Trump taking 'hard look' at pay-freeze plan for federal workers following pushback

President Trump's proposal to halt pay raises for federal workers drew pushback from Virginia Republicans Corey Stewart, left, a U.S. Senate candidate, and U.S. Rep. Barbara Comstock, who is up for reelection.

President Trump on Saturday evening appeared to signal that he may be rethinking a plan he announced last week to cancel a proposed 2.1 percent pay raise for federal workers.
The president retweeted a Twitter message posted earlier Saturday by Republican U.S. Senate candidate Corey Stewart of Virginia, in which Stewart wrote that federal workers had endured "8 years of hell under Obama, with several rounds of pay freezes and benefit cuts."
Trump "can fix this, and I trust that he will," Stewart wrote.
Just one day earlier, Stewart -- typically a staunch Trump supporter -- had emailed a statement criticizing the pay-freeze plan that Trump disclosed Thursday.

"Federal workers endured 8 years of hell under Obama, with several rounds of pay freezes and benefit cuts ... [President Trump] can fix this, and I trust that he will."
- Corey Stewart, Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Virginia

“I almost never differ with President Trump, but in this case I do,” Stewart said in the statement, according to the Washington Post.
“Federal employees in Virginia wake up early, face punishing traffic and work hard to serve their nation and support their families,” the statement continued. “These workers need and deserve a pay raise.”
Another Virginia Republican, U.S. Rep. Barbara Comstock, also spoke out against Trump's plan.
"We cannot balance the budget on the backs of our federal employees and I will work with my House and Senate colleagues to keep the pay increase in our appropriations measures that we vote on in September,” Comstock said last week, according to the Hill.

"We cannot balance the budget on the backs of our federal employees and I will work with my House and Senate colleagues to keep the pay increase in our appropriations measures that we vote on in September.”
- U.S. Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va.

The Democratic National Committee also derided Trump’s proposed pay freeze as “another slap in the face to American workers.”
At a Friday appearance in North Carolina, it appeared that Trump may have given the comments some consideration.
“I’m going to be doing a little work over the [Labor Day] weekend,” Trump said, according to a White House transcript cited by the Hill. “I’m going to be studying, you know, the federal workers in Washington that you’ve been reading so much about. People don’t want to give them any increase. They haven’t had one in a long time.

“I’m going to be doing a little work over the [Labor Day] weekend. I’m going to be studying, you know, the federal workers in Washington that you’ve been reading so much about. People don’t want to give them any increase. They haven’t had one in a long time."
- President Trump

"I said, I’m going to study that over the weekend. It’s a good time to study it -- Labor Day. Let’s see how they do next week. But a lot of people were against it. I’m going to take a good hard look over the weekend."
In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Senate president pro tempore Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Trump had said that current agency budgets could not sustain additional pay for federal employees.
“We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course,” Trump wrote, explaining his opposition to raising salaries.
“[B]oth across-the-board pay increases and locality pay increases will be set at zero,” for 2019, the president wrote. He added that “Federal employee pay must be performance-based, and aligned strategically toward recruiting, retaining, and rewarding high-performing Federal employees and those with critical skill sets.” 
But by Saturday it seemed the president may soon alter the plan he proposed Thursday.
Stewart on Nov. 6 is looking to defeat incumbent U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat who was Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 presidential election. But Kaine has a 23-point lead in a Virginia Commonwealth University poll, the Hill reported.
Comstock, meanwhile, is facing a tough challenge from state Sen. Jennifer Wexton, a Loudon County Democrat, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.

Democrat Crying Cartoons

Arming teachers a decision for states, local districts, DeVos says

President Trump's education secretary said Friday that she has "no intention" of taking action regarding any possible use of federal funds to arm teachers.
"Congress did not authorize me or the Department to make those decisions" about arming teachers or training them on the use of firearms, Betsy DeVos said.
"I will not take any action that would expand or restrict the responsibilities and flexibilities granted to state and local education agencies by Congress," DeVos wrote in a letter to U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, the top Democrat on the House committee overseeing education.
DeVos' comments came after a top official in her department, when asked about arming teachers, said states and local jurisdictions always "had the flexibility" to decide how to use federal education funds.
Frank Brogan, assistant secretary of elementary and secondary education, said arming educators "is a good example of a profoundly personal decision on the part of a school or a school district or even a state."
Democrats and education groups have argued, however, that the funds are intended for academics, not guns, adding that arming teachers is dangerous and could make schools feel like prisons.
It would be up to Congress, not the U.S. Department of Education, to place any restrictions or barriers to use those funds for purposes not currently in the law, a department spokeswoman said.

Frank Brogan, assistant secretary of elementary and secondary education, speaks in his office in Washington, Aug. 30, 2018.  (Associated Press)

The debate arose earlier this month after a small rural school district in Oklahoma and the state of Texas asked the department to clarify what the funds can be used for.
"The position is: You have the language ... the language was written specifically to and always interpreted to mean 'This is your money,'" Brogan said.
Democratic lawmakers and teachers blasted the idea, accusing the Trump administration of acting in the interests of the National Rifle Association, and several Congress members called for legislation that would prohibit the use of those funds for guns.
Debate over whether teachers should be allowed to carry weapons intensified after President Trump voiced support for the idea following a massacre at a high school in Parkland, Fla., on Feb. 14 that left 17 people dead.
In the months since the shootings, DeVos has headed a panel on school safety that is supposed to issue a list of recommendations later this year, Politico reported.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate commission overseeing education, said on Twitter that she was "extremely disappointed that (DeVos) is moving forward with this awful plan to allow federal funds to be used to arm teachers."
"I hope she reconsiders and we need to keep pressure on her until she does," Murray added.

Yes, the Trump recovery really can keep going

President Trump’s opponents may not like his philandering past and midnight tweets but on the economy, only cynics can argue with the results.
The economy accomplished 4.2 percent growth in the second quarter and appears headed for an overall score of 3 percent for the entire year. A tight job market is finally rewarding workers with better treatment from employers, and low wage workers are receiving bigger pay boosts.
That’s a lot better than the less than 2 percent average growth and stagnant living standards recorded by Presidents Bush and Obama.
The big challenge for Mr. Trump and the Republicans in Congress—should they hold on in the midterms—is sustaining the pace. With unemployment already at 3.9 percent, most economists are pessimistic about continued 3 percent growth in 2019 and beyond.
I take exception!
The labor market still has lots of excess capacity among young people stuck in low level jobs in restaurants and other service businesses. Many of those positions hardly require the skills of a college education or provide high school graduates with a decent career track.
Now, expanding sales opportunities and a tight labor market are forcing employers to get more realistic and practical when hiring for better paying positions. Recruiters are abandoning requirements for specific technical degrees and specialized job experience. That’s helping self-taught software engineers get placed at Intel and high school graduates land entry level managerial positions at Bank of America.
To keep growth in high gear, businesses have to follow through by adding to training budgets and the many private apprenticeship programs that the Department of Labor certifies and helps young folks identify. The latter are not just in traditional building trades but also in technology, manufacturing and business services. Many pay about $15 an hour during training and average starting salaries of $60,000 for those who successfully complete programs.
President Trump is establishing an advisory council comprised of corporate, nonprofit, state government and educational leaders that will work to implement results-oriented job training programs in classrooms and workplaces.
Too many high schools dropped traditional vocational programs in recent decades under pressures from tight budgets and to channel students to college. Mostly that resulted in lots of young people who dropped out after a year or two or graduated from a degree program that did not adequately prepare them for the jobs market. The resulting burden of debt, especially for minorities, too often is overwhelming.
Job one for the president’s council should be getting more young people steered from college track and into vo-tech and apprenticeships, and incentivizing states to redirect funds now going to useless university programs back into those areas.
Finally, regulation has to make sense—not just for America but for the broader world.
Suspending disbelief about the missions of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the World Trade Organization, the bottom line is that American compliance doesn’t mean much if other nations are permitted to violate the rules or intent of those agreements.
Handcuffing American industry does little good if Chinese emissions are growing in leaps and bounds and India and other developing nations are simply not adhering to the same standards as western economies. Until they are, more sensible regulations for U.S. auto efficiency and overall emissions standards are in order.
President Obama rushed through higher gas mileage standards after to his horrors Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to Mr. Trump. Consequently, freezing CAFE standards at their target for 2020—fleet averages at about 37 MPG—instead of going all the way to 50 MPG in 2025 would be prudent, and Mr. Trump has initiated the necessary public comment processes.
High tariffs on trade with China should not be our end goal but we simply can’t go on destroying millions of jobs and permitting Beijing’s bureaucrats to coerce American companies to transfer valuable technology in frontier areas like artificial intelligence and robotics.
If China can’t play by the rules of civilized nations, then trade with China must be managed outside the WTO so that we may preserve the global body for trade among western nations.
These are radical changes in policy that will reach deeply into our schools and affect relations with partners abroad but are necessary to provide Americans with a secure and prosperous future.
Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist.

Request to end DACA from multiple states denied by federal judge

Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia have filed a lawsuit against the federal government over DACA program; Heritage Foundation's Mike Gonzalez has insight.
Seven states that sued to block the DACA program couldn’t demonstrate that permitting it to continue was causing irreparable harm, a federal judge said on Friday, declining to halt the Obama-era policy that protects young illegal immigrants from deportation.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who has previously ruled against DACA-related programs, argued that the states waited too long to seek a preliminary injunction.
"Here, the egg has been scrambled,” Hanen wrote in his ruling. “To try to put it back in the shell with only a preliminary injunction record, and perhaps at great risk to many, does not make sense nor serve the best interests of this country.”
Still, Hanen said that he thinks the program, which stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, is unconstitutional. "If the nation truly wants to have a DACA program, it is up to Congress to say so," Hanen wrote.
"As the Justice Department has consistently argued, DACA is an unlawful attempt to circumvent Congress, and we are pleased the court agreed today," Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley said.
On Friday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he was confident the courts would ultimately find DACA unconstitutional. He said an injunction was denied only because the states waited too long to request it.
Texas was joined in filing the lawsuit by Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia. The states argued that former President Barack Obama never had the authority to create a program like DACA because it circumvented Congress.
WHAT IS DACA AND WHAT DOES THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WANT TO DO WITH IT?
The states filed the lawsuit in Texas, hoping Hanen would stop DACA recipients from continuing to renew their enrollment. That would have triggered a conflict with three federal orders that have required the U.S. government to keep accepting DACA renewals, even after President Trump tried to end the program last year.
The DACA program was formed through executive action by Obama in 2012 and allowed certain people who came to the U.S. illegally as minors to be protected from immediate deportation. Recipients, called Dreamers, were able to request “consideration of deferred action” for a period of two years, which was subject to renewal.

In-N-Out burger chain receives invitation from Alabama lawmaker amid calls for California boycott

Calls for an In-N-Out boycott are getting mixed responses on social media.  (iStock)

An Alabama state senator has invited the California-based In-N-Out hamburger chain to his state after some California Democrats called for a boycott of the chain over donations made to the state's GOP. 
State Sen. Phil Williams, a Republican from Rainbow City, Ala., tweeted his invitation Thursday night.
"Hey #InNOutBurger c'mon to Alabama! We love burgers, and we love #Republicans! #alpolitics," Williams tweeted.
In-N-Out reportedly donated $25,000 to the California Republican Party earlier this week, and the revelation has caused many who identify as Democrats — or just not Republican — to demand a boycott of the chain.
"Tens of thousands of dollars donated to the California Republican Party ... it's time to #BoycottInNOut - let Trump and his cronies support these creeps... perhaps animal style!" Eric Bauman, chairman of the California Democratic Party, tweeted Thursday.
This is not the first time In-N-Out has donated to the GOP. In 2016 and 2017, the company donated $30,000 to the Republican Party for general expenses, Los Angeles magazine reported. 
But the fast-food restaurant has also given thousands of dollars to support the Democratic PAC "Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy," a pro-business group created by Democrat David Townsend in 2009.
In-N-Out was founded in Baldwin Park, Calif., in 1948. Its headquarters is currently in Irvine, Calif. It operates restaurants in six states: California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Texas and Utah.

Labor Day Laboring Cartoons

Trump threatens DOJ, FBI to 'start doing their job' or he'll 'get involved' during Indiana rally

President Trump on Thursday night seemingly issued an ultimatum to the Justice Department and the FBI – either they “start doing their job” or he will “get involved.”
The president’s pointed remarks came as he took the stage at a rally in Indiana in support of GOP Senate candidate Mike Braun, who is seeking to unseat Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly.
“All I can say is, our Justice Department and our FBI, at the top of each because inside they have incredible people, but our Justice Department and our FBI have to start doing their job and doing it right and doing it now because people are angry,” Trump said. “What’s happening is a disgrace. And at some point, I wanted to stay out, but at some point if it doesn’t straighten out properly, I want them to do their job, I will get involved and I’ll get in there if I have to.”
He went on to say it was “disgraceful” and that “the whole world is watching.”
He added, “And the whole world gets it and the whole world understands exactly what’s going on.”

President Trump spoke at a campaign rally on Thursday in Evansville, Ind.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Trump has had an ongoing feud with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, calling on the nation's top attorney to investigate former rival Hillary Clinton and others.
This is not the first time Trump has threatened to “get involved.” Earlier this month, the president said he “may have to get involved” in the fight by a conservative watchdog to obtain text messages by fired deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe related to his wife’s 2015 Virginia state senate campaign.
Earlier Thursday, the president tweeted that he was headed to Indiana “for a big crowd rally” in support of Braun, “a very successful businessman.”
“He is strong on Crime & Borders, the 2nd Amendment, and loves our Military & Vets,” the tweet said. “Will be a big night!”
Trump on Thursday characterized Braun as a “special man” who he thought would “be a truly great senator,” before bringing him up on stage.
Taking the podium, Braun told the crowd that he wanted to “be an ally” for Trump in Washington.
“He promised to drain the swamp and I want to be an ally, when I get there, you can count on it that I’m going there for the right reasons,” Braun said, adding that he wanted to go to the nation’s capital to give Trump an ally “that you can count on every time.”

President Trump talks with Indiana Republican Senate candidate Mike Braun, center, and his wife Maureen Braun after arriving at Evansville Regional Airport on Thursday in Evansville, Ind.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Both Braun and Trump criticized the Democratic opponent for his voting record on tax reform and on the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare.
“Joe Donnelly voted against tax reform. As a congressman he voted for ObamaCare. And then when he could’ve had the deciding vote, he voted against repealing it. He voted for the Iranian deal and thank goodness we undid that,” Braun said.
Donnelly's campaign pushed back on Trump's critique, citing a study from Congressional Quarterly that shows he voted with Trump 62 percent of the time in 2017 and noting that the candidate had 22 proposals signed into law by Trump.
"He's always willing to work with any president who has a good idea to help Hoosiers, but he's never been, and never will be a rubber stamp for ideas from any administration that are wrong for Indiana," said campaign manager Peter Hanscom.
Trump also said that a vote in favor of Donnelly was “a vote for Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and who else, Maxine Waters,” referencing big-name Democrats in the Senate and House.
Trump touched on various other subjects during the rally, including a new trade deal with Mexico. He also talked about the MS-13 criminal gang, who he noted he couldn’t call “animals anymore because Nancy Pelosi got very angry,” and defended ICE, saying they were helping to “liberate” areas “from this scum.”

Crossing a line? Trump wants heads of CNN, NBC News fired

I have said since Donald Trump got into the campaign that he has every right to hit back at the media that he believes covers him unfairly.
I have said after each controversial story and each attack that while the president's language is occasionally too harsh, the relentlessly negative coverage is fair game for his counterpunching approach.
But the president crossed a line yesterday that he should not have crossed in calling for the heads of two major networks to be fired.
I knew when I said that on Fox that I would be strongly criticized by some Trump supporters. But I have to be consistent.
A president of the United States using his bully pulpit to demand the firing of corporate executives, simply because he doesn't like their media coverage of him, is unprecedented and troubling.
And if President Obama had urged Fox News to fire Roger Ailes, there would have been an explosion on the right.
At the same time, CNN in particular has given him a big target with a flawed story that it refuses to clarify or correct. The story said Michael Cohen is ready to tell prosecutors that the president knew in advance of the Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer. Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis, who tells me he did not confirm the allegation when he spoke to CNN off the record, calls the account false.
Trump has a special resentment toward Zucker because they worked together during his "Apprentice" days, when Zucker ran NBC.
The president took to Twitter to accuse CNN of "hatred and extreme bias" against him, and then slammed CNN President Jeff Zucker by addressing the network's new parent company:
"Little Jeff Z has done a terrible job, his ratings suck, and AT&T should fire him to save credibility!"
CNN hit back hard: "Make no mistake, Mr. President, CNN does not lie. We report the news. And we report when people in power tell lies. CNN stands by our reporting and our reporters."
One of those reporters, on the hotly disputed Michael Cohen story, is Jim Sciutto, a political appointee in the Obama administration. Another is Carl Bernstein, the onetime Watergate sleuth, who has continually hammered Trump as a CNN commentator.
Bernstein has called Trump an "authoritarian," said his tenure is "worse than Watergate," and that "this is the greatest journalistic challenge of the modern era, to report on a malignant presidency.”
I know Carl and I respect him, but those are not the words of an unbiased reporter when it comes to Trump.
During the tweetstorm, Trump called Bernstein "sloppy" and "a man who lives in the past and thinks like a degenerate fool, making up story after story."
Bernstein responded that "I have spent my life as a journalist bringing the truth to light, through administrations of both parties. No taunt will diminish my commitment to that mission."
The president also went hard after Andy Lack, the NBC News chairman.
"The good news is that Andy Lack(y) is about to be fired(?) for incompetence, and much worse," he tweeted. That is purely an unsubstantiated rumor. NBC has made no comment.
And then there was this about NBC: "When Lester Holt got caught fudging my tape on Russia, they were hurt badly."
There is no credible allegation that the NBC anchor engaged in misleading editing of his interview with Trump last year. That was two days after the firing of Jim Comey, when Trump stunned the world by saying he canned the FBI director "regardless of recommendation" and brought up the Russia investigation. NBC posted the entire 13-minute interview online.
Again, there is no shortage of shoddy, hyped or inaccurate journalism for President Trump to challenge. He doesn't help his case when he makes unfounded charges or uses his megaphone to say that media executives should be fired because he doesn't like their companies' coverage.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Hey, Google, Facebook, Twitter – Trump's got a point. You need to do a better job of self-regulating

President Trump is speaking forcefully about fixing a growing problem affecting our national discourse. He says we may need to regulate the giant tech companies that control vast swaths of our information landscape, due to their bias.
The president tweeted this week: “Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal?”
Google, Facebook and Twitter all claim they do not purposely discriminate due to political viewpoints. But it is increasingly clear that this is the outcome – whatever their intentions. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted his firm suffers from left-leaning bias and must do more work to ensure it doesn’t affect Twitter.
The question then becomes, what can President Trump do to affect this?
The first thing is exactly what the president has been doing – using the bully pulpit to influence the social media companies to change their behavior.
Government intervention should occur only as a last resort, because this would infringe on free speech and expression.
The social media firms need to take it upon themselves to solve the problems they have created, in many cases due to their own success.
Google, Facebook and Twitter dominate the online world in the same way that ABC, CBS and NBC dominated the world of television prior to cable TV. There are really no alternatives to these social media companies. That gives them great power, but also great responsibility. Thus far they have done better wielding the first than honoring the second.
Hopefully, the social media companies will heed the president’s warning, but if not, what can he do?
In this election season, the president could direct the Federal Election Commission to investigate the practices of the social media companies. The commission could examine whether suppressing conservative ideas – including in some cases the accounts of Republican candidates – constitutes an in-kind contribution to the Democratic Party and its candidates.
Security Studies Group submitted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission asking for this type of investigation into Twitter with a reference to the Fact Sheet on Viewpoint Discrimination we compiled.
Another avenue is to have the Federal Communications Commission look at the immunity granted to the social media companies as Internet service providers under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
This immunity for the companies exempts them from defamation lawsuits, because they are considered to be distributors of content rather than publishers that exert editorial control. It is reasonable to consider whether the amount of control these companies exert in deciding what content is available – or not available – changes this status.
Google, Facebook and Twitter are private companies. They have the right to have policies to promote liberal ideas and ban conservative ones from their platforms. But as publicly traded companies, they have a responsibility to speak honestly about their business practices. They can’t have their CEOs saying they do not discriminate if it can be shown they do.
President Trump could ask the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine whether the three companies are misleading their shareholders and the public.
There is also a question of whether the success of the social media companies has made them indispensable for businesses, organizations and many individuals. If so, there is the possibility that they could be declared to be public utilities and regulated that way to prevent discrimination.
This regulation has been imposed previously on electric power and telephone companies. If there is no alternative to their service and they are denying service to some businesses, organizations and individuals that is a legitimate government concern.
The goal here should not be to find ways for government to insert itself into the digital town square as some kind of referee. But right now, the public discourse is being limited and the social media companies are refusing to fairly serve some of their customers.
This refusal is dangerous, hindering the ability of people to be informed and act on the information they receive. Let’s hope the Silicon Valley crew decides to take action to make this right.
Jim Hanson is President of Security Studies Group and served in US Army Special Forces.