Connect with us

News

House Democrats battle distrust in struggle to pass infrastructure

Published

4 years ago

on

House Democrats were on the cusp of a deal to advance the party’s domestic agenda late Friday, breaking the logjam on an infrastructure bill that has languished for months and moving ahead on their $1.75 trillion social spending package.

In the end, a statement from moderates vowing to back the social spending plan later this month, pending a positive cost analysis, finally broke the fever.

“The whole day was a clusterf— right?” said senior progressive Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.). “At the end of the day what we all want to do is get the president’s agenda done and that’s what we’re going to do.”

The agreement is a huge victory for Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who reasserted control over her fractious caucus after months of infighting — and President Joe Biden, who has struggled since September to corral Democratic votes for the two key planks of his agenda.

The House was expected to vote late Friday on the $550 billion infrastructure bill, sending the legislation to Biden’s desk more than three months after it passed the Senate. In addition, Democrats would take a procedural vote to advance — but not pass — the social and climate spending package.

The two-track plan capped a dizzying day in the chamber that started with Pelosi’s team hopeful of passing both bills and nearly ended in disaster as centrists and liberals dug in against each other.

Democratic leaders worked into the night Friday to bridge the divide between recalcitrant moderates who refused to back Biden’s social spending package and progressives who didn’t want to support the infrastructure bill without further assurance from the centrist wing.

Biden also pitched in, making direct and specific pleas to House Democrats to support Pelosi’s plan on the floor, something he hadn’t done in past efforts to rally votes for his priorities.

“I am urging all members to vote for both the rule for consideration of the Build Back Better Act and final passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill tonight,” Biden said in a statement following a series of phone calls Democratic holdouts.

Democrats’ Friday night dash to try to push the infrastructure bill over the finish line — more than three months after the bipartisan legislation passed the Senate — capped off a dizzying day for the party. Pelosi and her lieutenants, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, kicked off the day confident they would have enough votes within the fractious caucus to both clear the infrastructure bill and send the much larger social and climate package to the Senate.

The effort, if successful, would’ve been a remarkable feat for Democratic leaders after months of public infighting between the party’s centrists and liberals threatened to derail — and then thwart — Biden’s domestic agenda.

The months of tumult have not been without significant cost – from Biden’s plunging poll numbers to an election night thrashing this week that saw Republicans triumph in deep-blue areas, foreshadowing a potentially disastrous midterm for the party next year.

But instead of coming together after their ballot box bruising this week, Democrats are set to again delay a vote on their $1.75 trillion party-line measure and turn their sights to just the $550 billion Senate-passed infrastructure bill — bending to the demands of their most vocal centrists in a last-ditch attempt to deliver at least one legislative win for Biden.

Democrats still planned to advance their broader $1.75 trillion climate and social safety net bill, set for passage without GOP votes, but it would only be a procedural move. And that’s not enough for many progressives.

The convoluted maneuver, first suggested by senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus, quickly became a problem for Democratic leaders. While they initially believed the move could cost them some liberal votes for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, they believed they could make up most of those from the GOP side of the aisle.

CBC Chairwoman Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) summed up the strategy: “Jim Clyburn came to me this morning and we sat down and we thought an initial dialogue might be good. To say, let’s vote on the rule to Build Back Better. At least you’re putting it out there …It’s a start. Is it the best solution ? I don’t know.”

“I think it was the starting point,” Beatty added. “I really didn’t think about what would happen along the way.”

Pelosi quickly pivoted to the new strategy, which she announced to the caucus in a Friday afternoon letter. But no sooner did she do that than a panoply of progressives dug in and refused to go along, trapping Democratic leaders in a game of factional Whack-a-Mole.

“I’m a no,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). When asked if she’d change her own stance against separating the two bills on the floor, Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) replied “absolutely not.”

It remains unclear how many progressives ultimately back the infrastructure bill during a Friday night floor vote. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said that “I’m open to all possibilities and I’m open to giving the leadership a hearing.” Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) signaled he’d support the bipartisan plan, but only if both bills passed on the same day.

Pelosi herself predicted a “large number of members of the progressive caucus” who are prepared to vote yes on infrastructure Friday night.

Members on Pelosi’s left flank have insisted for months that the social spending bill move together with the infrastructure proposal, and liberal opposition, helped scuttle previous attempts to move the infrastructure bill forward over the last two months.

It’s unlikely enough Republicans would be able to make up the difference if the expected number of progressives defect during a planned floor vote on the infrastructure package. Past GOP whip counts had Republican yes votes hovering around 10 for the Senate-passed measure, though some have privately warned the numbers could change if Democrats kept delaying the vote.

Democrats are still in talks about exactly when they would vote on passage of the social spending bill, although Pelosi and other top Democrats vowed to do so before Thanksgiving if possible. Nonetheless, an official budgetary analysis on potential costs may not come until Thanksgiving week.

Many in the caucus were baffled by the moderates’ resistance to pass the massive social spending bill. They argued it wasn’t the final version anyway, since the Senate was all but sure to make changes.

But for most centrist holdouts, that was exactly the problem: Democrats such as Murphy and Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) have been beating the drum for weeks that they won’t vote for any legislation that can’t pass the Senate.

Doing so, they warned, would amount to a politically toxic vote on a sprawling bill packed with new spending and tax changes, only to see it be shredded by Senate centrists or be plucked from the bill by the chamber’s budget rulekeeper.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Lifestyle

Burbank Marriage Unravels After Woman Allegedly Used Tracking Devices to Monitor Husband

Published

2 weeks ago

on

December 27, 2025

By

Burbank, Calif. — What began as a seemingly happy two-year marriage ended in confrontation and police involvement after a Burbank woman allegedly used multiple electronic tracking devices to monitor her husband’s movements, authorities and sources familiar with the situation said.

According to information obtained by this outlet, the marriage between Amos and Yolanda deteriorated after Yolanda allegedly placed Apple AirTags, Tile trackers, and a GPS tracking device on Amos’ vehicle and personal belongings without his knowledge. The devices reportedly allowed her to monitor his location in real time and reconstruct his daily movements across the city.

Friends of the couple said the marriage appeared stable during its early years, with the pair often seen together at community events and social gatherings. However, tensions reportedly escalated when Yolanda began confronting Amos about his whereabouts, referencing locations and timelines he had not shared with her.

The situation reached a breaking point when Yolanda allegedly tracked Amos to an apartment complex in Burbank, where she believed he had gone without informing her. Sources say she arrived at the location shortly after he did, leading to a heated confrontation in the parking area of the building. Neighbors, alarmed by raised voices, contacted local authorities.

Burbank police responded to the scene and separated the parties. While no arrests were immediately announced, the incident marked the effective end of the couple’s marriage, according to individuals close to Amos.

Legal experts note that the unauthorized use of tracking devices may raise serious privacy and stalking concerns under California law, depending on intent and consent. Law enforcement officials have not publicly disclosed whether an investigation remains ongoing.

The case underscores growing concerns about the misuse of consumer tracking technology, originally designed to help locate lost items, but increasingly implicated in domestic disputes and surveillance-related allegations.

As of publication, neither Amos nor Yolanda had publicly commented on the incident.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Africa

U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign

Published

2 weeks ago

on

December 27, 2025

By

The United States has warned that further airstrikes against Islamic State targets in north-western Nigeria are imminent, as Nigerian officials confirmed that recent attacks were part of coordinated operations between both countries.

The warning came hours after U.S. forces struck militant camps in Sokoto State, an operation President Donald Trump publicly framed as a response to what he described as the killing of Christians in Nigeria. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the strikes were only the beginning.

“The president was clear last month: the killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria (and elsewhere) must end,” Hegseth wrote on X. “The Pentagon is always ready, so ISIS found out tonight—on Christmas. More to come. Grateful for Nigerian government support & cooperation.”

Nigeria’s foreign minister, Yusuf Tuggar, confirmed on Friday that the strikes were carried out as part of “joint ongoing operations,” pushing back against earlier tensions sparked by Trump’s public criticism of Nigeria’s handling of insecurity.

The airstrikes followed a brief diplomatic rift after Trump accused Nigeria’s government of failing to protect Christians from militant violence. Nigerian officials responded by reiterating that extremist groups in the country target both Christians and Muslims, and that the conflict is driven by insurgency and criminality rather than religious persecution.

Speaking to Channels Television, Tuggar said Nigeria provided intelligence support for the strikes in Sokoto and described close coordination with Washington. He said he spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio for nearly 20 minutes before briefing President Bola Tinubu and receiving approval to proceed, followed by another call with Rubio to finalize arrangements.

“We have been working closely with the Americans,” Tuggar said. “This is what we’ve always been hoping for—to work together to combat terrorism and stop the deaths of innocent Nigerians. It’s a collaborative effort.”

U.S. Africa Command later confirmed that the strikes were conducted in coordination with Nigerian authorities. An earlier statement, later removed, had suggested the operation was carried out at Nigeria’s request.

Trump, speaking in an interview with Politico, said the operation had originally been scheduled for Wednesday but was delayed at his instruction. “They were going to do it earlier,” he said. “And I said, ‘Nope, let’s give a Christmas present.’ They didn’t think that was coming, but we hit them hard. Every camp got decimated.”

Neither the U.S. nor Nigerian authorities have disclosed casualty figures or confirmed whether militants were killed. Tuggar, when asked whether additional strikes were planned, said only: “You can call it a new phase of an old conflict. For us, this is ongoing.”

Nigeria is officially a secular state, with a population split roughly between Muslims and Christians. While violence against Christian communities has drawn increasing attention from religious conservatives in the United States, Nigeria’s government maintains that extremist groups operate without regard to faith, attacking civilians across religious lines.

Trump’s public rhetoric contrasts with his 2024 campaign messaging, in which he cast himself as a “candidate of peace” who would pull the United States out of what he called endless foreign wars. Yet his second term has already seen expanded U.S. military action abroad, including strikes in Yemen, Iran, and Syria, as well as a significant military buildup in the Caribbean directed at Venezuela.

On the ground in Sokoto State, residents of Jabo village—near one of the strike sites—reported panic and confusion as missiles hit nearby areas. Local residents said no casualties had been recorded, but security forces quickly sealed off the area.

“As it approached our area, the heat became intense,” Abubakar Sani told the Associated Press. “The government should take appropriate measures to protect us. We have never experienced anything like this before.”

Another resident, farmer Sanusi Madabo, said the night sky glowed red for hours. “It was almost like daytime,” he said. “We only learned later that it was a U.S. airstrike.”

For now, both Washington and Abuja are projecting unity. Whether the strikes mark a sustained shift in strategy—or another brief escalation in a long war—remains unclear.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Houston

Turnout, Trust, and Ground Game: What Decided Houston’s Runoff Elections

Published

4 weeks ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Low-turnout runoff races for Houston City Council and Houston Community College trustee seats revealed how message discipline, local credibility, and voter mobilization determined clear winners—and decisive losers.

The final ballots are counted, and Houston’s runoff elections have delivered clear outcomes in two closely watched local races, underscoring a familiar truth of municipal politics: in low-turnout elections, organization and credibility matter more than name recognition alone.

In the race for Houston City Council At-Large Position 4, Alejandra Salinas secured a decisive victory, winning 25,710 votes (59.27%) over former council member Dwight A. Boykins, who garnered 17,669 votes (40.73%). The margin was not accidental. Salinas ran a campaign tightly aligned with voter anxiety over public safety and infrastructure—two issues that consistently dominate Houston’s civic conversations. Her emphasis on keeping violent criminals off city streets and expanding Houston’s water supply spoke directly to quality-of-life concerns that resonate across districts, especially in an at-large contest where candidates must appeal to the city as a whole.

Salinas’ win reflects the advantage of message clarity. In a runoff, voters are not looking to be introduced to candidates—they are choosing between candidates they are already familiar with. Salinas presented herself as forward-looking and solutions-oriented, while Boykins, despite his experience and political history, struggled to reframe his candidacy beyond familiarity. In runoffs, nostalgia rarely outperforms momentum.

The second race—for Houston Community College District II trustee—followed a similar pattern. Renee Jefferson Patterson won with 2,497 votes (56.63%), defeating Kathleen “Kathy” Lynch Gunter, who received 1,912 votes (43.37%). Though the raw numbers were smaller, the dynamics were just as telling.

Patterson’s victory was powered by deep local ties and a clear institutional vision. As an HCC alumna, she effectively positioned herself as both a product and a steward of the system. Her pledge to expand the North Forest Campus and direct resources to Acres Home connected policy goals to place-based advocacy. In trustee races, voters often respond less to ideology and more to proximity—those who understand the campus, the students, and the neighborhood. Patterson checked all three boxes.

By contrast, Gunter’s loss highlights the challenge of overcoming a candidate with genuine community roots in a runoff scenario. Without a sharply differentiated message or a strong geographic base, turnout dynamics tend to favor candidates with existing neighborhood networks and direct institutional relevance.

What ultimately decided both races was not a surprise, but execution. Runoffs reward campaigns that can re-mobilize supporters, simplify their message, and convert familiarity into trust. Salinas and Patterson did exactly that. Their opponents, though credible, were unable to expand or energize their coalitions in a compressed electoral window.

The lesson from Houston’s runoff elections is straightforward but unforgiving: winners win because they align message, identity, and ground game. Losers lose because, in low-turnout contests, anything less than that alignment is insufficient.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending