News

(NEW YORK) — In January, when President Joe Biden took office and Democrats secured both chambers of Congress, millions of Americans had high hopes that the laundry list of causes touted on the campaign trail would become reality.

They had promised action on voting, elections and policing reform, on immigration and infrastructure. They touted sweeping programs now in Democrats’ social spending bills, addressing issues they said Americans care about most, from child care to climate change.

But this week’s failure by Senate Democrats’ latest effort to even start debate on a voting rights bill, their first piece of legislation to pass the House, is just the latest blow to Biden’s campaign agenda and the vow Democrats made to preserve Americans’ most fundamental right in the wake of the 2020 election’s “Big Lie.”

Many Democrats who expected more are frustrated.

“You’ve got real Americans that have spent time and energy in promoting supporting these plans,” said Domini Bryant, a social worker in Houston told ABC News. “I don’t have time to deal with the political rhetoric that is happening in our world right now because all that is happening is real people — real working people — are getting dumped on.”

“We’re still allowing ‘Big Lie’ rhetoric to reign supreme when you have real issues happening out here, like the fact that there have been millions of dollars put towards this pandemic recovery yet you still have thousands of people homeless right now,” she added.

It’s no secret Biden and congressional Democrats are having trouble with their own self-imposed deadlines — such as missing policing reform by the anniversary of the death of George Floyd in May, although a majority of Americans say major changes are needed to policing.

Since Democrats control both Congress and the White House — why haven’t they been able to achieve their legislative priorities? With Biden’s approval rating sinking, and congressional midterms nearly one year away, experts ABC News spoke with are predicting Democrats could pay a high price for their perceived inaction.

“Most Americans believe that government should be helping solve our problems and that compromise is better than obstruction,” said Jennifer Lawless, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. “But the incentives for our elected leaders to do compromise has dissipated, creating a vicious cycle where we’re seeing less action on what the average American wants. By the same token, there’s also a very, very little incentive for the elected leaders to deliver moderation, because there’ll be primary, and they’ll lose.”

Frances Lee, a political scientist and professor at Princeton University, said that although this Congress is deadlocked on high-profile legislation, it has been productive in responding to coronavirus crisis, pointing to the American Rescue Plan passing in March — although it did so without any Republican support.

“It’s a tale of two cities,” she told ABC News. “On the one hand, this Congress has impressive crisis response, and on the other, a stalemate on issues that aren’t necessarily connected to that crisis.”

GOP’s strategy of obstruction

Shortly after Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the “single most important thing” for Republicans was to make him a one-term president. McConnell would go on to do everything possible to prevent Obama from achieving major legislative wins.

“And that’s basically been the strategy that the Republicans have employed for the last 12 years,” said Lawless.

“It doesn’t matter if the Republicans could also claim credit for something that will be good for the American people or advance the economic interests of their state or their district. Republicans are now viewing any Democratic victory as separate and apart from their own interests,” she said. “This has now become a sort of permissible way to govern, whereas prior to that point, I think most legislators would not have wanted the American people to know that they were more interested in obstructing than they were in governing.”

That kind of strategy makes bipartisanship and cooperation exceedingly rare, experts said, and in many cases, not even pursued, which has heightened internal strife in the parties.

“Thirty years ago, forty years ago, if you had two members of your own party who weren’t in love with a bill, you’d cross party lines and you’d see if you could find some allies there, but that’s just not a viable strategy anymore,” she added.

She said the current stalemate over raising the debt ceiling provides the perfect example of McConnell’s strategy.

Republicans for months have said that Democrats would need to act on their own to raise the debt limit because they have total political control of Washington and are planning to pass a multi-trillion social and economic package with zero input from Republicans.

“They’ve made the case to their constituents and to Republican voters across the country that doing nothing is better than governing from the ‘socialist left,'” Lawless said.

Democrats, meanwhile, have argued raising the debt limit is a bipartisan responsibility, in part, because it covers spending that already took place under the Trump administration with unified GOP support.

“Republicans just have to let us do our job,” Biden said in a speech last month on the nation’s debt limit. “Just get out of the way. If you don’t want to help save the country, get out of the way so you don’t destroy it.”

A recent poll from Politico/Morning Consult suggested that public opinion may not push either party to change direction. Overall, 31% of registered voters said they would mostly blame Democrats if the country defaults on its debt, while 20% said they would primarily blame Republicans. Thirty-nine percent said they would blame both parties equally.

“We expect our elected officials to deal with complicated issues like that,” said Jeremy Gelman, who wrote the book, “Losing to Win: Why Congressional Majorities Play Politics Instead of Make Laws.” “But making it seem like your opponents don’t have it together, that’s good politics.”

Loyalty to the filibuster

With a majority in the House of Representatives and Vice President Kamala Harris holding the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, Democrats could, in theory, pass their legislative priorities without Republican support.

But not while the Senate filibuster rule stands in their way.

While legislation dealing with the budget can go through the reconciliation process and pass without GOP support, as was done with the American Rescue Plan in March, the Senate requires 60 votes for “cloture” — to end debate on a piece of legislation so it can proceed to a final vote, which then, in most cases, requires a simple majority to pass.

In short, without 60 Senate votes, a piece of legislation doesn’t even have a chance of being voted upon.

“That means that unless there is complete unity among Democrats in the Senate, the bill is already a non-starter. Every single member can hold a package hostage for their litmus tests,” Lawless said. “And on bills that can’t go through the reconciliation process, without 10 Republican votes, they’re dead on arrival.”

For four months under Obama, Democrats did have 60 votes in the Senate and, therefore, total control of Congress. It was during that slim window that Obamacare passed in the Senate with all 60 Democratic votes.

Progressives in 2021 argue Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who call themselves moderates and have staunchly opposed ending the filibuster, should help carve out an exception to push over the line key reforms, especially on the fundamental issue of voting rights, that they and fellow Democrats were elected to pursue. But Manchin and Sinema have refused to budge, arguing making an exception could backfire if Republicans take back control of the Senate.

“They’ve certainly articulated legitimate reasons why they are reluctant to make these exceptions,” Lawless said. “But in this political climate, it seems tone-deaf not to do it.”

Democratic infighting

While Americans might expect that unified government — as Democrats have now with the White House and Congress — Lee said that it’s more normal for parties with total control to face hurdles delivering on their agendas.

As evident by Democrats’ current stalemate on the social spending package, Lee argued parties are not as unified on many issues as they might claim to be with voters.

“It’s the reality we’re seeing now,” said Lee. “They get elected in these separate states and districts, and they differ in their political priorities and coloration, so it’s very hard for them to get on the same page.”

House progressives have vowed to vote against a bipartisan infrastructure bill — which received 19 GOP votes in the Senate — unless a deal is reached with Senate Democrats and the White House on a larger spending package involving social policies which they plan to pass through budget reconciliation.

“We make these promises to people, and they’re expecting us to deliver on them,” Jayapal told CNN this month.

Every unified government since the Clinton administration has failed on at least one of its top priorities due to internal dissent, not due to the filibuster, Lee said.

Gelman added that party leaders will pursue policies they know will fail — as Senate Democrats did on voting rights — in order to make a political statement.

“They also know that those are popular policies with their voters. They need to have solutions that they can offer in the future, and they think it’s probably politically valuable to show off the Republicans as being obstructionists,” he said.

Razor-thin margins

What makes it especially difficult to govern in the current Congress are the razor-thin margins in both chambers. Comparing this Congress to the previous ones with the unified government, Lee said the current political climate is more difficult than most because there are “no votes to spare.”

Democrats and Republicans currently have 50 seats each in the Senate, with Harris serving as the tie-breaker vote. The margins are tight in the House too, where most legislation needs a simple majority, with 220 Democrats and 212 Republicans.

“Parties have trouble advancing bold legislation even when conditions are more favorable — and they’re just not very favorable for either party right now,” she said.

She compared the current margins to those under former President Bill Clinton when tried to reform health care in 1994, but without 60 votes to end a GOP filibuster, the effort failed.

Lee said it’s the norm for “about half of all a party’s agenda items to fail,” so Americans should actually expect those failures to be higher in a Congress with super narrow majorities as is the case now.

With critics saying Republicans are playing a game of chicken on the debt ceiling, experts say Democrats are also playing a dangerous game with their political future.

“If with unified control the Democrats are unable to push forward Biden’s agenda, then it’s hard to imagine that they’ll get anything that they want between 2022 and 2024,” Lawless said.

Unprecedented polarization?

It’s also a time in Washington of arguably unprecedented polarization, in the wake of the 2020 election and Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

With the influence of cable news, and social media, lawmakers can get stuck in an echo chamber with their own supporters instead of trying to appeal to a broader cross-section of the country.

“We’ve reached a point in time where our political communication is so partisan and so polarized, that it’s hard even to blame the average American for not knowing the alternative viewpoint,” Lawless said. “They’re not exposed to it.”

Despite the division, experts said compromise remains the most effective way to pass changes in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

“We’re constantly sort of bombarded by messages from the politicians themselves that everything’s so divisive,” Gelman said. “But the reality is, legislating in this system of government requires bipartisanship.”

Greg Lee, a technology consultant in Columbus, Ohio, who used to identify as a Republican but is now votes Democratic, said the American people are left to suffer while lawmakers on both sides take things to political extremes.

“They’re not doing a good job of balancing their constituents needs with their desire to be reelected,” he said. “Congress should be a collaborative body, not a win at all costs game.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House of Representatives voted to hold Trump administration adviser Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress on Thursday for defying a congressional subpoena by the Jan. 6 select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol.

The vote fell largely along party lines. The vote was 229-202, with nine Republicans voting with Democrats.

Select committee Chair Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in debate that allowing Bannon to ignore their subpoena would set a dangerous precedent.

“To my colleagues who choose to vote against enforcing the subpoena, you are saying to all future men and women who are called before this body that they can ignore a subpoena from Congress without consequence,” he said. “The consequences of that vote won’t be limited to this investigation and this subpoena alone. Your vote will be give serious long-lasting damage to Congress. And that in turn will do serious damage to our country which we all love dearly.”

The select committee, a nine-member panel, voted unanimously Tuesday evening to send a report recommending contempt charges to the full House. If approved by the full chamber, the matter would then be referred to the Justice Department to decide whether to pursue criminal charges.

GOP Reps. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill, the two Republicans who sit on the committee, voted with all Democrats to advance to debate on Thursday. House GOP leaders had whipped their members to vote “no.”

But Democrats argued on the House floor that lawmakers have a Constitutional responsibility of oversight.

“Mr. Bannon’s willful disregard for the select committee’s subpoena demonstrate his utter contempt for the American people’s right to know how the attacks on January 6 came about,” Kinzinger said. “His own words strongly suggest that the actions of the mob that stormed the Capitol and invaded this very chamber came as no surprise to him. He and a few others, were by all accounts, involved in planning that day’s events and encouraged by those who attacked the Capitol, our officers and our democracy.”

“I have no doubt that Mr. Bannon’s scorn for our subpoena is real. But no one, and I repeat, no one is above the law,” Kinzinger said. “And we need to hear from him.”

Cheney, also speaking with Democrats in favor of the bill, said Bannon’s statements on his podcast on Jan. 5, the day before the attack, were “shocking and indefensible.”

“He said all hell is going to break loose. He said, ‘We are coming in right over the target,'” she said. “There are people in this chamber right now who were evacuated with me and the rest of us that day and during the attack. People who seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment. The assault on our Constitution, the assault on our Congress. People who you will hear argue that there is simply no legislative purpose for this committee, this legislation and this subpoena,” she said.

“There is no doubt that Mr. Bannon knows far more than what he said,” she continued. “There is no doubt that all hell did broke loose. Just ask the scores of brave police officers who were injured that day protecting us. The American people deserve to hear his testimony.”

Including Cheney and Kinzinger, nine Republicans voted with Democrats to hold Bannon in contempt: Reps. Anthony Gonzalez, Peter Meiger, Fred Upton, Nancy Mace, John Katko, Brian Fitzpatrick and Jaime Herrera Beutler. Rep. Mike Simpson had voted “yes” but changed it to “no.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., earlier Thursday argued that the Jan. 6 select committee’s subpoena for Bannon’s testimony was “invalid” because Republicans aren’t serving on the panel and claimed Democrats are using the panel to target their political opponents.

However, Republicans decided not to sit on the panel after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to seat two of five members recommended by McCarthy for making baseless claims about the validity of 2020 election. That came after Republicans killed an effort in May to establish an independent commission of members selected by both parties to investigate the Jan. 6 attack.

“Issuing an invalid subpoena weakens our power, not voting against it,” McCarthy said, defending Republicans’ plans to overwhelmingly vote against holding Bannon in contempt of Congress this evening. “[Bannon] has a right to go to court to see if he has executive privilege or not. I don’t know if he has it or not, but neither does the committee.”

His message follows a memo circulated to Republican lawmakers on Wednesday, in which House GOP leaders argued that the Jan. 6 select committee that subpoenaed Bannon for records and testimony is “pursuing a partisan agenda to politicize the Jan. 6 attack” instead of “conducting a good faith investigation.”

Asked about the importance of GOP support on the effort, Pelosi said at her weekly press conference that it’s Republicans’ duty to vote to hold Bannon in contempt.

“Because they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Pelosi told reporters.

“The genius of our Constitution and our founders was the separation of powers checks and balances, if in fact you went to negate the ability of one check of another branch of government over another, then you are undermining the constitution,” she said.

“This goes beyond Bannon in terms of its importance. And you would think that if they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, they would vote for the system of checks and balances,” she said.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In the wake of a controversial proposal by the Treasury Department and Senate Democrats to direct collection of additional data on Americans’ bank accounts, Senate Republicans — led by South Carolina’s Tim Scott — introduced a bill Thursday to prevent the Internal Revenue Service from implementing any such policy change.

“The Democrats’ plan to allow the IRS to spy on the bank accounts of nearly every person in this country, even those below the poverty line, should be deeply concerning to anyone who values privacy and economic inclusion,” Scott said in a statement provided exclusively to ABC News.

The Biden administration on Tuesday backed down on a controversial proposal that would have directed the IRS to collect additional data on every bank account that sees more than $600 in annual transactions, after widespread criticism from Republican lawmakers and banking industry representatives, who said the tax enforcement strategy represented a breach of privacy by the federal government.

Instead, the administration and Senate Democrats are proposing to raise the threshold to accounts with more than $10,000 in annual transactions, and any income received through a paycheck from which federal taxes are automatically deducted will not be subject to the reporting. Recipients of federal benefits like unemployment and Social Security would also be exempt.

According to the new GOP bill, called the Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act, “The Secretary of the Treasury (including any delegate of the Secretary) may not require any financial institution to report the inflows or outflows of any account maintained by such institution, or any balances, transactions, transfers, or similar information with respect to any such account, except to the extent that such reporting is required under any program, or other provision of law, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.”

“Every American should be wary of giving the IRS more power and more tentacles into private financial transactions,” Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said in a statement. “The IRS bank reporting proposal is one of the biggest expansions of the agency’s authority we’ve ever seen, and is fundamentally flawed. I’m proud to support Senator Scott’s legislation to stop this proposal in its tracks and protect Americans’ personal, private financial information.”

The GOP bill is sponsored by every member of Republican leadership and nearly the entire conference, a clear indication, according to a source familiar with the matter, that the party sees “this move and the unified support from leadership … as a clear indication of where we’ll focus our energies in the coming reconciliation fight.”

The changes made by Democrats — a clear indication of how politically volatile the issue is — would exempt millions of Americans from the reporting requirement, and help the IRS target wealthier Americans, they say, especially those who earn money from investments, real estate, and other transactions that are more difficult for the IRS to track.

“Under the current system, American workers pay virtually all their tax bills while many top earners avoid paying billions in the taxes they owe by exploiting the system. At the core of the problem is a discrepancy in the ways types of income are reported to the IRS: opaque income sources frequently avoid scrutiny while wages and federal benefits are typically subject to nearly full compliance. This two-tiered tax system is unfair and deprives the country of resources to fund core priorities,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a statement Tuesday.

“Today’s new proposal reflects the Administration’s strong belief that we should zero in on those at the top of the income scale who don’t pay the taxes they owe, while protecting American workers by setting the bank account threshold at $10,000 and providing an exemption for wage earners like teachers and firefighters,” Yellen said.

A Treasury fact sheet says, “Imagine a taxpayer who reports $10,000 of income; but has $10 million of flows in and out of their bank account. Having this summary information will help flag for the IRS when high-income people under-report their income (and under-pay their tax obligations). This will help the IRS target its enforcement activities on those who are actually evading their tax obligations—decreasing costly and burdensome audits for the vast majority of taxpayers who pay what they owe.”

The proposal is a long way from being enacted. It’s currently included in a multi-trillion dollar social spending package lawmakers and the White House have been negotiating for months. If that package is passed and signed into law, the requirement wouldn’t begin until December 2022.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who spearheaded the effort to revise the proposal, disputed Republican claims that the goal is to snoop on Americans’ financial transactions.

“The bottom line is, wealthy tax cheats are ripping off the American people to the tune of billions and billions of dollars per year. Tax cheats thrive when the reporting rules that apply to them are loose and murky. Democrats want to fix this broken approach and crack down on the cheating at the top,” Wyden said in a press conference on the announcement Tuesday.

Wyden made clear that even Americans who might make a large purchase over $10,000 wouldn’t be subject to the additional reporting.

“If you don’t have $10,000 above your paycheck, Social Security income, or the like coming in or going out, there’s no additional reporting. We’ve also addressed the scenario where an individual spends a significant amount of savings for a major purchase. There will be no additional reporting in this scenario, as long as the amount of money coming into the account does not exceed wages +$10,000,” Wyden said.

Still, Republicans insisted millions of Americans will be affected and voiced concern that the IRS would be given far too much power.

“The Biden administration’s plan to allow the IRS to monitor Americans’ bank accounts is a dangerous idea that will only prove to be worse over time,” said Senator Pat Toomey, R-Pa. “Today the administration wants to know your annual account inflows and outflows. What will they demand access to tomorrow?”

ABC News’ Sarah Kolinovsky contributed to this report

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers on Thursday that the Justice Department will follow “the facts and the law” if the House of Representatives votes to refer former President Donald Trump’s ally Steve Bannon for criminal prosecution for defying a congressional subpoena.

“I will say what a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia said I think yesterday or a day before,” Garland said in response to a question on Congress’ potential contempt referral for Bannon. “If the House of Representatives votes for a referral of a contempt charge — then the Department of Justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, we will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution.”

Garland’s first appearance in front of the House Judiciary Committee came on the same day that the House is set to vote on whether to hold Bannon, who formerly served as a White House advisor to Trump, in contempt of Congress.

Historically such prosecutions are rare and politically fraught — but Garland’s potential decision on the referral would have significant ramifications for the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol as it seeks to compel cooperation from individuals who allegedly had communications with Trump around that day.

The matter was further complicated over the weekend when President Joe Biden told reporters he hoped the department would move forward with prosecutions of those, like Bannon, who defy the select committee’s subpoenas. A DOJ spokesperson swiftly released a statement following Biden’s remarks restating the department’s independence, and White House press secretary Jen Psaki clarified afterward that the president was in no way giving direction to Garland on the issue.

“The Department of Justice will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law. Period. Full stop,” spokesperson Anthony Coley said.

In the hearing, Garland also defended the Justice Department’s handling of its sprawling investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection. He testified Thursday that more than 650 people across the country have been charged in the more than nine months since the attack.

“The violence we witnessed that day was an intolerable assault, not only on the Capitol and the brave law enforcement personnel who sought to protect it, but also on a fundamental element of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power,” Garland said.

Republicans on the panel expressed concern about the treatment of some of the rioters being detained ahead of trial, after judges ruled they either presented a threat to the general public or a risk of flight and obstruction of justice.

Last week, a federal judge overseeing one case of a rioter being held in detention pending trial did make a referral to Garland to investigate whether jailed rioters are having their rights violated based on their status as Capitol riot defendants. Garland confirmed in Thursday’s hearing that the U.S. Marshals Service subsequently conducted an inspection of their conditions and the Civil Rights Division is reviewing the findings.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.