Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., dropped his demand that any power-sharing agreement with Democrats must keep the legislative filibuster intact.

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., dropped his demand that any power-sharing agreement with Democrats must keep the legislative filibuster intact.

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Updated at 8:12 a.m. ET

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell dropped his demand that Democrats maintain the Senate filibuster — ending an early stalemate in the Senate that prevented party leaders from negotiating a power-sharing agreement.

Late Monday, McConnell said he was ready to move forward after two Democrats signaled they would not vote to end the legislative filibuster, assuring him that it would stay in place. The position of the two moderate Democrats — Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema — also ensured that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer lacked the votes to end the filibuster, a key demand from his party’s left.

McConnell had demanded that the filibuster rule remain in exchange for his cooperation on reallocating power in the Senate, which is evenly divided for the first time in two decades. The Democrats control the chamber since Vice President Harris would break any tie.

For now, Democrats and Republicans will operate on a power-sharing deal that follows the model used in 2001 — the last time the Senate had a 50-50 split. That means the party with the vice presidency and tiebreaking powers has control of the floor agenda.

Still, both sides spun the development as a victory.

“The legislative filibuster was a key part of the foundation beneath the Senate’s last 50-50 power-sharing agreement in 2001,” McConnell said Monday, voicing his approval of the compromise. “With these assurances, I look forward to moving ahead with a power-sharing agreement modeled on that precedent.”

Justin Goodman, a spokesman for Schumer, said: “We’re glad Sen. McConnell threw in the towel and gave up on his ridiculous demand. We look forward to organizing the Senate under Democratic control and start getting big, bold things done for the American people.”

McConnell’s change of heart followed assurances from Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sinema, D-Ariz., that they would not vote to end the filibuster.

“They agree with President Biden’s and my view that no Senate majority should destroy the right of future minorities of both parties to help shape legislation,” McConnell said.

Now, McConnell and Schumer can negotiate an organizing resolution, which will lay out the terms of the power-sharing agreement.

Without such a deal, the Senate would have been essentially paralyzed with Senate Democrats unable to take full control of the chamber, despite being in the majority.

Democrats would have maintained control of the floor and the legislative agenda, but leadership of key committees would have been retained by Republicans. Committee assignments for newly sworn-in members could not have moved forward and key legislative priorities for the new Biden administration, including a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, would be stonewalled.

Still, the deal is likely to be tested. Senate Republicans could use the filibuster to stymie President Biden’s legislative agenda, increasing pressure on Schumer to end the legislative maneuver.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/01/26/960621238/mcconnell-relents-on-senate-filibuster-stalemate

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is no longer holding up the Senate organizing resolution — after two Democrats confirmed that they won’t be blowing up the legislative filibuster any time soon.

In the past few weeks, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and McConnell have been working to negotiate the organizing resolution — which governs committee membership and funding allocation — in the 50-50 Senate. The leaders had previously been at an impasse because McConnell was demanding that Democrats commit to keeping the legislative filibuster intact as part of the resolution, something Schumer was unwilling to do, since it would reduce the party’s leverage in negotiations over future legislation.

Since the organizing resolution could be filibustered — and would need 60 votes to pass — McConnell’s opposition effectively allowed him to block the measure from advancing.

And while he didn’t get the changes to the organizing resolution he wanted, McConnell’s approach still worked in a way: Amid the impasse over the agreement, two Senate Democrats — Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) — publicly restated that they would not vote to eliminate the filibuster. Without their backing, Democrats simply won’t have the numbers to do a rules change: All 50 members of the caucus would need to get behind a change to the filibuster for it to happen. (It’s worth noting that this position is consistent with stances both lawmakers have vocalized before.)

It’s because of Sinema and Manchin’s statements that McConnell now says he’s satisfied and willing to move forward with the organizing measure, after causing some annoying delays. Without this resolution, Democrats have been unable to formally take over committee chair positions, and new members have yet to be seated in committees. Republicans also retained the ability to oversee consideration of nominees and other policy priorities.

“Today two Democratic Senators publicly confirmed they will not vote to end the legislative filibuster,” McConnell said in a statement Monday night. “With these assurances, I look forward to moving ahead with a power-sharing agreement modeled on that precedent.”

McConnell’s statement came as pressure from Democrats was growing for him to relent — and as his refusal to compromise was beginning to threaten Senate business. “We’re glad Senator McConnell threw in the towel and gave up on his ridiculous demand. We look forward to organizing the Senate under Democratic control and start getting big, bold things done for the American people,” said Justin Goodman, a Schumer spokesperson.

McConnell secured a commitment from some Democrats, though that could still change

While McConnell is not getting the pledge he wanted from Schumer about preserving the legislative filibuster, he effectively got one from Manchin and Sinema — whose votes would be vital to approve a rules change.

Both lawmakers have issued strong statements expressing their opposition to blowing up the legislative filibuster, which requires most bills meet a 60-vote threshold in order to pass.

“She is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster,” a Sinema spokesperson told the Washington Post on Monday. Manchin echoed this stance in an interview with Politico: “If I haven’t said it very plain, maybe Sen. McConnell hasn’t understood, I want to basically say it for you. That I will not vote in this Congress, that’s two years, right?”

Armed with these assurances, McConnell signaled that he’d be comfortable advancing the organizing resolution, since his focus had been keeping the filibuster around to preserve the minority’s ability to block legislation that it disagrees with. Lawmakers’ positions on the filibuster could, of course, still change, despite the statements they’ve issued.

Ultimately, keeping the filibuster is likely to make passing any sweeping legislation difficult, as Democrats would need every member of their caucus plus 10 Republicans to do so. It’s because of this that many of the more progressive members of the caucus, like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), have called for the filibuster to be abolished. And some other Democrats, including those who have been hesitant to change the rules, have acknowledged this difficulty as well.

A statement that Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) gave to the New York Times sums up how some Democrats currently unwilling to end the filibuster are thinking about the issue. They may be in favor of keeping it now, but are open to considering more drastic action if McConnell maintains obstruction to Biden’s agenda. “If all that happens is filibuster after filibuster, roadblock after roadblock, then my opinion may change,” said Tester, who is currently in favor of keeping the filibuster.

Manchin and Sinema have said they don’t expect their positions to shift. Whether they maintain this stance in the face of ongoing Republican opposition, however, remains to be seen.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2021/1/25/22249786/mitch-mcconnell-filibuster-organizing-resolution

President Joe Biden has expressed willingness to change the income thresholds required for his proposed $1,400 stimulus check so that higher-earning Americans less affected by the economic downturn would not quality for the payment The move may help stave off congressional Republicans who have criticized his $1.9 trillion pandemic stimulus proposal for being too costly.

“There is legitimate reason for people to say, ‘Do you have the lines drawn the exact right way? Should it go to anybody making over X number of dollars? I’m open to negotiate those things,'” Biden told journalists during an executive order signing on Monday.

However, the president also said “time is of the essence,” and that he would rather pass a large stimulus bill than “cherry-pick” individual proposals because he sees all the items in his proposal as supporting one another and integral to helping the country.

Democratic President Joe Biden has said that he is willing to change the income thresholds for stimulus check recipients so that higher-earning Americans less affected by the pandemic’s economic downturn may not receive them.
Win McNamee/Getty

Biden’s $1.9 million proposal includes not only the $1,400 stimulus checks, but also increasing unemployment benefits from $300 a week to $400, a rise in the national minimum wage, an expansion of paid leave, money for the safe reopening of schools, funding to help small businesses and state and local governments, as well as $160 billion for a national vaccination program.

However, the proposal garnered criticism from congressional Republicans, including for the stimulus checks. In a 75-minute call with 16 senators held Sunday afternoon, Republican Maine Senator Susan Collins asked why families making $300,000 would be eligible for a check and said she’d prefer economic relief efforts to be focused on lower-income workers, according to Politico.

In a recent speech, Republican Texas Representative Kevin Brady criticized the idea of additional stimulus checks, stating, “Will this stimulate our local economies? Not a lot. What we know is that much of this extra $1,600 [sic] will go to pay down credit card debt, or savings, or even make new purchases online at Walmart, Best Buy, or Amazon.”

On Monday, Biden said that he’d prefer to bill to be passed by a bipartisan congressional consensus to help remove “vitriol” bubbling between the parties, but was willing to consider alternative ways to pass the proposal if need be.

“I’m confident, from my discussions, there are a number of Republicans who know we have to do something about the food insecurity for people in this pandemic. I’m confident they know we have to do something,” Biden added.

Newsweek contacted the White House for comment.

Source Article from https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-may-adjust-income-threshold-third-stimulus-check-19-tn-relief-proposal-1564344

At the Pentagon, officials said they welcomed the action, and indicated that the department would begin implementing it quickly. “The department will immediately take appropriate policy action to ensure individuals who identify as transgender are eligible to enter and serve in their self-identified gender,” Mr. Austin said in a statement. “No one will be separated or discharged, or denied re-enlistment, solely on the basis of gender identity.”

Mr. Austin said Mr. Biden’s executive order would “ensure all medically necessary transition-related care authorized by law is available to all service members,” which would remove a big stumbling block to transgender men and women seeking to join, or remain in, the military. He also promised to re-examine the cases of all transgender service members who are currently being forced out of the military.

Senior military leaders, for their part, reacted on Monday with some relief that the Pentagon would not have to continue defending the contentious ban — which spawned a number of lawsuits around the country — in courts. While military officials have declined to speak publicly about the issue for fear of wading into politics, General Milley said during his confirmation hearing in 2019, when asked about the transgender issue, that “I do not believe there is anything inherent in anyone’s identity to prevent them from serving in the military.”

Advocacy groups who had been fighting the ban since it was announced three years ago — in a tweet from Mr. Trump — have argued that the Pentagon did not need to spend months studying how to allow transgender people to serve because it had already done so. One such group, the Palm Center, said in a policy memo last summer that the military could reopen to transgender people rapidly if ordered to do so.

“A big ship can take time to turn around, so often the Pentagon needs to study policy changes and move cautiously,” Aaron Belkin, the director of the Palm Center, said in an interview in July. “But this is the rare case where, since the military left inclusive policy for already-serving transgender personnel in place even as it implemented its ban, the switch is just waiting to be flipped.”

Others argued that it was Mr. Trump’s ban, not Mr. Biden’s reversal of it, that had been ill-considered.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/25/us/politics/biden-military-transgender.html

Fox Nation host Tomi Lahren chastized California Gov. Gavin Newsom, D., on Monday for refusing to reveal the data driving his public health decisions despite months-long promises of transparency and science-backed lockdown orders.

If “Newsom and his Democrat pals are so elite and skilled at handling the pandemic, why the heck are they refusing to disclose COVID shutdown data?” Lahren asked Monday on her Fox Nation show “Final Thoughts.” 

The Associated Press released a report detailing the secrecy shrouding one of the longest and most stringent lockdowns in the country after the Center for American Liberty’s (CAL) public records request to view the science and data that Newsom used to drive lockdown decisions was denied, citing concerns among state health officials that releasing the data would confuse the public.

Days later, Newsom announced his plans to lift the regional order that called on residents to stay home except for “essential activities.”  The announcement comes as welcomed news to fed-up California residents, but Lahren said she is skeptical of his sudden change of heart. 

CALIFORNIA LIFTS REGIONAL STAY AT HOME ORDER

“Without explanation, data, or science, all of a sudden outdoor dining, houses of worship, hair and nail salons, and most other businesses got their ‘permission’ to reopen. Just like that,” she said.

“Gavin, what are you hiding?” Lahren asked. “Did ICU capacity climb above 15%? Nope. The area has an ICU capacity of 9%.”

Newsom has been one of the most aggressive state executives on pandemic restrictions. He imposed the first statewide shutdown in March. later instituting this more recent regional stay-at-home order in early December before extending it in late December. 

“Seems to me the misleading and uncertain thing here is why Governor Newsom and Posey are being so secretive. If there’s some science-based reasoning for this reopening change of heart, I know I’d like to hear it,” Lahren said.

“They will begin to have these sudden and mystical reopening realizations.”

— Tomi Lahren, Fox Nation

The Fox Nation host wondered whether Newsom’s decision to lift the stay-at-home order is based solely on political calculations. 

“Just as I’ve been predicting for the last couple of weeks, now that these Democrats got their man in office, they will begin to have these sudden and mystical reopening realizations,” she said. “It’s almost like these stay-at-home wardens want their state’s economies to improve so as to give new President Biden and his administration a boost and some unearned credit.”

For Lahren’s complete commentary and more episodes of “Final Thoughts,” visit Fox Nation and join today.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN FOX NATION 

Fox Nation programs are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers. Go to Fox Nation to start a free trial and watch the extensive library from Tomi Lahren, Pete Hegseth, Abby Hornacek, Laura Ingraham, Ainsley Earhardt, Greg Gutfeld, and many more of your favorite Fox News personalities.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/media/tomi-lahren-newsom-california-stay-at-home-order

DETROIT – The National Weather Service has issued a Winter Weather Advisory for 11 counties — Genesse, Lapeer, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Sanilac, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne — until 4 p.m. Tuesday.

Between 3-5 inches of snow is expected to accumulate in Midland, Bay, Huron, Saginaw, Tuscola, Sanilac, Shiawassee, Genesee, Lapeer and St. Clair counties between 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. Tuesday. Officials said to expect low viability and hazardous road conditions that could impact morning commute.

READ: Metro Detroit weather: Forecasting snowfall amounts, timing for upcoming winter storm

The snow is expected to move in north of the Interstate 69 corridor after 4 a.m. and reach the Tri-Cities and Northern Thumb by 7 a.m. Heavier snow is expected during a peak between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m.

Additionally, between 1 to 3 inches of snow accumulation with “a light glaze of icing” is expected for Livingston, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Wayne, Lenawee and Monroe counties. Snow is expected to move north of the Ohio border after 4 a.m. and sweep northward during the morning.

Heavier snow is expected in Metro Detroit between 6-9 a.m. before transitioning to freezing drizzle after 9 a.m. into the afternoon.

Anyone driving is advised to plan for additional time to travel, slow down and use extra caution.

Source Article from https://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/2021/01/26/winter-weather-advisory-issued-for-metro-detroit-other-counties-until-4-pm-tuesday/

In the past, George W. Bush and Barack Obama sought bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform: The problem is it allowed Republicans to demand way too much in the sausage-making and, in the end, still kill off immigration reform.

Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of the advocacy group America’s Voice

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/biden-immigration-strategy/index.html

Janet Yellen addresses an event last month introducing the incoming Biden administration’s economic team in Wilmington, Del. Yellen is the first woman to lead the Treasury Department.

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Janet Yellen addresses an event last month introducing the incoming Biden administration’s economic team in Wilmington, Del. Yellen is the first woman to lead the Treasury Department.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Senate quickly confirmed Janet Yellen to be Treasury secretary on Monday, days after she won unanimous backing from both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee.

Yellen will be the first woman to lead the Treasury Department and will spearhead the Biden administration’s response to the coronavirus recession. The Senate confirmed her with an 84-15 vote.

At her confirmation hearing last week, Yellen urged lawmakers to “act big” in response to the pandemic, which has killed more than 400,000 Americans and put millions of people out of work.

President Biden has proposed a $1.9 trillion rescue package, which includes $1,400 relief payments for most Americans, extended unemployment benefits and substantial aid to cash-strapped state and local governments.

A labor economist by training, Yellen chaired the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2018. She also led the Council of Economic Advisers in the Clinton administration.

“She’s extremely competent and experienced,” said Kathy Bostjancic of Oxford Economics, describing Yellen as the “right person at the right time.”

While Senate Republicans have questioned Biden’s economic proposals, they voiced few doubts about Yellen.

“There is no question she is qualified for this role,” said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., a member of the Finance Committee.

Yellen’s confirmation comes 232 years after Alexander Hamilton took office as the nation’s first Treasury secretary.

Yellen was quicker to follow her predecessor in scoring her own, hip-hop musical salute.

Less than five years after the musical “Hamilton” debuted on Broadway, the public radio program Marketplace commissioned a similar tribute to Yellen from The Hamilton Mixtape contributor Dessa.

“She’s 5-foot nothing, but hand to God / She can pop a collar, she can rock a power bob,” Dessa raps — a nod to Yellen’s no-nonsense hairstyle and her diminutive stature.

Height was reportedly a factor when then-President Trump declined to nominate Yellen for a second term as Fed chair, picking Jerome Powell instead to head the central bank.

Dessa’s rhymes also note Yellen’s trailblazing role in three of the federal government’s most powerful economic jobs.

“She needs a three-sided coin that always comes up heads / To put the triple crown down when she goes to bed.”

Yellen has long been an overachiever. At her Brooklyn high school in New York City, she was both valedictorian and editor of the school newspaper — a dual role she captured by conducting a tongue-in-cheek interview with herself.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/959602615/janet-yellen-confirmed-by-senate-making-history-as-first-female-treasury-secreta

Biden said he was optimistic that the vaccine would be readily available to those who want it by sometime in the spring.

“We’re trying to get out a minimum of 100 million vaccinations in 100 days, and move in the direction where we’re well beyond that in the next 100 days, so we can get to the point where we reach herd immunity in a country of over 300 million people,” he said.

Biden’s nominee for surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, on Sunday similarly said that the administration had begun to look beyond its initial target of 100 million vaccinations.

“That’s a floor; it’s not a ceiling,” Murthy said on ABC’s “This Week.” “It’s also a goal that reflects the realities of what we face, what could go right but also what could go wrong.”

By the end of former President Donald Trump’s time in office, the nationwide rate has hovered around that million-shots-a day mark, though states and local officials have fretted that the supply is showing signs of unsustainability that may constrain them from meeting demand as they begin expanding eligibility to tens of millions of people.

Some of Biden’s top health advisers have expressed similar supply concerns as they wrap their heads around the first major test of the administration, and have intermittently swiped at their predecessors over the precarious state of the rollout the president has taken over.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Monday that the situation was “much worse than we could have imagined.”

Biden’s chosen director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rochelle Walensky, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the supply was the “most limiting constraint” right now but that hope was that it will be resolved by later this year.

Focus on the vaccination effort has intensified as at least two variants of the virus have begun to raise fears among medical experts. One strain, identified in the United Kingdom, appears to be more transmittable — and potentially more deadly, Anthony Fauci, the top U.S. infectious disease expert, said on Monday — while a strain of the virus found in South Africa has shown resistance to antibody treatments.

Biden is increasing travel restrictions, including a ban on most non-U.S. citizens traveling from South Africa and several other countries, in an effort to keep the variant strains of the coronavirus at bay.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/25/biden-15-million-covid-vaccines-462357

Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders have agreed to a proposal to extend through June protections against evictions for California tenants financially harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, an effort that would head off what some warn could be a housing crisis in the state, officials said Monday.

The proposal ironed out with Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and introduced in legislation made public Monday would also create a rent subsidy program using up to $2.6 billion in federal rental relief dollars.

The deal, confirmed by the governor, would help renters who have collectively fallen behind by hundreds of millions of dollars as the pandemic’s shutdown of the economy has put many out of work. Current state protections against eviction expire Jan. 31. But some tenant advocates said the proposal does not go far enough.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said Monday he would like to see more, but added that immediate action is needed this week on the proposal supported by the governor.

“While the proposal doesn’t go as far as I would like … we must pass this proposal by end of week to avoid mass evictions,” Wiener said.

Atkins and Rendon had signaled earlier this month that they supported extending the eviction moratorium.

“COVID-19 continues to devastate communities across our state and too many Californians remain one paycheck away from losing their apartments or homes. These families need protection and relief now,” Newsom, Rendon and Atkins said in a joint statement Monday, adding that the proposal is “protecting tenants and small landlords from losing their housing as the nation continues to confront the pandemic.”

The state leaders said the use of federal funds for rent subsidies “will help tenants stay afloat during and after this pandemic.”

Under existing law and the governor’s new proposal, tenants could not be evicted as long as they pay 25% of their rent. The budget-related bill would extend eviction protections and allow tenants to meet the 25% payment requirement by paying that amount monthly or providing a lump payment by June 30. Tenants were already required to pay 25% of rent in recent months under the current eviction protection law.

The current law converts the other rent to debt that landlords can seek in the courts, but cannot be used as the basis for eviction.

The new rent subsidy will pay landlords 80% of the total amount of rent in arrears incurred between April 2020 and March 2021 as long as landlords agree to forgive the remaining 20% and not pursue evictions.

“It’s one thing to get protections and another to be able to pay your rent when it is due,” Newsom said at a news conference Monday. “We also address the issue of small landlords that also have to pay mortgages.”

He said the financial incentive for landlords to waive 20% of the back rent is an important part of the strategy.

“We are going to leverage that $2.6 billion focusing on low-income renters,” he said.

If the landlord doesn’t agree to forgive unpaid rent, the program would pay 25% of rent in arrears. The legislation identifies $1.5 billion of the $2.6 billion allocated to California for rent relief, and says the rest of the money, which goes to local jurisdictions, may also be used.

Christina Livingston, executive director of the tenant advocacy group Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, said the proposal is flawed and state leaders must do more.

“This plan leaves tenants to the ‘luck of the draw,’” Livingston said. “If a tenant has a landlord who wants them to stay, they will get this federal rent assistance. If the tenant is unlucky enough to have a corporate landlord who wants to flip the building, or a racist landlord who doesn’t like them, they won’t receive the relief.”

The governor and legislative leaders said additional effort is needed to make sure low-income tenants are protected from homelessness.

“We have more work to do, together, to tackle the structural housing cost crisis in California,” the leaders said.

Those eligible for the rental assistance must qualify as low-income residents based on a formula involving area median income, have financial hardships such as unemployment and demonstrate a “risk of homelessness or housing instability,” according to the legislation.

The legislation would require landlords to notify tenants who owe back rent that the rental assistance program is available and block property owners from evicting people if they have not given that notice.

The $2.6 billion for the program was recently approved by Congress during the Trump administration, and the money is divided between state and local jurisdictions.

The proposal will be pursued in a budget trailer bill, which does not require the lengthy process and two-thirds majority vote that regular legislation undergoes to take effect immediately. A simple majority vote would pass the bill.

Millions of Californians have lost jobs or income since the COVID-19 pandemic began nearly a year ago as state health officials urged residents to stay home and businesses to scale back indoor operations to mitigate the spread of the virus.

The current state law approved last summer protected tenants from evictions through Jan. 31 if they are suffering financial hardship because of the pandemic and are paying at least 25% of their monthly rent.

“While the bill doesn’t contain everything we asked for, the important provision here is the payment of dollars for rent that is owed,” said Debra Carlton, executive vice president of the California Apartment Assn., which is neutral on the bill. “Without this money, many landlords are at risk of losing their rental units.”

President Biden signed an executive order last week extending through March federal protections for tenants facing financial hardships, but tenant activists say state action is still urgently needed because the federal protections are weaker.

Under the federal policy, tenants must pay all back rent owed at the end of the federal moratorium in March in order to avoid immediate eviction, said Jennifer Kwart, a spokeswoman for Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco).

“California’s policy only requires tenants to pay 25% of back rent by the end of the moratorium to avoid eviction,” she said, adding that an extension of state law is needed “because it’s unlikely tenants will be able to pay all back rent to avoid eviction.”

Chiu introduced a bill recently that would have extended protections against evictions by 11 months through the rest of this year, but landlords had pressed for a shorter extension in hopes vaccines would allow the economy to recover quickly. Chiu supported the compromise Monday, saying “this deal is necessary but far from perfect.”

About 90,000 California households are behind on their rent by a total of $400 million, according to an estimate last week by the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office, although other estimates have been higher. The office estimated the average unpaid rent of those households is $4,500.

In a sign of the urgency of the issue, California court officials estimate that landlords will file 240,000 new eviction cases over the next year, double what is normally seen in the state.

Source Article from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-25/california-eviction-protections-to-be-extended-june-covid-19

After Gov. Gavin Newsom lifted the regional stay-at-home order, Los Angeles County officials on Monday announced many venues can reopen and outdoor dining can resume Friday.

The county is aligning with the state’s COVID-19 restrictions, allowing activities permitted in the purple tier of the state’s color-coded, four-tier reopening plan.

That means that effective immediately, outdoor activities at family entertainment centers, card rooms and other recreational sites can resume, and personal care services can reopen indoors at 25% capacity with everyone wearing masks, L.A. County Director of Public Health Barbara Ferrer said in a news conference.

Restaurants will have to wait to resume outdoor dining, with occupancy limits, until the end of the week, when the county will issue a new health officer order that will also rescind hours of operation restrictions for non-essential businesses that were in place between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., according to Ferrer.

“But please don’t take this news to mean that you can return to life of normalcy,” Board of Supervisors Chair Hilda Solis said. “Masks, physical distancing and limiting activities are still key to getting out of this pandemic until we can get everybody vaccinated.”

L.A. County only recently started seeing improvements, with the coronavirus test positivity rate and the average number of new cases dropping after an unprecedented surge in infections that rapidly accelerated throughout the holiday season and strained hospitals.

But the county is still seeing a high COVID-19 death rate. About 5,000 of L.A. County’s more than 15,000 coronavirus deaths have come in just the past few weeks.

“This is not the time for people to think we can get back to our normal businesses and our normal ways of interacting with each other. If we’re not careful, our metrics that are headed in the right direction will quickly change,” Ferrer warned.

The health director urged residents to follow infection control measures to avoid another surge that will bring back closures.

“If at any point it starts looking like we’re creating again an overwhelming situation for our hospitals, and we don’t continue to see that we’re making progress and slowing the spread, I’ll be the first person to call us all back together to say we need to move forward differently,” Ferrer said.

Ferrer said it’s a “very promising sign” that the positivity testing rate is down, but added that the numbers are still too high.

“The virus is strong. It’s everywhere, and it can infect anyone that isn’t taking precautions,” she said.

These venues can reopen immediately in L.A. County:

  • Outdoor-only private gatherings limited to three households and a total of 15 people
  • Fitness facilities can open outdoors
  • Indoor malls, shopping centers and other retailers can open at 25% indoor capacity (but food courts must stay closed)
  • Family entertainment centers can reopen for outdoor operations at 50% capacity
  • Museums, zoos and aquariums can open for outdoor operations
  • Cardrooms can open at 50% capacity outdoors only
  • Mini-golf, go-karting venues and batting cages can open outdoors at 50% capacity
  • Outdoor recreational activity spaces
  • Hotels and motels
  • Faith-based services are recommended to be held outdoors

The vast majority of the state’s 58 counties are in the most-restrictive purple tier.

Though local jurisdictions can implement rules stricter than those permitted in the tier, OrangeRiversideSan Bernardino and Ventura counties have all also announced lifting the ban on outdoor dining and indoor personal care services.

In Los Angeles County, local officials including supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger expressed support for the reopenings.

“A data-driven and pragmatic policy approach is essential to protecting public health, while balancing the devastating social, emotional and economic impacts of this virus,” Barger said in a written statement.

Restaurants have been among the hardest hit as the county scrambled to contain the spread of the virus with capacity restrictions and closures.

L.A. County suspended in-person dining on Nov. 25, saying the ban would last at least three weeks due to an unprecedented surge in coronavirus cases. Before that, residents were only allowed to eat outdoors at restaurants — many of which had expanded onto sidewalks and bought canopies to comply with the rules.

A judge later limited the local dining ban to three weeks, saying the health department must conduct a risk-benefit analysis before trying to extend the restriction.

But restaurants in L.A. County still couldn’t open because of the state’s stay-at-home order, which initially was set to ban in-person dining at restaurants until at least Dec. 27.

Many restaurant owners reported having to lay off staff or shut down completely as they felt the financial crush of the closures.

While more venues can reopen now, officials stress that infection, hospitalization and death rates are too high.

“The virus remains very much with us and continues to infect thousands of people daily, and tragically claim hundreds of lives each week.” Ferrer said. “While there’s hope with the arrival of vaccines, we are still months away from a point where most of our residents will be immunized.”

Source Article from https://ktla.com/news/local-news/l-a-county-health-officials-hold-briefing-after-state-lifted-stay-at-home-order/

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will preside over former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will preside over former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Updated at 4:58 p.m. ET

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will preside over former President Donald Trump’s trial in the Senate, a Senate source told NPR. Leahy, 80, is the president pro tempore of the Senate, a constitutional role given to the longest-serving lawmaker in the majority party. The president pro tempore is third in the line of presidential succession, after the vice president and House speaker.

When asked if he was concerned about remaining impartial, Leahy told reporters: “I have presided over hundreds of hours in my time in the Senate. I don’t think anybody has ever suggested I was anything but impartial in those hundreds of hours.”

Leahy added: “I’m not presenting the evidence. I am making sure that procedures are followed. I don’t think there’s any senator who over the 40-plus years I’ve been here that would say that I am anything but impartial in voting on procedure.”

Chief Justice John Roberts presided over Trump’s first impeachment trial, but now that Trump is a former president, Roberts is not constitutionally obligated to preside.

The Constitution says, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” And Roberts did that when Trump was tried last year. This time, however, the chief justice let it be known he did not want to preside now that Trump is no longer president. On Monday, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said Roberts would have no comment.

It is unclear whether Senate leaders ever consulted Roberts. More likely, Roberts, who has tried mightily to keep the Supreme Court out of politics, headed them off at the pass and made his views clear.

Indeed, the reason that the chief justice’s role in a presidential impeachment trial appears in the Constitution at all is the often-forgotten power given to the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate. Thus, in any impeachment trial of an officer who is not president, the vice president may preside.

Vice President Thomas Jefferson presided at the impeachment trial of Sen. William Blount in 1799; Aaron Burr presided at the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.

In modern times, impeachment trial votes in the Senate — most often to remove federal judges — have been presided over not by the vice president either, but by the president pro tempore of the Senate.

And today that is Leahy, the well-respected chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, formerly chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and, as he likes to remind people, a former trial lawyer and state prosecutor.

The Senate, of course, could have asked Vice President Harris to preside, but that would have presented all the bad optics the Founders wanted to avoid.

Senate Democrats would likely have preferred to have Roberts be the apolitical referee of the proceedings, but even his largely ceremonial role in the first Trump impeachment drew complaints from the left on social media — something he almost certainly didn’t care for.

So, Democrats are stuck now with an impeachment trial that likely will not succeed. And some Senate Democrats are exploring alternative ways to keep Trump permanently from holding office.

The best option would appear to be Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, enacted in the Civil War’s aftermath, which allows Congress to bar any officer, civil or military, from holding future office if he is found to have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution does not specify how many votes it would take for such a bar on holding future office. Senate rules say it will take 60 votes, as opposed to 67 needed for conviction on impeachment action.

House impeachment managers were to deliver the article of impeachment to the Senate on Monday evening, and the trial is scheduled to begin the week of Feb. 8.

On Jan. 13, Trump became the only president in U.S. history to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives. House Democrats brought one article of impeachment — “incitement of insurrection” — related to remarks he made to a loyal crowd Jan. 6 that resulted in a deadly riot at the Capitol.

Trump, the first one-term president since George H.W. Bush in the 1990s, lost the November election to President Biden but has repeatedly and baselessly challenged the results, citing little or false evidence.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/960389715/sen-patrick-leahy-to-preside-over-trumps-senate-impeachment-trial

President Biden on Monday signed an executive order reversing former President Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military, saying it is “the right thing to do” and is in the “national interest” of the United States.

The order sets the policy that all Americans who are “qualified” to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States should be able to do so.

FLASHBACK: TRUMP ISSUES ORDER TO BAN TRANSGENDER TROOPS FROM SERVICE EXCEPT IN ‘LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES’

The Biden administration stressed that the U.S. military “thrives” when it is composed of diverse Americans who can “meet the rigorous standards for military service,” and added that “an inclusive military strengthens our national security.”

“President Biden believes that gender identity should not be a bar to military service, and that America’s strength is found in its diversity,” the White House said. “This question of how to enable all qualified Americans to serve in the military is easily answered by recognizing our core values.”

The White House added that America “is stronger, at home and around the world, when it is inclusive,” and said “the military is no exception.”

“Allowing all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform is better for the military and better for the country because an inclusive force is a more effective force,” the White House said. “Simply put, it’s the right thing to do and is in our national interest.”

FLASHBACK: COURT THROWS OUT TRUMP’S APPEAL TO KEEP TRANSGENDER PEOPLE FROM ENLISTING IN MILITARY

Biden’s executive order revokes Trump’s presidential memorandum signed in March 2018, and his presidential memorandum in August 2017.

In July 2017, Trump tweeted that the federal government “will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military” — reversing a 2016 policy under President Barack Obama. The move caught the Pentagon by surprise.

“Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail,” the president said at the time.

Trump, in March 2018, officially authorized the ability of the Pentagon to ban transgender individuals from joining the military, with limited exceptions, after making the pledge to do so in 2017.

But in February 2018, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis, breaking with Trump, formally recommended that transgender troops be allowed to serve in the U.S. military provided they can deploy overseas.

Trump’s policy was a reversal of an Obama-era policy, after former Obama Defense Secretary Ash Carter ended a ban on transgender individuals, and allowed them to serve openly in the military, beginning in 2016. Under the Obama policy, transgender troops were able to receive medical care and were able to start formally changing their identifications in the Pentagon’s personnel system. 

But Carter, in 2016, also gave the services until July 1, 2017 to develop policies to allow people already identifying as transgender to newly join the military, if they meet physical, medical and other standards, and have been stable in their identified genders for 18 months.

“I continue to maintain that what matters in choosing those who serve is that they are best qualified,” Carter said in a statement. “To choose service members on other grounds than military qualifications is social policy and has no place in our military. There are already transgender individuals who are serving capably and honorably. This action would also send the wrong signal to a younger generation thinking about military service.”

On Monday, Biden Defense Secretary Gen. Lloyd Austin said he fully supports Biden’s decision, and said the Pentagon “will immediately take appropriate policy action to ensure individuals who identify as transgender are eligible to enter and serve in their self-identified gender. ” 

“These changes will ensure no one will be separated or discharged, or denied reenlistment, solely on the basis of gender identity,” Austin said. “This revised policy will also ensure all medically-necessary transition related care authorized by law is available to all Service members and will re-examine all cases of transgender Service members that may be in some form of adverse administrative proceedings.” 

Austin added that he will work with senior civilian and military leaders over the next 60 days to “expeditiously  develop the appropriate policies and procedures to implement these changes.” 

“The United States Armed Forces are in the business of defending our fellow citizens from our enemies, foreign and domestic.  I believe we accomplish that mission more effectively when we represent all our fellow citizens,” Austin said. “I also believe we should avail ourselves of the best possible talent in our population, regardless of gender identity.  We would be rendering ourselves less fit to the task if we excluded from our ranks people who meet our standards and who have the skills and the devotion to serve in uniform.” 

Austin added: “This is the right thing to do.  It is also the smart thing to do.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-reverses-trump-ban-on-transgender-individuals-serving-in-military