

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Hey, so changing what you call this bill actually doesn’t change the harm that’s in it," said one Democratic senator. "Hope this helps!"
The Republican Party's massive budget law has shown itself to be decidedly unpopular with voters, as polls consistently show Americans opposed to its $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid.
Because of this, reported Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman, US President Donald Trump met with GOP members of Congress on Wednesday morning to discuss how to boost the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act's popularity.
According to Sherman, Trump's message to the GOP is that the bill will become popular if "they completely rebrand it and talk about it differently."
Politico similarly reported that Republicans in Congress have been eager to rebrand the bill after enduring "a spate of angry crowds at... town halls and alarming polling that shows dismal views of the bill's safety-net cuts and deficit impact."
As Common Dreams reported last month, Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) faced angry constituents who yelled, "You cut our healthcare!" and called him a liar when he claimed the Medicaid cuts would improve healthcare services. Other Republicans have been confronted with similar outrage at town halls.
Republican pollsters are reportedly recommending that GOP lawmakers tout provisions in the bill such as eliminating taxes on some tips, although worker advocacy organization One Fair Wage has found that this provision won't benefit most tipped workers since two-thirds of them don't earn enough money to file federal income taxes.
In fact, New York Times congressional correspondent Annie Karni noted that Republicans started referring to the package as the "working families tax plan" after getting out of their Tuesday morning meeting.
But critics in the Democratic Party argued that a simple rebrand of the legislation is unlikely to be enough to rescue it in the court of public opinion, with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) emphasizing that the problems with the law stem not from marketing, but from its substance.
"The poorest 25% of workers lose money under this bill while the richest Americans get a $270,000 tax cut," he wrote while sharing a chart of Congressional Budget Office estimates of the impact the law will have on different income groups. "They can rebrand all they want. The facts are the facts. They screwed working people to help their billionaire and corporate donors."
Several other Democratic lawmakers similarly pounced to mock the GOP's attempted rebrand.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) sardonically offered advice to her Republican colleagues, writing: "Hey, so changing what you call this bill actually doesn’t change the harm that’s in it. Hope this helps!"
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) suggested a more accurate renaming of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would be the “Tax on Working Families” plan.
"Under the GOP tax law, billionaires got the big tax cuts. In fact, thanks to Republicans, many working families will actually see their taxes go up," said Beyer. "And Trump's tariffs are a huge tax hike on working Americans."
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Penn.) ridiculed the White House for "desperately" trying to rebrand the package because "working families think the GOP's plan to sacrifice their healthcare and SNAP benefits to give billionaires a tax cut is a bad idea."
"Remember this the next time they claim to care about freedom and family," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Democratic U.S. lawmakers and reproductive rights defenders on Wednesday blasted congressional Republicans and former U.S. President Donald Trump after a GOP senator blocked a bill to protect access to in vitro fertilization a week after Alabama's right-wing Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children.
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) objected to a request to pass by unanimous consent a bill introduced by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to federally protect IVF access, claiming that the bill is "a vast overreach that is full of poison pills that go way too far."
Calling the bill "a vast overreach that is full of poison pills that go way too far," Hyde-Smith claimed it would legalize human cloning, gene-edited "designer babies," and commercial surrogacy, "including for young girls without parental involvement."
Duckworth accused her colleague of misreading the legislation, asserting that "it simply says you have a statutory right should you choose to pursue assisted reproductive technology."
Democratic lawmakers reacted angrily to Hyde-Smith's move—and to Republican attacks on reproductive freedom.
"Once again, Republicans have shown their true colors,"
said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). "Republicans are claiming to support IVF while voting down the very bill that would do that. Actions speak louder than words."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
said on social media: "I wish I could say I'm surprised. Senate Republicans just blocked our attempt to pass Sen. Duckworth's bill to protect nationwide access to IVF. Republicans will stop at nothing to deny women in America their fundamental rights and freedoms."
In the House, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) lamented Republicans' attack on legislation that would "protect Americans' right to start a family through IVF."
"Remember this the next time they claim to care about freedom and family," Clark added.
Speaking on the Senate floor Wednesday, Duckworth said: "Let's be clear about what led to this moment. The overturning of Roe is what made last week's ruling even possible."
"Donald Trump is the one who bragged about taking down Roe v. Wade," she added. "Donald Trump acts as if that's something to be proud of."
Trump—the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner despite facing 91 federal and state criminal charges—appointed three right-wing anti-abortion justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. All three were part of the 6-3 majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which voided half a century of federal abortion rights.
Following last week's Alabama ruling—which prompted multiple IVF clinics to suspend operations in the state—Trump and other Republicans scrambled to distance themselves from the deeply unpopular decision.
However, Duckworth said Wednesday that "while it may now be convenient" for Trump "to claim that he had nothing to do with what happened in Alabama, we know the truth: IVF is at risk because of him. He is to blame."
"Him and every other GOP official who shamelessly kisses his ring, proving with every word that they they that they care more about protecting his poll numbers than protecting Americans' freedoms," she added.
At the Center for American Progress, senior vice president for inclusive growth Emily Gee said that "Republicans have been on a relentless crusade to strip women of their fundamental freedom to control their own reproductive destinies and medical decisions—seeking to ban abortion, restrict contraception, and limit fertility options for Americans trying to grow their families."
"They have been emboldened and enabled by Donald Trump and his hand-picked U.S. Supreme Court justices, who have misinterpreted the Constitution to rip away Americans' rights and enforce their extreme MAGA ideology on all of us," she continued.
"Senate Republicans' decision to block legislation affirming Americans' ability to obtain IVF treatment is a moral abomination as well as an insult to families devastated by the Alabama Supreme Court's recent ruling," Gee added. "Today, they have made painstakingly clear that there's no limit to their agenda to intrude upon women's most personal decisions. That is an intrusion that Americans will continue to reject."
"Julie Su has already done what Sen. Manchin says she can't," Sen. Mazie Hirono argued, noting how the nominee "brought labor and industry together to avert a potentially catastrophic port strike."
Right-wing Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin said Thursday that he'll oppose President Joe Biden's nomination of Julie Su to head the Labor Department, a move that could torpedo the progressive acting secretary's confirmation chances in a divided Senate.
"I believe the person leading the U.S. Department of Labor should have the experience to collaboratively lead both labor and industry to forge compromises acceptable to both parties," Manchin (D-W.Va.)—a recurrent obstructor of his own party's agenda—said in a statement.
"While her credentials and qualifications are impressive, I have genuine concerns that Julie Su's more progressive background prevents her from doing this and for that reason I cannot support her nomination to serve as secretary of labor," he added.
Manchin's opposition does not necessarily sink Su's nomination. However, Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) have not yet said if she will get their votes. She may not need them, as a 1946 law allows the deputy labor chief to indefinitely "perform the duties of the secretary until a successor is appointed."
Still, some Senate Democrats said they were optimistic about Su's confirmation chances.
"I think she'll be a very good labor secretary," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday. "And we're working hard to get her approved."
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) told NBC News that "she's gonna have enough votes. We're gonna confirm her."
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said in a statement that Su is "the most qualified candidate to be our next labor secretary."
"There is no one more ready and prepared to lead the department on day one than she is," Duckworth added.
As Roll Call reports:
Su's nomination has been the subject of lobbying by outside groups, according to first-quarter disclosures. At least 23 companies and interest groups lobbied on the nomination, including 10 that publicly oppose Su and nine that support her.
Groups opposing Su—including the National Restaurant Association, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and the Flex Association, a group that represents rideshare companies—reported spending at least $3.4 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year on the nomination and other policy issues.
Unions and civil rights groups have come to Su's defense, disclosing about $2.1 million on first-quarter lobbying spending. Supporters include the Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Government Employees, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the Society for Human Resource Management.
Su, who previously served as labor secretary of California and deputy U.S. labor secretary, made a name for herself representing some of the most vulnerable workers in the nation, including as the lead attorney in a case involving Thais trafficked in a Los Angeles-area sweatshop.
The 54-year-old has been serving as acting head of the Labor Department since former Labor Secretary Marty Walsh resigned in March to take a job leading the National Hockey League Players Association.
In April, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserted that opposition to Su "has nothing to do with her qualifications" and "everything to do with the fact that [she] is a champion of the working class who will stand up against the forces of corporate greed."
Last week, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights reaffirmed its support for Su, tweeting that "there is no one more prepared to move into this role and lead the department as it undertakes its critical mission to protect working people."
This is not the first time that Manchin—who is up for reelection next year and is widely suspected of considering a presidential run—has opposed one of Biden's Labor Department nominations. Along with Sinema and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), he effectively ended David Weil's bid to head the agency's Wage and Hour Division by voting last year against advancing his nomination.