Groups plan town hall in South Bend on array of issues. Rep. Yakym invited to participate.
SOUTH BEND — A public town hall — titled 'The 2nd Congressional District Town Hall Meeting: Important Issues Facing Indiana and the U.S.' — will be from 6 to 8 p.m. Monday, April 14, where experts will speak on issues like education, immigration, civil rights, campus free speech, health care, the environment and foreign policy.
The groups Common Cause Indiana and Michiana Alliance for Democracy are organizing the event, which will be in the Gillespie Conference Center, 53995 Indiana 933.
The groups say they have invited Rep. Rudy Yakym (R-2nd) to participate, but, as of Thursday morning, they hadn't received a confirmation from him.
In their invitation to Yakym, the organizers said the event is "non-partisan" and stressed the importance of representatives hearing from their constituents and constituents hearing from their representatives.
"As Indiana's 2nd Congressional District Congressperson, we recognize your expertise and would value your input on our panel to discuss topics of interest to the voters in your district," they wrote in their invitation to Yakym. "You bring knowledge of the workings of our House of Representatives, and you hold a key role as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, so your participation will greatly inform the discussion."
The town hall also will include time for questions and answers. Audience members will submit their questions to a moderator, who will then pose them to the panelists for any of them to respond.
Michiana Alliance for Democracy organized South Bend's rally that drew thousands of participants as part of the national April 5 "Hands Off!" protests.
This article originally appeared on South Bend Tribune: South Bend town hall to discuss education, immigration, health care
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
14 hours ago
- CNBC
How the stablecoin bill gives Treasury Secretary Bessent a new tool to fund the U.S. deficit
The crypto industry is on the verge of a major regulatory milestone, and it could lead to digital assets being a significant source of funding for the U.S. government. On Tuesday, the Senate passed the GENIUS Act , which lays out a regulatory framework for stablecoins, sending it on to the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent praised the bill in a post on X , saying that a regulated and growing stablecoin market could create new buyers for U.S. government debt. "A thriving stablecoin ecosystem will drive demand from the private sector for US Treasuries, which back stablecoins. This newfound demand could lower government borrowing costs and help rein in the national debt. It could also onramp millions of new users — across the globe — to the dollar-based digital asset economy," Bessent said. "It's a win-win-win for everyone involved" The exact size the stablecoin market can reach in the future is unclear, but it does appear that the U.S. government will have plenty of debt to sell to it. The Congressional Budget Office's dynamic score — which takes into account the legislation's potential changes to factors like economic growth — said the tax and spending bill that recently passed the House would increase the total deficit by $3.4 trillion from 2025 to 2034, including interest costs. The current size of the U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoin market is around $230 billion to $250 billion, according to Robbert van Batenburg, strategist at The Bear Traps Report, and there is a theory that a clearer regulatory framework can help lead to wider adoption. Several major tech and consumer companies are reportedly exploring issuing their own stablecoins or using existing coins more frequently. Bessent previously told the House Financial Services Committee in May that there is "speculation" the stablecoin market could be "up to $2 trillion of demand over the next few years for U.S. government securities from digital assets." The market could in theory surpass that $2 trillion figure if stablecoins start to take market share from traditional credit card payment networks, van Batenburg said. The stablecoin bill also comes at a time when Wall Street has started to fret about foreign investors and governments turning away from U.S. assets. Katie Haun, founder and CEO of Haun Ventures and former Coinbase board member, said Friday on " Squawk Box " that the stablecoin industry is already 14th largest holder in the world of U.S. Treasurys, ahead of nations like Germany and Norway, and that the new legislation should help it continue to grow. "I've been asking for regulatory clarity and more rules of the road, and I think the GENIUS Act is exactly that," Haun said. How stablecoins work Stablecoins are a type of digital currency that is often used to facilitate crypto trading but can also work for other types of transactions. They are designed to be "stable" at a set value. Some stablecoins have drawn scrutiny in the past over concerns that their reserves were insufficient or relied on mechanisms that would unreliable in times of market stress. The Senate bill calls for stablecoins to be backed on at least a 1-to-1 basis by highly liquid assets, including U.S. currency, U.S. Treasury bills, repurchase agreements — or "repos" — backed by Treasury securities, government money market funds and central bank reserve deposits. An example of a stablecoin's reserves can be found in the disclosures from Circle , which went public earlier this month and has seen its stock soar . CRCL 1M mountain Shares of Circle have soared since the IPO. Circle's IPO prospectus shows that the vast majority of its stablecoin reserves are held in a BlackRock vehicle called the Circle Reserve Fund . That fund's holdings are split roughly 50-50 between short-term U.S. Treasury Debt and Treasury repurchase agreements. If the GENIUS Act is enacted as currently written, stablecoin companies will be required to certify they have these holdings on a monthly basis, with the oversight of registered public accounting companies. Risks A growing stablecoin industry in the U.S. is not likely to completely fix the government's debt funding problem, and it could introduce additional risks. Nonprofit group Better Markets opposes the GENIUS Act, and its policy director Amanda Fischer said in a statement that the bill ignores "the susceptibility of stablecoin companies to runs, bankruptcies, and taxpayer-funded bailouts." Counting on the industry as a funding source for the Treasury market could also be tricky. Lawrence McDonald, founder of the Bear Traps Report, cautioned that additional demand from stablecoins will take time to develop while the U.S. Treasury will likely need to issue significant amounts of debt securities over the next year. McDonald also said that, while interest costs of short-term debt are cheaper than that of 30-year Treasurys, relying so heavily on the short-end of the bond market can be a problem for countries. "If something ever went wrong, in terms of say oil, and that prevented the [Federal Reserve] from cutting, then you're going to have a high bill rate for a long-time and the deficit is going to spiral out of control," McDonald said.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
What to know as the Senate tries to pass Trump's agenda bill next week
It's go time in the Senate for President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' After months of negotiations, Senate Republicans are gearing up for a potential vote next week on Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill. It will be a major test for Republican Leader John Thune and Trump's own hold on the upper chamber that aides say will be cast as a binary choice for the rank-and-file: you either are with the president or you aren't. Thune has predicted the Senate could begin consideration on the bill as early as the middle of next week. That would mean a massive sprint starting this weekend to draft final text, whip votes and iron out a series of major sticking points that will satisfy holdouts – without pushing the bill in such a different direction that it stalls out in the House of Representatives where it passed by a single vote. The bottom line is next week is crunch time and all the hard decisions that have been punted will need to be made in the next several days. Aides and members say that if everything goes according to plan (and that's far from certain), the 20-hour clock to debate the bill could start as soon as Wednesday. Republicans would yield a big part of their time back and vote-a-rama – an hours-long voting marathon – could begin Thursday evening into Friday. That could always get pushed into Friday evening, but right now the goal is to have this finished by the end of next week. Over the next several days, a myriad of technical work and hard-fought negotiations have to unfold in order to get the bill to a place where it is even ready for the floor. Some of these negotiations will be substantial, others will be a way to give members an off-ramp to vote 'yes' because members really do want to back the president here. One of those tasks is already underway and will continue this weekend: the Byrd Bath. Simply put, the Byrd bath is a critical process led by the Senate parliamentarian that ensures all the provisions of the bill comply with special Senate rules that allow Republicans to move this bill with a simple majority rather than being subject to the normal 60-vote threshold. Those rules are specific and nuanced, but the Budget Control Act set parameters that required provisions within a bill that is going to pass with a simple majority to have more than just an 'incidental' budget impact. The parliamentarian traditionally makes a call on whether a provision qualifies. It's named after the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who came up with the rule to stop either side from abusing the reconciliation process and trying to use it to just pass legislation that bypassed a filibuster. The way it works is Democrats and Republican staffers of each committee with jurisdiction in the bill privately meet with the parliamentarian and make their arguments for whether provisions meet the confines of the process. The Senate Finance Committee is expected to undertake this process Sunday evening, a critical step in moving forward because so many of the tax and health care provisions that are the heart of this bill are in Finance's purview. Several other committees have already begun, including the Senate Banking Committee, which Democrats say led to some of the provisions in that committee's jurisdiction from being ruled out of compliance with reconciliation. 'The Parliamentarian agreed that the funding cap for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), elimination of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), gutting of the Office of Financial Research and Financial Stability Oversight Council, and slashing Federal Reserve staff salaries violate the Senate's Byrd Rule,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren's office announced in a statement. State and local tax deductions: This may be the biggest hurdle right now. Unlike in the House, where a number of swing district members hail from high-tax states, there is absolutely no interest in the Senate in investing hundreds of billions of dollars to raise the cap on how much constituents in New York, California, New Jersey and Illinois can deduct in state and local taxes on their federal taxes. The Senate bill currently keeps the cap frozen at $10,000, a placeholder that Senate leaders have indicated they may be willing to negotiate on. But the coalition of House Republicans who raised the cap to $40,000 for certain income thresholds under $500,000 aren't interested in renegotiating the hard-fought deal they cemented in the House. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma and former House member, has been leading the talks over the issue, but so far there is no deal. There is some discussion, two sources say, over dialing back the income threshold for who qualifies for the $40,000 deduction but so far that's been a nonstarter for the group of House Republicans who got this concession in the House bill a few weeks ago. To say there is palpable frustration in the Senate with a handful of House members dictating the future of a provision in the Senate bill that no one in that chamber cares much about is putting it mildly. Medicaid: A number of Senate Republicans have made clear they could vote against the Senate bill if there aren't protections to ensure rural hospitals are protected from some of the changes to Medicaid in the bill, like the slash to how much hospitals can be held harmless when it comes to the provider tax. Led by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a group of these Republicans are pushing leadership to create a kind of stabilization fund that states could use. Aides close to the process say that it could go a long way to win over some skeptical Republicans, including people like Sen. Jim Justice of West Virginia and Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley. The particulars of how the fund would be structured and how much it would cost are still being considered and it's important to note that the fund helps hospital but wouldn't do much for others who could lose coverage because of other changes to Medicaid, including new work requirements. Green energy tax credits: While the Senate bill takes a slower approach to phasing out some of the clean energy tax credits that were a key part of the Biden administration's environmental legacy, there are still some Republicans who have warned that some of the phaseouts may happen too quickly. Other conservatives have warned that they need to be eradicated more expeditiously, setting up a massive clash and one that could rear its head again if the Senate passes a bill that ultimately doesn't go as far as the House did. A last-minute negotiation is ultimately what got House conservatives to vote for the bill so any changes to the timeline could be an issue when the bill goes back to the House. Once the Senate passes its version of Trump's bill, it will go over to the House. There, Speaker Mike Johnson and his GOP conference will have to decide whether to back the new bill – or begin the drawn-out process of trying to negotiate. Do they swallow the Senate's big changes and allow the bill to move quickly to Trump's desk for a huge policy win? Or do they fight for their own version and begin the rigorous, and time-consuming, process of a conference committee, where both chambers will formally iron out their differences? Johnson and Trump are both hoping to avoid the latter option – but will the fractious House GOP conference agree?
Boston Globe
20 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Still marching after all these years
Many of us have had a lot of practice: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. We protested every bad government action. Advertisement I learned nonviolent civil disobedience from my parents, growing up in Brooklyn. They were activists even before Vietnam. During the civil rights movement, in 1964, driving through St. Augustine, Fla., they attended a demonstration. When protesters refused to leave a sit-in attempting to integrate the Ponce de Leon Motor Lodge restaurant, some were arrested and jailed. My parents were not arrested, but they were present, in solidarity, as lifelong believers in human rights, in including Black Americans in the American Dream. What we now call DEI was already a good goal. Advertisement And me? Young as I was, my good-girl head was down, finishing my master's thesis on Proust, in graduate school far away. I was merely an educated girl, not political yet, not focused on the common good as they were. Both of them had been radicals in the 1930s, when Jewish leftists and others hoped that a popular front could remake US labor relations, control capitalist greed, and bring America closer to equality for women and people of color. Paul Robeson was one of their idols, along with Eleanor Roosevelt. Later, they opposed the Vietnam War, just as my husband and I did. In 1968, running against feckless Hubert Humphrey, treacherous Richard Nixon promised to end the war, and then prolonged it until more than 50,000 men my age died, as well as countless Vietnamese and Cambodians. In 1972 my father worked to elect Elizabeth Holtzman, also of Brooklyn, to Congress. So she was in the House of Representatives in time to vote to impeach the corrupt Nixon in the summer of 1974. My father, with ALS sapping his body, had followed the investigation and trial avidly from the green couch in the living room. But he missed out on the ending. By August he was in a coma; he died two days short of Nixon's ignominious exit. The night Nixon left, making his awkward, hypocritical peace signs, my mother and I were dining in the dim kitchen with my cousin Sherry, grieving and rejoicing. In that painful, complex mood, we poured some wine and drank to him: 'Marty should have been here to see this day.' 'Daddy should have been here.' Advertisement I know my parents would be out with me on the streets now. They were there, in a sense — at a #HandsOff rally on April 5 in Newton, at an April 19 event to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the beginning of the American Revolution in Waltham, and then at the 'No Kings' rally. The signs were clever and scathing at all these events; drivers going by were honking in approval, shouting, applauding. My laconic father's sign would have said, very big, in block letters, 'NO!' Once when my mother was in her 90s and had lost many memories, I asked her, 'What is wisdom?' She answered unhesitatingly: 'The greatest part of wisdom is kindness.' Her sign, which I saw an older woman hold at the Waltham rally, would have read 'Make America kind again.' 'Nothing is stranger than the position of the dead among the living,' Virginia Woolf wrote in her first, unpublished novel, 'Melymbrosia.' I find it marvelous that my parents can still stand by my side. The rest of our family is in the streets, too: our son and his children in New York City. That solidarity is so welcome to us — just as it must have been to my parents when we opposed the Vietnam War early on, when they felt alone and scorned, when so few Americans had yet come to their senses. Advertisement Intergenerational solidarity is precious. That preciousness includes not only the next generations, but the oldest, too. To all of us lucky enough to have older people in our lives, they comfort us by their presence. Repositories of family lore and legend, they dole out secrets and, for better or worse, guide us by their experiences. And sometimes by the energy of their activism, right now! I see my parents' faces vividly. I summon them and their will to do good, which survives them, in this national emergency. Their memory is a blessing in the here and now and the strife to come.
