House Minority Whip Steve Scalise told Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on Tuesday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to change her tone and start making "credible" compromises to avert another government shutdown over border wall funding.
Pelosi, D-Calif., on Monday invited President Trump to
deliver the State of the Union address on Feb. 5, after refusing to
allow him to appear in House chambers during the partial government
shutdown. On Friday, both chambers of Congress passed a short-term spending bill to reopen the government through Feb. 15 -- but it includes no funding for a border wall.
"Nancy
Pelosi said she wouldn't negotiate during the shutdown. OK, now the
shutdown is over for the time being," Scalise told Cavuto. "Will she
finally start be willing to put a dollar amount on the table, to say how
much is she willing to put together to support securing the border?"
Scalise
said that experts have called for more than $5 billion in wall funding,
and that Democrats are playing politics. Earlier this month, U.S.
Border Patrol chief Carla Provost told "Your World" that "we certainly do need a wall," and the president has touted the support for one from the national border patrol union at White House press briefings.
FILE - In this Jan. 3 photo, a woman at the border fence between
San Diego and Tijuana, as seen from Mexico. The top House Republican
says a bipartisan border security compromise that Congress hopes to
produce doesn't have to include the word "wall." (AP Photo/Daniel Ochoa
de Olza, File)
"It's going to take at least 5 and a half billion
dollars -- our experts who risk their lives have said that's what it
will take to secure our border," Scalise said. "What's Nancy Pelosi
willing to put on the table now that we're out of the shutdown?
Asked
by Cavuto what specifically he was looking for from Pelosi, Scalise
responded: "Well, it's got to be a serious, credible offer. Let's talk
serious. What is your offer? If it's not $5.7 billion -- which is what
the experts said -- then what is your number, and how do you back it
up?"
Pelosi has rejected
the White House's attempts at compromise to secure wall funding,
including various immigration-related concessions for Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and extensions for emergency
refugees.
"I don't think that's a tenable position for most
Democrats," Scalise said. "We started seeing over the last few weeks
more and more Democrats coming to our side -- even Steny Hoyer, the
[Democratic] majority leader -- said physical barriers ought to be part
of the solution."
Earlier this month, Hoyer, D-Md., told Fox News that border walls "obviously" work in some instances, and rejected Pelosi's suggestion that walls are necessarily immoral.
And House
Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told ABC
News' "This Week" that he "would not rule out a wall in certain
instances," although he cautioned that the White House needed a better
"plan" than simply using a wall as a "talking point."
Democratic
leaders previously have supported building border walls. Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and other Democrats, including then-Sens.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, supported the Secure Fence Act of
2006, which authorized the construction of some 700 miles of fencing at
the border. As of 2015, virtually all of that fencing had been
completed, according to government figures.
FILE - In this Nov. 16, 2018, file photo, members of the U.S.
military install multiple tiers of concertina wire along the banks of
the Rio Grande near the Juarez-Lincoln Bridge at the U.S.-Mexico border
in Laredo, Texas. Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan says the U.S.
will be sending "several thousand" more American troops to the southern
border to provide additional support to Homeland Security. He says the
troops will mainly be used to install additional wire barriers and
provide increased surveillance of the area. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)
"The president said: 'I don't need a
sea-to-shining-sea wall," Scalise said. "But there's about 550 miles of
completely unprotected area where we know bad things -- drugs, human
trafficking, even murderers come across the border. Let's start focusing
on those areas."
He continued: "And if Nancy Pelosi really
doesn't want a wall, President Trump has said, 'Hey, I'll be willing to
let you put in language that bans cement wall.' But have some form of
physical barriers. The steel slat barriers right now are what the
experts say work the best. Let the experts figure that out."
The president's best chance to break the ongoing logjam with Pelosi, Scalise said, is the upcoming State of the Union address.
"They're
going to see President Trump laying out the case for securing America's
border," Scalise said, referring to the large audience expected to
watch the president's speech. "What it's going to take. There are bad
things that happen every day that most Americans never hear about. So
let's actually lay that case out. And then we'll see where everybody is
going to be."
Howard Schultz,
the self-made billionaire and former CEO of Starbucks, was heckled
Monday during an event at a New York City Barnes & Noble over fears
that an independent run in 2020 would all but guarantee President Trump’s second term.
Schultz,
who grew up in subsidized housing in Canarsie, Brooklyn, said in an
interview that aired Sunday that he is "seriously considering running
for president." His life story is compelling and different from Trump's.
Schultz said he had to "fight his way out" from his humble beginnings
whereas Trump benefited from his father's real estate business and
connections in New York.
Many Democrats have been vocal about the
dangers of a Schultz presidential run. One heckler in the audience on
Monday summed up their concern, "Don't help elect Trump you egotistical
billionaire a—hole," according to video that captured the exchange.
The
crowd booed, but the heckler continued, "Go back to Davos with the
other billionaire elite who think they know how to run the work."
Trump on Monday said Schultz doesn’t have the "guts" to run for president.
"Watched
him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the
‘smartest person.’ Besides, America already has that! I only hope that
Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!” Trump tweeted
Monday morning.
President Trump took aim at Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., in a tweet Monday.
(AP, File)
President Trump attacked Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., on Twitter Monday night, mockingly referring to him as "Da Nang Dick"
and questioning his fitness to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee
in the wake of decade-old allegations of stolen valor related to
Blumenthal's false claim that he fought in the Vietnam War.
"How
does Da Nang Dick (Blumenthal) serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee
when he defrauded the American people about his so called War Hero
status in Vietnam, only to later admit, with tears pouring down his
face, that he was never in Vietnam," wrote Trump, who added that
Blumenthal was, "An embarrassment to our Country!"
It's unclear
exactly what prompted the president's tweet. Earlier Monday, Blumenthal
and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced legislation that would
require Special Counsel Robert Mueller to submit a report to Congress
and the public when his investigation into alleged collusion between
Russian officials and the Trump campaign concludes. The legislation also
would require a report within two weeks if a special counsel is fired,
transferred or resigns.
Blumenthal, who was elected to the Senate
in 2010, regularly referenced his supposed Vietnam service in the 2000s,
when he was Connecticut attorney general.
“I served during the
Vietnam era,” Blumenthal reportedly said at a Vietnam War memorial in
2008. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even the physical
abuse.”
Blumenthal reportedly obtained at least five military
deferments between 1965 and 1970. He eventually served in the U.S.
Marine Corps Reserve, but did not deploy to Vietnam.
In 2010, Blumenthal admitted that he had "misspoken about my service, and I regret that and I take full responsibility."
Grassley
and Blumenthal are both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and
Grassley is a former chairman of the panel. Both men
supported legislation last year to protect Mueller's job. The bill,
approved by the Judiciary Committee in April, would allow any fired
special counsel to seek a judicial review within 10 days of removal and
put into law existing Justice Department regulations that a special
counsel can be fired only for good cause.
"A
special counsel is appointed only in very rare serious circumstances
involving grave violations of public trust," Blumenthal said. "The
public has a right and need to know the facts of such betrayals of
public trust."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declined to hold a vote on the bill, however, saying it was unnecessary.
California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris,
speaking during a town hall Monday night, vowed to eliminate all
private health care insurance for approximately 150 million Americans if
she is elected president.
Asked by CNN host Jake Tapper if
people who like their current health care insurance could keep it under
Harris' "Medicare for All" plan, Harris indicated they could not -- but
that, in turn, they would experience health care without any delays.
Her
statements appeared to be a full-throated call for single-payer health
insurance, as opposed to merely expanding Medicare, and a dramatic
embrace of the kind of proposals advocated by Vermont Independent Sen.
Bernie Sanders.
"Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets
access to medical care. And you don't have to go through the process of
going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going
through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require," Harris told
Tapper.
"Who among us has not had that situation?" she continued.
"Where you got to wait for approval, and the doctor says, 'Well I don't
know if your insurance company is going to cover this.' Let's eliminate
all of that. Let's move on." President Barack Obama famously
repeated several times throughout his presidency, in seeking to promote
the Affordable Care Act (known as "ObamaCare"), that "If you like your
health care plan, you can keep it." SF MAYOR SAYS HE HAD AFFAIR WITH HARRIS, HELPED HER CAREER The fact-checking website Politifact eventually named that statement its "Lie of the Year," noting
that several million Americans received cancellation notices from their
providers because of ObamaCare. Politifact also said the Obama
administration was aware from the outset that its promise was
unsustainable.
"Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on." — California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris
Harris
appeared unwilling to follow Obama's example on Monday night, and
instead stuck to her answer as she jokingly told Tapper to move onto the
next question.
During a speech to officially launch her 2020 run
earlier this month, Harris declared that "health care is a fundamental
right" and vowed to serve her constituents by supporting "Medicare for
All."
In August 2017, Harris became the first Senate Democrat to
support Sanders' "Medicare for All" bill. The program, if implemented,
would cost tens of trillions of dollars over a decade, experts say.
Several independent studies
have specifically estimated that government spending on health care
would surge by $25 trillion to $35 trillion or more in a 10-year period.
A study released over the summer by the Mercatus Center at George Mason
University, for example, estimated that Sanders' program would
cost $32.6 trillion — $3.26 trillion per year — over a decade.
By comparison, the federal budget proposal for the fiscal year 2019 was
$4.4 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office states.
FILE - In this Jan. 16, 2019, photo, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.,
reacts during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington.
“Medicare-for-all” makes a good first impression, but support plunges
when people are asked if they’d pay higher taxes or put up with
treatment delays to get it. AP
Analysis by The New York Times in
2017 showed at least 74 million Americans who currently benefit from
Medicaid would potentially face higher taxes under "Medicare for All."
Sanders
and New York Democratic Rep. Ocasio-Cortez have countered that while
spending would necessarily increase in the short-term, fundamentally
restructuring Medicare would ultimately yield sustained economic
benefits by reducing administrative inefficiencies, cutting perscription
drug costs, and encouraging young people to put more money into the
economy.
But Charles Blahous, a senior strategist at the Mercatus Center and an author of the study, has said Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders would need to make unrealistic assumptions to come to that conclusion, because increased demand for healthcare would potentially offset any such administrative gains.
He
criticized the two for making comments that "appear to reflect a
misunderstanding of my study" after they cited his work as proof that
'Medicare for All' would, in fact, necessarily save money. Numerous
fact-checkers, including The Washington Post and FactCheck, concluded that both liberal politicians had misread the paper's conclusions.
Speaking
separately in response to a gun rights question at Monday's town hall,
Harris urged a ban on "assault weapons," without defining the term.
"There
is no reason in a civil society that we have assault weapons around
communities that can kill babies and police officers," Harris said to
applause. "Something like universal background checks -- it makes
perfect sense that you might want to know before someone can buy a
weapon that can kill another human being, you might want to know have
they been convicted of a felony where they committed violence? That's
just reasonable. You might want to know before they can buy that gun if a
court has found them to be a danger to themselves or others. You just
might want to know. That's reasonable."
Harris also defended her
record as attorney general in California, saying she enforced the death
penalty in the state despite opposing the practice. Likewise, she said
she chose not to take a public position in 2015 on legislation to
require her office to investigate all police-related fatal shootings
because her office would write the law and enforce it.
The town hall event marked Harris' first public appearance in Iowa since announcing her candidacy last week.
New details contained in congressional transcripts and emails about a July 2016 meeting involving the author of the anti-Trump “dossier,” Justice Department
official Bruce Ohr, and his wife, Nellie, appear to conflict with
claims from Democrats -- and the co-founder of the firm behind the
dossier -- that significant contacts did not occur until after the
election.
According to the records, the little-known breakfast meeting was held on July 30, 2016 at Washington, D.C.’s Mayflower Hotel.
Congressional
transcripts, confirmed by Fox News, showed Nellie Ohr told House
investigators last year that Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who
compiled the dossier, wanted to get word to the FBI at the time.
“My
understanding was that Chris Steele was hoping that Bruce (Ohr) could
put in a word with the FBI to follow-up in some way,” Nellie Ohr
testified in response to a Republican line of questioning, regarding the
purpose of the meeting. Bruce Ohr did just that, almost immediately
contacting then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa
Page.
Asked by House investigators what they talked about at the
breakfast meeting, Nellie Ohr said: “[Steele’s] suspicions that Russian
Government figures were supporting the candidacy of Donald Trump.”
The
transcripts came from closed-door interviews conducted last year by the
House Oversight and Judiciary Committees when they were under
Republican control. The transcripts are undergoing an FBI and DOJ
review and are not public.
Nellie Ohr was of interest to
investigators since she conducted opposition research on then-candidate
Donald Trump for the firm Fusion GPS – the same company that
commissioned the dossier. Her husband, meanwhile, is a senior official
at the Justice Department who became a back channel between Steele and
the FBI, after Steele was fired by the bureau on the eve of the 2016
presidential election over his contacts with the media.
In her
testimony, Nellie Ohr also said that pieces of the unverified dossier –
which later would be used to secure a surveillance warrant for Trump
campaign aide Carter Page – may have been shared during the meal.
In
response to a committee Democrat's line of questioning, Ohr stated, "At
the breakfast, I – if I recall correctly, they may have shown pieces
..." of the document.
Ohr said she never saw the entire body of
opposition research, later dubbed the "dossier," until it was published
by BuzzFeed in January 2017. Question: "Okay. And you hadn't seen it or its portions during the time that you were employed, correct?" Ohr: "I -- if I recall correctly, I may have seen a -- maybe a page or something of it at the breakfast."
Email
traffic, reviewed by Fox News, indicated that Steele broached the
possibility of a meeting with Bruce Ohr as early as July 1, 2016.
He
emailed Ohr at the time: "I am seeing [redacted] in London next week to
discuss ongoing business but there is something separate I wanted to
discuss with you informally and separately. It concerns our favourite
business tycoon!"
Subsequent emails between Ohr and Steele also confirmed the July 30 meeting in Washington.
Nellie Ohr’s testimony regarding Steele and the FBI would appear to align with her husband’s.
Fox
News recently reported that Bruce Ohr told House investigators as part
of the Republican-led probe that shortly after the July 30, 2016
meeting, his “first move” was to reach out to senior FBI officials.
Fox
News recently confirmed the Bruce Ohr transcript said: “Andy McCabe,
yes and met with him and Lisa Page and provided information to him. I
subsequently met with Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and eventually [an FBI
agent]. And I also provided this information to people in the criminal
division specifically Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad, Andrew Weissmann.”
(Strzok and Page left the bureau last year after their anti-Trump texts
emerged. Swartz was a deputy assistant attorney general. Weissmann was
chief of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Fraud Section before becoming a
senior prosecutor on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Ahmad worked
at the DOJ and is also now assigned to Mueller’s team.)
However, congressional Democrats have asserted many of the contacts occurred later in the year.
In
February, in response to a Republican report on the
surveillance-warrant process, Democrats on the House Intelligence
Committee accused Republicans of overstating Bruce Ohr’s role.
"The
Majority mischaracterizes Bruce Ohr's role, overstates the significance
of his interactions with Steele, and misleads about the time frame of
Ohr's communication with the FBI. In late November, Ohr informed the FBI
of his prior professional relationship with Steele and information that
Steele shared with him (including Steele's concern about Trump being
compromised by Russia)," the Democrats' statement said. “He also
described his wife’s contract work with Fusion GPS, the firm that hired
Steele separately. This occurred weeks after the election and more than a
month after the Court approved the initial FISA application.”
There appeared to be another discrepancy.
The
emails showed Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson was in contact with
Ohr in August 2016. However, Simpson's November 2017 transcribed
interview before the House Intelligence Committee showed him saying he
worked through Bruce Ohr "sometime after Thanksgiving."
Fox News
recently asked the FBI, Justice Department and special counsel's office
whether the meetings with Ohr over Steele and the dossier were
consistent with -- or in conflict with -- existing DOJ or FBI rules,
including chain-of-custody procedures for handling evidence. In
addition, the special counsel's office was asked whether Weissmann and
Ahmad had fully disclosed their contacts with Bruce Ohr and others over
the dossier.
The FBI and special counsel declined to comment; the DOJ did not immediately respond.
An attorney for Nellie Ohr did not respond to a request for comment. An attorney for McCabe did not respond.
Fox
News also reached out to the office of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the
current chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for comment.
FILE – In this Wednesday, April 4, 2018 file photo, a U.S. soldier,
left, sits on an armored vehicle behind a sand barrier at a newly
installed position near the front line between the U.S-backed Syrian
Manbij Military Council and the Turkish-backed fighters, in Manbij,
north Syria. An American military official said Friday, Jan. 11, 2019
that the U.S.-led military coalition has begun the process of
withdrawing troops from Syria. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla, File)
A U.S.-led coalition is cracking down on the remnants of the Islamic
state in Syria, ahead of the planned troop withdrawal from the country.
According to the Syrian Democratic Forces, the ongoing U.S.-backed
offensive is focusing on the last outposts of ISIS on the Syrian-Iraqi
border.
Officials say ISIS only controls two small villages on the east bank of the Euphrates River.
SDF fighters believe ISIS will lose its last remaining territories over the upcoming weeks.
The ongoing military operation is expected to end the existence of the ISIS caliphate on the ground in Syria.
The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights said at least 42
people–including 13 civilians–were killed in a recent series of
airstrikes against the Islamic state.
Tom Brokaw, right, backtracked from remarks he gave on "Meet
the Press." (William B. Plowman/NBC/NBC NewsWire via Getty Images)
NBC News special
correspondent and former "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Brokaw
apologized Sunday evening for remarks he made on "Meet the Press"
earlier in the day about Hispanic assimilation, after the comments
triggered backlash.
During a panel discussion about the fight for a wall
along the U.S.-Mexico border, Brokaw said: "On the Republican side, a
lot of people see the rise of an extraordinary, important new
constituent in American politics, Hispanics, who will come here and all
be Democrats."
He continued, "Also, I hear, when I push people a
little harder, 'Well, I don’t know whether I want brown grandbabies.' I
mean, that’s also a part of it. It’s the intermarriage that is going on
and the cultures that are conflicting with each other." He did not
explain who had told him this.
Brokaw went on to say: "I also
happen to believe that the Hispanics should work harder at assimilation.
That’s one of the things I’ve been saying for a long time. You know,
they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure
that all their kids are learning to speak English, and that they feel
comfortable in the communities. And that’s going to take outreach on
both sides, frankly."
PBS correspondent Yamiche Alcindor replied:
"I grew up in Miami, where people speak Spanish, but their kids speak
English. And the idea that we think America can only speak English, as
if Spanish and other languages wasn’t always part of America, is, in
some ways, troubling."
The backlash was stronger online.
Sunday evening, Brokaw tweeted: "i feel terrible a part of my comments on Hispanics offended some members of that proud culture."
He
also wrote, "i’ve worked hard to knock down false stereo types... i
said ALL sides [have] to work harder at finding common ground."
He wrote
later: "i am sorry, truly sorry, my comments were offensive to many.
the great enduring american tradition of diversity is to be celebrated
and cherished. yamiche, thank u for your comments. let’s go forward
together."
However, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists said
the apology wasn't nearly enough. "To assert that the U.S. is not the
melting pot that the country prides itself on being, is disinformation
as the U.S. has always had immigrants and a mixture of races, religious
beliefs and languages in its history. It is these values in fact that
makes the country fascinating and has spread the 'American Dream,'" the
group said. "The 'sorry some Hispanics were offended' apology tweeted by
Tom Brokaw earlier this evening is not an apology at all. It only
further demonstrates Brokaw’s lack of understanding of what forced
assimilation does to communities."
NBC News did not respond to Fox News' request for comment.
Brokaw anchored the long-running "NBC Nightly News" from 1982-2004.
Howard Schultz says he is considering running for president as
a 'centrist independent.' (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz told CBS News' "60 Minutes" Sunday that he is "seriously thinking" of making a run for the White House in 2020 as a "centrist independent," decrying what he called "revenge politics" by both mainstream political parties.
"We're
living at a most fragile time, not only the fact that this president is
not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are
consistently not doing what's necessary on behalf of the American
people," said Schultz, who specifically cited the spiraling national
debt as "a reckless example, not only of Republicans, but of Democrats,
as well, as a reckless failure of their constitutional responsibility."
Late
Sunday, The New York Times reported that Schultz would spend the next
three months traveling around the country promoting his new book "From
the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America" before he
makes a final decision about whether or not to run. He has stops this
week in New York; Tempe, Arizona; Seattle; and San Francisco — but no
dates listed for the early voting states of Iowa or New Hampshire.
Hours
before the "60 Minutes" interview aired, Schultz sent his first message
on Twitter, where he's had an account since September 2012.
"It
feels good to be here," he wrote. "My hope is to share my truth, listen
to yours, build trust, and focus on things that can make us better."
Schultz
tweeted again after the interview aired, writing: "This moment is like
no other. Our two parties are more divided than ever. Let’s discuss how
we can come together to create opportunities for more people."
The
prospect of an independent run by Schultz, who described himself as a
"lifelong Democrat" and has given approximately $150,000 to Democratic
campaigns over the years, has caused consternation among the party's
establishment who fear he might siphon votes from whoever the Democrats
nominate to challenge President Trump.
"Howard Schultz running as
an independent isn’t about bringing people together," said Tina
Podlodowski, the Democratic Party chair in Schultz's adopted home state
of Washington, in a statement late Sunday. "It’s about one person:
Howard Schultz."
Neera Tanden, the president of the liberal Center
for American Progress, tweeted Saturday that she would boycott
Starbucks if Schultz threw his hat into the presidential ring.
"Vanity
projects that help destroy democracy are disgusting," she wrote. "
... I’m not giving a penny that will end up in the election coffers of a
guy who will help Trump win."
On "60 Minutes," Schultz deflected a
question from interviewer Scott Pelley about the possibility of playing
spoiler for a Democratic nominee.
"I wanna see the American
people win," he said. "I wanna see America win. I don't care if you're a
Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Republican. Bring me your ideas.
And I will be an independent person, who will embrace those ideas.
Because I am not, in any way, in bed with a party."
No third-party
or independent candidate has won over five percent of the popular vote
since Ross Perot in 1996, but Schultz said far more people than that
have had it with both parties.
"What we know, factually, is that
over 40 percent of the electorate is either a registered Independent or
currently affiliates themselves as an Independent," Schultz said,
"because the American people are exhausted. Their trust has been broken.
And they are looking for a better choice."
Schultz
criticized Trump for pulling out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement,
which he called a "tremendous mistake" and slammed the administration's
aggressive trade policy and outwardly ambivalent stance toward
multinational alliances.
"Is it in our national interest to have a
fight with Mexico, Canada, the EU, China, NATO? Is it in our interest?"
he said. "Give me a break. No, it's not in our interest. These are our
friends. These are our allies. We are much better, as a country, being
part of the world order."
On paper, Schultz offers a number of
qualities that might appeal to voters. He grew up in public housing in
Brooklyn, N.Y., and became the first person in his family to graduate
from college.
He took over Starbucks when it sold only coffee
beans, not cups — it had 11 stores and fewer than 100 employees at the
time — and grew it into a global behemoth that now has close to 30,000
stores in 78 countries. Along the way he adopted an ethos of corporate
responsibility, making Starbucks one of the earliest U.S. companies to
offer stock options and health insurance even to part-time employees,
and more recently partnering with Arizona State University to cover
tuition for workers who want to earn their bachelor's degree online.
He's
waded into contentious social issues. In 2013, Starbucks asked
customers not to bring guns into stores following the Sandy Hook
Elementary School shooting, and in 2015, Schultz drew anger and ridicule
after he urged baristas to write "Race Together" on cups to spark
conversations amid tension over police shootings of black men. Last
year, after two black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks
while waiting for a business meeting, Starbucks closed 8,000 U.S. stores
early so employees could take anti-bias training.
However,
some of his views might clash with a Democratic Party gearing up to
unseat Trump. While some potential nominees, including Massachusetts
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Sen. Kamala Harris, have endorsed
single-payer health care, heavily taxing the rich or free tuition at
public colleges, Schultz has criticized some such proposals as
unrealistic and instead emphasized expanding the economy and curbing
entitlements.
"It concerns me that so many voices within the
Democratic Party are going so far to the left," Schultz told CNBC last
June. "I ask myself, 'How are we going to pay for all these things?' in
terms of things like single-payer or people espousing the fact that the
government is going to give everyone a job. I don't think that's
realistic."