Reparations for Slavery Get a Fiery Hearing in Congress

Plus, Trump's quest to wipe out a federal agency By Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey Reparations for Slavery Get a Fiery, Historic Hearing in Congress The House on Wednesday held the first hearing in more than a decade on reparations — the idea that the descendants of slaves in the U.S. should receive some kind of compensation for the suffering experienced by their ancestors. Among those testifying were presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), writer Ta-Nehisi Coates and actor Danny Glover. The purpose of the hearing: The Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties is debating a bill sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), that would establish a commission “to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies ...” The timing of the hearing: Wednesday is June 19, which is celebrated as “Juneteenth” in commemoration of the day the abolition of slavery was announced in Texas in 1865 and, more generally, the liberation of African-Americans in the former Confederate States of America. The argument for: Booker spoke in favor of the bill, citing a national failure to address “the root causes of a lot of the inequities” that exist in the U.S. The senator said the country has not yet confronted its long history of racism and white supremacy, and that establishing a commission to study the issue would provide an “historic opportunity to break the silence, to speak to the ugly past and talking constructively about how we will move this nation forward." With respect to reparations, the senator has proposed providing all American children with $1,000 “baby bonds,” supplemented every year, with the poorest children receiving larger amounts. Booker’s plan would address racial wealth disparities indirectly, with black children benefiting in greater percentages due to persistently high poverty levels in the black community. The argument against: Ahead of the hearings, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) criticized the idea, saying that he didn’t think “reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea.” McConnell noted that the U.S. has passed civil rights legislation and “elected an African-American president,” and argued that it would be “pretty hard to figure out who to compensate” if a reparation system were put in place. Coates, who sparked a renewed interest on the topic in 2014 with a piece titled [“The Case for Reparations”]( published in The Atlantic, responded directly to McConnell in his testimony. “We grant that Mr. McConnell was not alive for Appomattox,” Coates said, but he “was alive to witness kleptocracy in his native Alabama and a regime premised on electoral theft. … He was alive for the redlining of Chicago and the looting of black homeowners of some $4 billion. Victims of that plunder are very much alive today." The thorny details: While the hearing was about setting up a commission to analyze the issue, supporters of reparations have been discussing different options for how to pay them for years. The bill itself, H.R. 40, is named after the post-Civil War promise of “40 acres and a mule” for the former slaves — a promise that was quickly broken in the post-war South. Contemporary proposals for reparations range from sending out checks to the descendants of slaves to massive investments in African-American communities, including, for example, the historically black colleges. Given the wide range of proposals, it’s hard to put a price tag on reparations, and estimates range from $17 billion to $5 trillion, CNN [reports](. But supporters of the idea argue that the price tag is secondary to the larger issues of historical responsibility and national identity. What’s next: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said Democrats plan to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, though it has to pass the Judiciary Committee first. If the bill were to become law — which is highly unlikely, given Republican control of the Senate and White House — it would provide $12 million to study the issue. For more on the debate: • The Case for Reparations ([The Atlantic]( • The Impossibility of Reparations ([The Atlantic]( • People Are Again Talking about Slavery Reparations. But It's a Complex and Thorny Issue ([CNN]( • The 2020 Democratic Primary Debate over Reparations, Explained ([Vox]( • Where the 2020 Democratic Candidates Stand on Reparations ([Axios]( • House Resolution 40 – Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act ([Congress]( House Passes $1 Trillion Spending Package, but Larger Spending Fight Still Looms The House on Wednesday passed a nearly $1 trillion spending package by a 226-203 vote largely along party lines. “But it’s far too soon to declare victory in averting the fiscal cliff that looms just three-and-a-half months away,” Politico’s Caitlin Emma and Jennifer Scholtes [report](. The 667-page spending package funds most of the federal government for fiscal 2020, including the Defense Department and the Department of Health and Human Services. It also provides for foreign operations and energy and water. “The measure takes aim at a slew of Trump's funding goals, starting with a rejection of his budget request, which proposed deep cuts to the State Department, cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the elimination of advanced energy research and a massive increase in defense spending,” The Hill’s Niv Ellis [writes](. The House was set to take up a second package covering $383 billion in spending on Wednesday afternoon. Democrats reportedly expect to pass all 12 required annual spending bills by the end of June. Why it matters: The spending package isn’t likely to become law as is, Ellis says, but it will give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) more leverage in her budget negotiations with Senate Republicans, who have yet to take up their own fiscal 2020 funding bills. The two sides, along with the Trump White House, must agree to a deal to raise spending caps for the fiscal year that starts October 1. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) met Wednesday afternoon with other top lawmakers and Trump administration officials to again discuss how to raise spending caps that threaten to force $126 billion in automatic spending cuts or another government shutdown. The main point of contention in those talks has been how much to raise non-defense spending, with Democrats pushing for higher increases. “Congressional leaders in both parties are confident they can reach a deal to stave off a funding fiasco this fall — if only President Donald Trump would stay out of the way,” Politico’s Heather Caygle and Burgess Everett [reported]( Tuesday evening. But the meeting reportedly [did not go well](. After the meeting, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters that, rather than pursue the two-year budget deal lawmakers prefer, the administration is prepared to extend funding and suspend the debt ceiling for one year, CNN [reported](. Trump Administration Ramps Up Its Fight to Kill the Federal Personnel Agency The Trump administration is escalating its fight to kill the federal agency responsible for managing the government’s 2.1 million civilian employees, The Washington Post’s Lisa Rein [reports](. The Office of Personnel Management is preparing to furlough, and possibly lay off, 150 employees if Congress blocks its plan to eliminate the agency, according to internal documents obtained by the Post. The furloughs would begin on October 1, the first day of the new fiscal year. What this fight is about: The Trump administration has proposed to eliminate the agency. It would mark the first time in modern history that a large federal department would be disbanded, Rein says. “Trump officials say that OPM is a broken agency that should be wiped clean and restarted,” she explains. “They cite security weaknesses that led to a massive data breach, inefficient hiring policies and a backlogged system of processing paperwork for retiring employees.” OPM’s functions and its 5,565 employees would be redistributed across three other departments, with most moving to the General Services Administration, which serves as the real estate and procurement hub for the government. But that plan has met resistance in Congress, where lawmakers say the administration has failed to present a clear and compelling case for the reorganization. Critics charge that the effort is intended to weaken and politicize the federal workforce. “I want to see how this plan is cheaper for the taxpayer and better for the federal workforce,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), who leads a panel overseeing government operations on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told the Post. “It’s hard to get to a determination of how this makes things better.” What’s next: The Trump administration wants a commitment from lawmakers by the end of the month to kill off the agency. Without such an agreement, they say they’ll be forced to cut staff on their own. Margaret Weichert, the acting director of OPM who has led the charge to dismantle the agency, reportedly told her staff that she is “planning to play chicken with Congress.” House Democrats are moving to block Weichert’s plans, though legislation advanced by the House Appropriations Committee last week to forbid the administration from spending money to “reorganize or transfer any function” from OPM must still get through Congress. The fight over OPM’s fate is set to keep going. [Read Rein’s full piece at The Washington Post](. Quote of the Day “I promise you we will be sitting there on Election Day not sure who is going to win.” – Jim Messina, President Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, warning Democrats to prepare for a very close election, as quoted by [The Washington Post]( Line of the Day “Rep. Ralph Norman is determined to put a stop, once and for all, to government funding for celebrations of hobos and hobo-related activity.” ([Roll Call]( News - [Fed Expresses Concern About U.S. Economy and Signals Interest Rate Cuts Are Likely]( – Washington Post - [House Inches Toward 11th Hour Deal on Aid for Border Crisis]( – Politico - [Senate Appropriations Committee Approves $4.6B for Border]( – Politico - [‘They’re All Fighting Him’: Trump Aides Spar with Health Secretary Azar]( – Politico - [Key Senators Release Bipartisan Package to Lower Health Care Costs]( – The Hill - [Kamala Harris Wants to Give Every Unemployed Worker $8,000 for Job Training]( – Vox - [Public to Get Rare Look Inside the Congressional Research Service, with Attrition, Morale Points of Contention]( – Roll Call - [Anti-Poverty Advocates Urge Congress to Pass a 'Moral' Budget]( – The Hill - [Reparations Are Rare in America, but They Have Been Paid Before]( – New York Times - [As Democrats Debate Reparations for Slavery, Polls Suggest Americans Are Not Convinced]( – Fox News - [Low Prices of Some Lifesaving Drugs Make Them Impossible to Get]( – Washington Post - [Most Americans Worry ‘Medicare for All’ May Raise Taxes, Poll Says]( – Bloomberg - [Florida Wants to Import Medicine from Canada. But How Would That Work?]( – NPR - [The Postal Service Wants to Make Deep Cuts to Worker Benefits, Internal Plan Shows]( – HuffPost - [Mitt Romney and Rand Paul Speak Up Against ‘No Budget, No Pay’]( – Roll Call - [5 Ways to Fight Wealth Inequality, According to Economists]( – CNBC Views and Analysis - [At Rally, Trump Lied a Lot About the Economy. Here’s What’s Worrying Him.]( – Greg Sargent, Washington Post - [Where Mitch McConnell’s Rationale for Not Exploring Reparations Falls Short]( – Eugene Scott, Washington Post - [Trump Wants a New Obamacare Repeal Plan. His Administration Is Trying to Talk Him Out of It.]( – Paige Winfield Cunningham, Washington Post - [How to Take on Bernie Sanders on Medicare-for-All]( – Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post - [Use Fiscal Policy, Not the Fed, to Fight the Next Slump]( – Stephanie Kelton, Bloomberg - [The Fantasy at the Core of Trump’s Tariffs]( – Jared Bernstein, Vox - [Tax Extenders Package Could Add Half a Trillion Dollars to the Debt]( – Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget - [Social Security and American Public Opinion]( – Frank Newport, Gallup - [Worker Bonuses Slump 22 Percent After GOP Tax Cuts]( – Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute - [Arthur Laffer Revolutionized the World with His Economic Theory]( – Stephen Moore, The Hill - [Reining in the Pentagon: More Security, Less Spending]( – William D. Hartung, The Hill - [Tyranny of the 70-Somethings]( – Andrew Ferguson, The Atlantic Copyright © 2019 The Fiscal Times, All rights reserved. You are receiving this newsletter because you subscribed at our website, thefiscaltimes.com, or through Facebook. Our mailing address is: The Fiscal Times 399 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10022 [Add us to your address book]( If someone has forwarded this email to you, consider signing up for The Fiscal Times emails on our [website](. Want to change how you receive these emails? [Update your preferences]( or [unsubscribe](.