solo ed esclusivamente atto dittatoriale.

Riportiamo quindi il link del testo ufficiale rilasciato dalla White House della lettera del Presidente indirizzata allo Speaker della Camera dei Rappresentanti, Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

---

Letter from President Donald J. Trump to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

«Dear Madam Speaker:

I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.

The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!

By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme-yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America’s founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying “I pray for the President,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!

Your first claim, “Abuse of Power,” is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination. You know that I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of Ukraine. I then had a second conversation that has been misquoted, mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented. Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect. I said to President Zelensky: “I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” I said do us a favor, not me, and our country, not a campaign. I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States. Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America’s interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky. ….»

Trump vieta ulteriori viaggi ai Membri del Congresso.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-21.

Prosegue il braccio di ferro tra il Presidente Trump ed il Congresso, guidato da Mrs Nancy Pelosi.

«The White House on Friday barred Congress members from using government planes without prior written approval, a day after delaying Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s planned foreign trip amid the standoff over the partial government shutdown»

*

«Under no circumstances during a government shutdown will any government owned, rented, leased or chartered aircraft support any Congressional delegation, without the express written approval of the White House Chief of Staff»

*

«Nor will any funds appropriated to the Executive Branch be used for any Congressional delegation travel expenses, without his express written approval»

*

«During this period, it would be better if you were in Washington negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the Shutdown»

* * * * * * * *

Abbiamo ben troppi guai in casa nostra per sindacare quelli degli altri.

Pur tuttavia prendiamo atto come tra Mr Trump e Mrs Pelosi si stia innescando una spirale di ripicche che giova a tutto tranne che al buon governo degli Stati Uniti.

Ci si rende perfettamente conto di quanto i liberal democratici odino Mr Trump, ma in ogni caso è il loro presidente per almeno ancora due anni.

Si consolino che a Davos all’assenza di mr Trump si è unita quella di Mrs May, di Mr Xi e, da buon ultimo, anche quella di Mr Macron.

---

→ China Org. 2019-01-21. White House imposes new restrictions on congressional trips over shutdown

The White House on Friday barred Congress members from using government planes without prior written approval, a day after delaying Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s planned foreign trip amid the standoff over the partial government shutdown.

“Under no circumstances during a government shutdown will any government owned, rented, leased or chartered aircraft support any Congressional delegation, without the express written approval of the White House Chief of Staff,” Russell Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, announced in a memo to department heads.

“Nor will any funds appropriated to the Executive Branch be used for any Congressional delegation travel expenses, without his express written approval,” the memo said.

A day earlier, President Donald Trump told Pelosi that her planned seven-day trip to Brussels, Egypt and Afghanistan will be rescheduled when the shutdown is over.

“During this period, it would be better if you were in Washington negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the Shutdown,” the president wrote in a letter to the top House Democrat on Thursday.

In response, Pelosi’s office said she had to cancel a commercial trip to Afghanistan because the Trump administration leaked details of it, undermining security for the lawmakers who planned to go.

The shutdown, the longest in the U.S. history, started on Dec. 22 due to a budget standoff in which Trump requested 5.7 billion U.S. dollars for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but congressional Democrats rejected his demand. 

Trump. Americani favorevoli all’accordo con i democratici. Poll: 71% Y, 8% N.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2047-09-26.

Con la solita sintesi lapidaria Mr Putin aveva definito ciò che sta succedendo negli Stati Uniti: «“political schizophrenia”».

Ricordiamo come secondo Treccani la schizofrenia altro non sia che:

«psicosi dissociativa caratterizzata da un processo di disgregazione (dissociazione) della personalità psichica; si manifesta con gravi disturbi dell’attività affettiva e del comportamento»

*

È da circa un anno che sia al Congresso sia in Senato, sia pur anche su tutti i media liberals, è in corso un qualcosa che assomiglia sempre più ad una guerra civile combattuta, almeno al momento, senza armi letali, senza strumenti bellici.

Se si potesse parlare senza l’uso della fraseologia politicamente corretta, si potrebbe dire che i parlamentari si stiano litigando come bagasce ai trogoli e, tutti presi dai motivi del contendere, ben poco facciano per dare un governo efficiente al paese.

I liberal hanno accusato il Presidente Trump di ogni possibile nefandezza, a partire dal sexual harassment fino all’intelligenza con i russi, senza peraltro riuscire a produrre uno straccetto di prova probante.

Diciamo pure che i liberal democratici proprio non sanno perdere.

*

I risultati del sondaggio eseguito da Nbc e dal Wall Street Journal sono però inequivocabili su come la stiano pensando gli americani.

Una larga maggioranza, sempre sopra il 60%, approva un accordo tra repubblicani e democratici sulla riforma dell’healthcare, la tassazione, l’immigrazione e la protezione ambientale. Ossia, su tutti i grandi temi interni al momento dibattuti nei ritagli di tempo lasciati dagli alterchi.

*

Il politico dovrebbe essere un personaggio che appiana le divergenze, coagula consensi, trova accordi proficui con chiunque: quindi, almeno a nostro sommesso parere, ben vengano accordi tra i due partiti.

Deputati e senatori dovranno alla fine comprendere come i litigi siano sgraditi alla gente che li ha eletti, e che li sta mantenendo.

Nota.

Si fa un gran dire che Mr Trump sarebbe impopolare.

Si fa sommessamente notare come Mrs Nancy Pelosi, leader della minoranza democratica al Congresso, più che un tasso di gradimento sembrerebbe avere un tasso di esecrabilità.

---

→ Fox News. 2017-09-21. 71% of Americans Support Trump’s Deal With Dems to Keep Gov’t Open, Fund Hurricane Relief, Poll Finds

More than 70 percent of Americans support President Donald Trump’s deal with Democratic leaders to provide hurricane relief and keep the government open for 90 days, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Trump was criticized by some of his fellow Republicans for reaching across the aisle and working with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to raise the debt limit, which kept the government open and provided relief for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

71 percent of those surveyed by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, however, approved of Trump agreeing with Schumer and Pelosi on the legislation. Only eight percent disapproved, while 20 percent had no opinion and one percent were not sure.

Trump’s overall job approval rating in the poll is 43 percent, which is up three points since August. 83 percent of Republicans, 41 percent of independents and 10 percent of Democrats approve of Trump’s performance.

“There’s a sense out there that people are so dug in in Washington, they’re oblivious to the fact the average American says we’re not getting anything done, we’re going to have to compromise,” Brian Kilmeade said on “Fox & Friends.” “And I think the president was the first to realize that. And now the poll numbers reflect that.”

He noted that a recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 60 percent of Republicans prefer lawmakers who are willing to work with Democrats and compromise.

Watch more above.

---

→ YouGov. 2017-09-21. Americans prefer compromise to inaction in Congress

55% of Americans want President Trump to make a deal with Democrats over “Dreamers”

Americans today say compromise across party lines is a good thing, especially now – a time when the public gives Congress only a 10% approval rating and few see a lot being accomplished by legislators. In the latest Economist/YouGov Poll, even Republicans think it would be fine if President Trump were to reach across the aisle and work with Congressional Democrats on a host of critical issues before Congress.

Their interest in compromise doesn’t mean that Republicans agree with the Democrats on these issues. They overwhelmingly favor GOP positions on immigration and health care reform. But the poll findings underscore the lowered expectations for this Congress. Almost half of the public no longer thinks Congress will repeal Obamacare. Most don’t think there will be funding for a border wall, while a plurality thinks there won’t be comprehensive immigration reform and barely half expect Congress will even pass a budget.

Republicans expect tax reform to pass (55% to 32%) and Obamacare repeal as well, though by a narrow margin (48% to 43%). But they too are skeptical about the prospects for passing funding for a border wall and comprehensive immigration reform.

The first indication of the President’s interest in compromising with Democrats came earlier this month when he agreed with the House and Senate Minority Leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, to increase the debt limit and to provide aid for those affected by Hurricane Harvey. Last week, there were conflicting reports about whether or not there had been another compromise, this time about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program established through an executive order signed by former President Barack Obama. The public approves of an attempt at compromise on this issue.

Republicans generally agree. So do those who voted for President Trump, although they are more closely divided. 45% approve of the President working with Democrats on this issue; 39% do not. Like the public overall, they think protection for “dreamers” will happen.

The GOP willingness for compromise is relatively new. Throughout the Obama Administration, Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to say they preferred to have a Representative in Congress who stuck to principles at all costs, even at the risk of limiting accomplishments. In a 2011 poll, Republicans opposed having a Congressman who would be willing to compromise by nearly two to one. In this week’s poll, 60% of Republicans prefer a representative who is willing to compromise.

However, Republicans and Democrats may have different goals for DACA. Two in three Republicans approve of the President’s decision to end the program. When it comes to the program itself, members of the President’s party are divided: 39% support it, 45% do not.

There is also a significant amount of distrust of both sides. Majorities say they trust Democrats in Congress – and Donald Trump “not much” or “not at all” – when it comes to negotiating an agreement for the Dreamers.

More than two-thirds of Republicans distrust the Democrats in Congress on this issue; more than two-thirds of Democrats distrust the President. And the public is not quite sure of how much their leaders care about the “dreamers,” especially the President – most think he cares little or nothing about the needs and problems of the “dreamers.” This contrasts with the two-thirds of Americans – and a majority of Republicans – who say they care about the “dreamers.”

Increased interest in compromise may also be due to the fact that the Democratic Congressional leaders are more popular with the public and within their own parties than the Republican Congressional leadership is within theirs. The Democratic leadership even has gained support in recent weeks. While more than a third of the public disapproves of the way Schumer is handling his job as Senate Minority Leader, his 31% approval rating this week is the highest ever for him since he took office. 52% of Democrats approve. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has just a 28% approval rating, but 56% of Democrats approve of her performance.

Speaker Paul Ryan fares worse both with the public and with members of his own party. Only 43% of Republicans approve of the way he is doing his job, matching his low ratings after the failure of Obamacare repeal. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell scores even worse. His 30% approval rating among Republicans is his lowest all year.

Rivolta dei liberals democratici. ‘Siamo peggio di Trump’. – New York Times

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-06-23.

Il Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ha rilasciato un Memorandum per pianificare la rivincita alle elezioni di mezzo termine, che si terranno nel novembre dell’anno prossimo.

È uno scatto di orgoglio ferito, ma anche un pregevole documento propagandistico, volto ad alzare il morale alle truppe battute e disperse.

Lo riportiamo, commentato, unitamente al lamento funebre simultaneamente pubblicato sul The New York Time, in cui si prende atto della rivolta in corso nel partito democratico: la base vorrebbe semplicemente defenestrare l’attuale dirigenza.

* * * * * * *

I liberals democratici hanno un tratto comune con i tedeschi: ogni certo quale numero di anni è necessario bombardarli a tappeto senza lasciare pietra su pietra. Allora, alla fine, iniziano a capire qualcosa: poco, ma qualcosa. Occorre sapersi accontentare.

Se la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel ha iniziato ad abbassare il presumino dopo la faccenda del Nord Stream 2 e delle sanzioni americane alle ditte tedesche, dopo che gli Usa hanno abbandonato l’Accordo di Parigi ed amenità del genere, i liberals americani hanno dovuto sbattere la faccia dapprima con le elezioni, che hanno fatto vincere ai repubblicani la Presidenza e la maggioranza sia al Congresso sia in Senato, quindi hanno dovuto perdere da novembre alla settimana scorsa cinque consecutive tornate elettorali suppletive, che si tenevano in stati a tradizione democratica.

Adesso, più che della estinzione delle foche monache i liberals democratici iniziano a meditare sulla loro scomparsa fisica dalla scena politica americana.

Negli ultimi tre anni hanno perso oltre 1,500 cariche elettive, ivi comprese quelle per giudici in tribunali, loro punta di diamante.

Ma la sconfitta elettorale in Georgia è stata urente ed urticante.

Vi avevano profuso fiumi di denaro: sono state le elezioni più costose della storia americana. Vi hanno mandato legioni di attivisti specializzati in lgbt, femminismo ultraortodosso, ateismo attivo da far invidia al caro, vecchio comunismo.

Da novembre stanno finanziando senza risparmio manifestazioni di piazza che urlano “not my president“, che inneggiano ogni sorta di rapporto carnale pervertito e perverso, senza trascurare di bruciare cassonetti ed automobili.

Sempre da novembre hanno inscenato una campagna stampa quale non si vide neppure dopo l’attacco di Pearl Harbor: tutti i loro media, dalle TV ai giornali locali, hanno riversato sui repubblicani e su Mr Trump ogni sorta di menzogna e calunnia. Alla fine non lo hanno accusato di pascolo abusivo.

E tutto questo non solo è stato fatto senza risultato alcuno, ma alla fine risultando essere controproducente.

* * *

Adesso inizia la rivoluzione interna.

I deputati hanno fatto quattro conti: se non si cambiasse, nel 2018, con le elezioni di medio termine, tutti a casa.

«Democrats who have been critical of Ms. Pelosi»

Mrs Pelosi è il primo obiettivo che vorrebbero abbattere: tutta femminismo, aborto, degenerazioni varie, ‘clima’ ed alternative, purché democratiche, la capogruppo democratica al Congresso è una dei maggiori responsabili di questa débâcle. Di tutto questo armamentario la gente comune non solo non sa più cosa farsene, ma inizia anche ad osteggiarlo. Il popolo vorrebbe soltanto un lavoro sicuro che garantisca uno stipendio con cui poter mantenere la propria famiglia in modo dignitoso. Ecco perché Mr Trump li ha sbaragliati: è stato a sentire il popolo, quello che vota.

---

→ The New York Times. 2017-06-23. Democrats See the After Georgia Loss: ‘Our Brand Is Worse Than Trump’

Democrats scrambled to regroup on Wednesday after a disappointing special election defeat in Georgia, with lawmakers, activists and labor leaders speaking out in public and private to demand a more forceful economic message heading into the 2018 elections.

Among Democrats in Washington, the setback in Georgia revived or deepened a host of existing grievances about the party, accentuating tensions between moderate lawmakers and liberal activists and prompting some Democrats to question the leadership and political strategy of Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader.

A small group of Democrats who have been critical of Ms. Pelosi in the past again pressed her to step down on Wednesday. And in a private meeting of Democratic lawmakers, Representative Tony Cárdenas of California, Ms. Pelosi’s home state, suggested the party should have a more open conversation about her effect on its political fortunes.

But the most acute and widely expressed concerns were economic. Speaking after a meeting of the Democratic caucus on Wednesday morning, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York said the party was preparing to be “aggressively focused on job creation and economic growth.” And Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, who represents an affluent district near New York City, said Democrats must do more to compete with what he described as expansive and unrealistic promises by President Trump.

“It’s not enough to say, ‘I want jobs,’” Mr. Himes said. “You need more than that, particularly when you’re competing with a guy who is telling fantasies.”

Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan called for Democrats to go “on offense” and attack the president’s perceived strength on economic matters with working-class voters.

“We need to show working men and women we understand their anxieties and fears,” she said, “and show that Trump is treating them like just another politician.”

By fiercely contesting a congressional race in the conservative Atlanta suburbs, Democrats had hoped to make an emphatic statement about the weakness of the Republican Party under Mr. Trump. Their candidate, Jon Ossoff, raised about $25 million, mostly in small donations, and assertively courted right-of-center voters with promises of economic development and fiscal restraint.

That vague message, Democrats said Wednesday, was plainly not powerful enough to counter an onslaught of Republican advertising that cast Mr. Ossoff as a puppet of liberal national Democrats, led by Ms. Pelosi, an intensely unpopular figure on the right and a longstanding target of Republican attacks. While Mr. Ossoff made inroads by exploiting Mr. Trump’s unpopularity and a backlash against health care legislation approved in the House, Democrats said they would have to do more to actually win.

Representative Eric Swalwell of California, who is close to party leaders, said Democrats would “crystallize our message on jobs, on health care” in the coming months. The results in Georgia and other special elections, he said, should encourage Democrats to campaign across a huge map of districts. “We need to compete everywhere,” he said.

Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, met Wednesday morning with a group of lawmakers who have been conferring about economic messaging, according to several people present who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Luján told the group that his committee would examine the Georgia results for lessons, but he urged the lawmakers to portray the race in positive terms in their public comments, stressing that Democrats have consistently exceeded their historical performance in a series of special elections fought in solidly Republican territory.

It was in the meeting with Mr. Luján that Mr. Cárdenas, a member of the Democratic leadership, brought up Ms. Pelosi’s role in the Georgia race, calling it “the elephant in the room.” Ms. Pelosi was not present.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cárdenas, while acknowledging his comment, said he had invoked the leader in the context of “what can be done to stand up to those attacks in the future.”

Ms. Pelosi has consistently rejected calls to step down, and there was little indication that her leadership post was at risk. She responded to the election results in a “Dear Colleague” letter to Democratic lawmakers late Wednesday, underscoring the party’s improving performance in conservative areas and saying that “every effort was made to win” in Georgia.

But Ms. Pelosi also said it was time for Democrats to “put forth our message,” and promised an economic one that “we can all embrace and utilize in our districts.”

She did not directly address the sometimes caustic criticism of her leadership from skeptics within the party. Several lawmakers who have opposed her in the past argued that Ms. Pelosi would undermine the party’s candidates for as long as she holds her post.

Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, an open critic of Ms. Pelosi, called the Georgia result “frustrating” and urged a shake-up at the top of the party.

Representative Kathleen Rice of New York told CNN the entire Democratic leadership team should go.

Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who tried to unseat Ms. Pelosi as House minority leader late last fall, said she remained a political millstone for Democrats. But Mr. Ryan said the Democratic brand had also become “toxic” in much of the country because voters saw Democrats as “not being able to connect with the issues they care about.”

“Our brand is worse than Trump,” he said.

A top aide to Ms. Pelosi dismissed the idea that her lightning-rod status might have hurt the Democratic effort in Georgia, and pointed out that in some polls the Republican speaker, Paul D. Ryan, is viewed even more dismally.

Any Democratic leader would become a target for the right, said the aide, Drew Hammill, Ms. Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff.

“Republicans blew through millions to keep a ruby red seat and in their desperate rush to stop the hemorrhaging, they’ve returned to demonizing the party’s strongest fund-raiser and consensus builder,” he said. “They don’t have Clinton or Obama, so this is what they do.”

But in a possible omen, the first Democratic candidate to announce his campaign after the Georgia defeat immediately vowed not to support Ms. Pelosi for leader. Joe Cunningham, a South Carolina lawyer challenging Representative Mark Sanford, said Democrats needed “new leadership now.”

Even Democrats who are not openly antagonistic toward Ms. Pelosi acknowledged that a decade of Republican attacks had taken a toll: “It’s pretty difficult to undo the demonization of anyone,” said Representative Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey.

In some respects, the sniping over the Democrats’ campaign message mirrors a larger divide in the Democratic Party, dating to the 2016 presidential primary contest and earlier. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and his supporters have pressed Democrats to embrace a more bluntly populist message, assailing wealthy special interests and endorsing the expansion of social welfare programs, while more moderate Democrats in the party leadership have favored an approach closer to Mr. Ossoff’s.

But in four contested special elections in Republican districts — including two, in Kansas and Montana, featuring Sanders-style insurgents — neither method provided the party with a breakthrough victory.

In the absence of a smashing win that might have settled the left-versus-center debate, Democrats may face a longer process of internal deliberation before they settle on an approach that is broadly acceptable in the party.

Part of the Democrats’ challenge now is that the jobless rate is low, and many of the districts they are targeting are a lot like the Georgia seat: thriving suburbs filled with voters who have only watched their portfolios grow since Mr. Trump took office.

Even as they smarted from their defeat on Wednesday, Democrats signaled that they intend to compete across a vast area of the country in 2018. Mr. Luján, moving to calm the party, circulated a memo to lawmakers and staff members that declared there was “no doubt that Democrats can take back the House next fall” in the midterm elections. He wrote that six to eight dozen seats held by Republican lawmakers would be easier for Democrats to capture than Georgia’s Sixth.

Citing snippets of private polling, Mr. Luján said there were Republican seats in southern Arizona and Florida, northern New Jersey and the Kansas City, Kan., suburbs, where Democratic challengers were already ahead of Republican incumbents.

Democrats need to win 24 Republican-held seats to win control of the House.

On the Republican side, jubilation over the victory in Georgia mixed with lingering unease about the overall political environment. While Ms. Handel defeated Mr. Ossoff by about 10,000 votes and nearly four percentage points, Republican outside groups had to spend $18 million defending a district where the party’s candidates had won easily for decades.

And on the same night, a little-watched special election in South Carolina gave Republicans another scare, as an obscure Democrat, Archie Parnell, came within 3,000 votes of capturing a solidly Republican congressional district, with voter turnout far behind the Georgia race.

Nick Everhart, a Republican strategist in Ohio, said the party should not allow its relief at having kept Democrats at bay to turn into complacency. Up to this point, he said, Republicans have been beating Democrats only on solidly red turf.

“To pretend that there are not serious enthusiasm-gap issues with the G.O.P. base and, more crucially, independents fleeing, is missing the lessons that need to be learned before truly competitive seats are on the board,” Mr. Everhart said.

Still, the immediate aftermath of the Georgia election was plainly tougher on the Democratic side, as the party endured a fourth special election that ended with a better-than-usual showing by a defeated Democrat. That pattern may put Democrats on track to gain power in the 2018 elections, but 17 months is a long wait for a party so hungry to win.