Ridin' With Biden, Con't

President Biden plans to appoint former Maryland Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley to head the Social Security Administration, and we'll see if Biden can keep all Dems on board, including Sens. Manchin and Sinema.

 

O’Malley, a Democrat, will require Senate confirmation to take over at the agency, which oversees a $1 trillion budget and is responsible for distributing benefits to older adults and disabled people.

The Social Security Administration has been run by acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi since President Joe Biden fired then-Commissioner Andrew Saul, a Trump holdover, in 2021. Saul’s ouster set off a partisan backlash, with members of each party accusing the other of politicizing the independent federal agency. Saul, who refused to resign, was just two years into a six-year term.

Beyond political infighting, O’Malley will also have to reckon with questions around the long-term financing of the Social Security Administration. Funds for its key social safety nets programs are expected to be depleted by 2035, mainly due to the country’s aging populating. Congress has struggled to agree on a fix.

O’Malley served as governor of Maryland from 2007 to 2015, and was the mayor of Baltimore before that.

Biden said in a statement that those experiences made him a strong pick for the job.

“Governor O’Malley is a lifelong public servant who has spent his career making government more accessible and transparent, while keeping the American people at the heart of his work,” Biden said.

Democrats in Congress also welcomed his nomination.

“Governor Martin O’Malley’s commitment to expanding and protecting Americans’ earned benefits as well as his record of public service will not only safeguard the future of Social Security but also modernize the agency and value its dedicated workforce,” Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement.

 

If Manchin wanted to make trouble (or Sinema for that matter) they could very well do so here. Especially if Manchin's making good on his threat to run as the No Labels 2024 spoiler candidate, putting down a marker on how Social Security is run would get his name in the papers and noticed by older Americans counting on government checks.  The same goes for Sinema, who is trying to save her own seat in 2024.

We'll see who objects to O'Malley, but if it goes the way Julie Su's nomination at Labor is going, it could be months before this moves forward, if at all.

Biden is sticking by Su, but business groups are already saying they will challenge any regulatory changes as invalid because she hasn't been confirmed yet.

A trade group that has opposed Julie Su’s nomination to lead the Labor Department is demanding the Biden administration refrain from issuing a high-profile rule on gig workers until a Senate-confirmed secretary heads the department.

Flex, the trade group for app-based companies including DoorDash, GrubHub, Lyft and Uber, argued in a letter on Monday that any rules and regulations issued while Su is acting secretary don’t have political legitimacy or constitutional authority.

It’s an early hint at the challenges likely to be raised to the legitimacy of Su’s tenure as she serves as an indefinite acting secretary. And it echoes Republican arguments that any regulations issued by the Labor Department without a Senate-confirmed secretary in place could be subject to legal challenge.

“Any action taken to finalize the proposed worker classification regulation under Ms. Su’s current leadership as Acting Secretary would circumvent the Senate’s constitutional role of providing advice and consent on nominees,” Flex CEO Kristin Sharp said in the letter addressed to President Joe Biden. It mirrored language others have used to forecast legal challenges to Su’s regulations. “The Department should not finalize its worker classification proposal before having a permanent Secretary.”

Though it is publicly encouraging senators to support the nomination, the Biden administration has determined that Su doesn’t currently have enough votes to be confirmed in the Senate. The president plans to keep her in the role as acting secretary.

 

Remember, Su is in limbo because of Manchin and Sinema right now, along with blanket opposition signaled by all Republicans.  I don't think O'Malley's nomination will be as contentious, but we'll see.

Any Deport In A Christmas Storm

I'm not sure who's brilliant idea it was for this trial balloon to go up on Christmas Eve, but if the Obama administration really wanted to look like a bunch of of Trump-like Grinches this Christmas, they couldn't have done a better job than this.

The Department of Homeland Security has begun preparing for a series of raids that would target for deportation hundreds of families who have flocked to the United States since the start of last year, according to people familiar with the operation.

The nationwide campaign, to be carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as soon as early January, would be the first large-scale effort to deport families who have fled violence in Central America, those familiar with the plan said. More than 100,000 families with both adults and children have made the journey across the southwest border since last year, though this migration has largely been overshadowed by a related surge of unaccompanied minors.

The ICE operation would target only adults and children who have already been ordered removed from the United States by an immigration judge, according to officials familiar with the undertaking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because planning is ongoing and the operation has not been given final approval by DHS. The adults and children would be detained wherever they can be found and immediately deported. The number targeted is expected to be in the hundreds and possibly greater.

The proposed deportations have been controversial inside the Obama administration, which has been discussing them for several months. DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson has been pushing for the moves, according to those with knowledge of the debate, in part because of a new spike in the number of illegal immigrants in recent months. Experts say that the violence that was a key factor in driving people to flee Central America last year has surged again, with the homicide rate in El Salvador reaching its highest level in a generation. A drought in the region has also prompted departures.

The pressure for deportations has also mounted because of a recent court decision that ordered DHS to begin releasing families housed in detention centers.

Now, deporting in the hundreds is not exactly news, the Obama administration does that regularly.  But whoever thought of running this story on December 24th needs to be fired, as Greg Sargent points out.

In a preview of more to come, a leading immigration advocate, Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, told me that there will be intense pressure on the Democratic presidential candidates — particularly likely nominee Hillary Clinton — to denounce the new policy. Sharry pointed out that this could force Clinton to decide whether to align with immigration advocates and Latinos, as she’s been doing in hopes of winning the Latino vote by a huge margin in the general election, which would mean breaking with the Obama administration and adopting a position that Republicans will attack as weak on immigration enforcement.

“This will be a political nightmare for the Democrats,” Sharry told me. “The specter of raids picking up families and sending them back to violent countries is going to put Hillary Clinton in a difficult position. She’ll have to choose between protecting refugees from Central America, a demand of the Latino community, or standing with the law-and-order position of Obama and Republicans.”

That's exactly what all three Democratic 2016 candidates have done, Sanders and O'Malley more than Clinton.

We'll see how it's going.  If I didn't know any better, I'd say this was done on purpose to help Hillary recover from her disastrous and absolutely insulting "Hillary is like your abuela" campaign from Monday, which backfired completely as the #NotMyAbuela hashtag on Twitter.

Maybe I'm just thinking like Karl Rove again.

The Great Debate Debate, Con't

Last night's Democratic candidate debate turned into a referendum on foreign policy in the wake of Friday's attacks in Paris, and all three candidates had similar views on using the military against ISIS.

Clinton said the fight against ISIS cannot be just an American one, and that U.S. leadership is essential in the coalition. She said she agrees with Obama supporting those who take the fight to ISIS.

"We have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international terror network," she later said on Saturday. "It cannot be detained, it must be defeated."

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont has previously said ISIS poses a real threat, and that he fully supports the notion that the group needs to be stopped. Sanders believes the U.S. can't lead the effort to defeat ISIS on its own, and that a coalition with countries in the Middle East leading the effort is the best way to combat the group.

In his opening remarks at the debate on Saturday night, Sanders called ISIS a "barbarous organizaion."

"This is a war for the soul of Islam," he said. "Those Muslim countries are going to have to lead the effort, which they are not doing now."

Clinton disagreed with Sanders, commending Jordan's efforts in combating ISIS. She said she agrees that Turkey and other Gulf nations need to be clear about where they stand.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley said on stage on Saturday that "ISIS is an evil in this world." The U.S. has a role in the fight against ISIS, he added, but the country must work collaboratively with other countries.

"We must anticipate these threats before they happen," he said during his opening remarks, alluding to the Paris attacks. "We have a lot of work to do to better prepare our nation."

"Our role in the world is not roaming the world to look for new dictators to topple," he later said. "But our role in the world is to confront evil when it arises."

So it doesn't look like any of the Democrats would have too much of a different take on dealing with ISIS than President Obama has right now: coalition partners with Muslim states to fight ISIS with US resources and air power and special operations troops to advise on the ground.

However, if you think there's little difference between where the Democrats are now and where Republicans want to go with using Paris as an excuse for all out war, please think again.

Last Call For Podcast Versus The Stupid

This week on Podcast Versus The Stupid, Bon and I discuss the Democratic debate in The Master Debaters, Democratic Edition.

Check Out Blogs Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Zandar Versus The Stupid on BlogTalkRadio

Do give it a listen as we talk about Clinton, Sanders, the adults in the room, and more.

The Great Debate Debate

My thoughts on last night's Democratic party debate:

Hillary Clinton stuck and moved, nobody really landed anything on her, but her answers on her obvious flip-flops were (necessarily) evasive. She's not going to win over any Sanders voters, but she didn't lose any either because she managed to judo flip several crapass questions from Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper into attacks on the GOP.  Nobody does that better, she's a fighter and she looked very solid and will remain the frontrunner.

Bernie Sanders looked feisty, if not outright salty on a couple of things, but gave some really goofy answers on guns, immigration, and foreign policy. Sticking up for Hillary against the Village's "Hillary's e-mail server" question was a class, class act, however.  He did well enough for himself. Note he finally got the memo on Black Lives Matter.  He'll pick up a few points in the polls.

Martin O'Malley had a decent showing, but nowhere near what he needed to climb into serious contention.  He had some good responses on gun control as Governor of Maryland, but the rest was sloppy.

Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee, why are you even in the race?  Stop it.

And Joe Biden?  Anybody know where Joe Biden is?  Stop taunting us, Joe.  Run or bow out, but make up your mind already.

Winners: Clinton as clear frontrunner, Sanders as scrappy rival keeping her honest, O'Malley as the plausible dark horse. Democratic party as group of adults in the room rather than the GOP clown show.

Losers: Lincoln "Block of Granite" Chafee, Jim "Neck Frill" Webb, Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden not making the hard decision, GOP clown show livetweeting the debate (Trump and especially Huckabee looked like complete assholes.), and the idea that we need more than six debates. For once, DWS was actually right.

Doing Something About Gunmerica

If Bernie Sanders has a weakness on policy, it's his abysmal record regarding backing the NRA and gun manufacturers in his rural state of Vermont.  Both Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley are running hard to the left on Sanders on the issue of gun safety measures.  O'Malley in particular has led on this issue, calling for an outright ban on assault rifles for months now. That pressure has led to Hillary Clinton now calling for a much tougher stance against the NRA.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Monday will detail new proposals aimed at closing gun sale loopholes and holding accountable those who sell guns for violence committed with those weapons.

Seizing the moment following last week’s mass shooting in Oregon, Clinton will call for the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which gives legal protection to gun manufacturers and dealers whose guns are used for criminal activity, said a campaign official, who asked not to be named, previewing the announcement Clinton plans to make on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

As a senator from New York, Clinton voted against the law in 2005 and, the official said, would lead an effort to repeal it if elected president. Her closest competitor in the Democratic primary, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who served in the U.S. House at the time, voted in favor of it.

Clinton appeared viscerally frustrated as she spoke after Thursday’s shooting at Umpqua Community College, in which authorities say a student killed nine people before turning one of several guns he had with him on himself. “What is wrong with us, that we cannot stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby, and the gun manufacturers they represent?” Clinton said Friday at Broward College in Davie, Florida. “We don’t just need to pray for these people. We need to act.”

In staking out a hardline position on guns, Clinton is capitalizing on an issue where she stands to the left of Sanders. He has a mixed record on gun control—he voted against the Brady Bill in 1993 and for the liability protection law, but also in favor of restrictions on the size of gun magazines—that he attributes to the gun culture of his rural state. He responded to the shootings in Charleston, South Carolina, and in Oregon with promises to implement “sensible gun-control legislation” and to improve mental health services, but has not yet offered specific proposals.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who is trailing Clinton and Sanders in polls, on Sunday in New Hampshire called on his rivals to “join me in building a new consensus” on gun control by supporting his four-point plan, his campaign said.

On Monday, the details Clinton will put behind her pitch include support for closing two sets of loopholes that allow gun purchases without background checks, according to the official.

If Congress does not pass legislation that would deem those who sell significant numbers of guns at gun shows and online to be required to operate under the same laws that apply to gun stores, Clinton would take executive action to do that under her plan. She supports congressional efforts to eliminate what’s being called the “Charleston loophole” after the June shooting at a black church there, which allows gun purchases to go forward if a background check isn’t completed within three days.

Clinton will also say she supports legislation to prohibit all people with histories of domestic abuse from buying or possessing guns, since current laws don’t apply to people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers.

I'm glad to see Clinton's proposals here, and she's definitely ahead of Sanders on this issue.  The ball's in Bernie's court now on gun safety.  We'll see if hes going to bother with specific proposals or just assume he can take a pass on this.

New long overdue tag: Gunmerica.

From The Delta To The DNC

Both Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley are furious at DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, accusing her of rigging the limited number of Democratic party primaries in order to give non-Clinton candidates as little national exposure as possible.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) believes the Democratic Party is using its limited primary debate schedule to rig the nomination process.

“I do,” Sanders reportedly responded when asked Friday whether he agrees with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s assertion that the debate system is “rigged.”

The two Democratic presidential candidates were speaking at the summer meeting of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in Minneapolis on Friday.

“This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” O’Malley said in his speech earlier Friday.

The DNC has drawn criticism for scheduling only four debates before the early-primary states cast their votes, and six total throughout the election cycle.

DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman defended the schedule, saying it will “give plenty of opportunity for the candidates to be seen side-by-side.”

“I’m sure there will be lots of other forums for the candidates to make their case to voters, and that they will make the most out of every opportunity,” Shulman said in a statement, according to The Washington Post.

On one hand, Sanders and O'Malley have a point.  The DNC is certainly doing everything it can to hold a grand coronation for Hillary.  On the other hand, Democrats have already started tuning out politics even more (2014 turnout, anyone?) and the infighting is already tiresome even 15 months before the election.

No real good answer here, frankly.  The Democrats do need a solid debate about issues and carrying on President Obama's legacy (the overwhelmingly positive parts, not so much the lousy ones) but I don't think "more debates" is automatically the answer.

We'll see.

PS, how the hell is DWS still in charge of the DNC?