* Syria: "President Barack Obama said the U.S. will send an additional 250 military personnel to Syria, significantly expanding the American presence there to fight ISIS. Obama made the announcement in a speech in Germany."
* Cleveland: "How much is a black boy's life worth? In the case of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, $6 million. That's how much the city of Cleveland has agreed to pay to settle a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the boy's family."
* North Korea "said Sunday that it successfully test-fired a ballistic missile from a submarine and warned of its growing ability to cut down its enemies with a 'dagger of destruction.' South Korea couldn't immediately confirm the claim of success in what marks Pyongyang's latest effort to expand its military might in face of pressure by its neighbors and Washington."
* The plan is called Vision 2030 and it's worth watching: "Saudi Arabia is a country near-synonymous with the oil industry, but now the kingdom is moving to end what it calls its 'addiction to oil' with a new plan."
* The Justice Department has dropped another court case "trying to force Apple Inc. to help authorities open a locked iPhone, adding new uncertainty to the government's standoff with the technology company over encryption."
* Not just VW: "Mitsubishi Motors' fuel-economy scandal broadened Friday as U.S. auto safety authorities said they were seeking information, and news media reported that the automaker had submitted misleading data on at least one more model than disclosed and likely several others."
* An opportunity to put things right: "Four Democratic lawmakers in North Carolina's House of Representatives on Monday introduced a measure to repeal the state's controversial House Bill 2, otherwise known as the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, which prohibits transgender people from using the bathroom in accordance with their gender identities."
* Oklahoma "is just a signature away from revoking the licenses of most doctors who perform abortions."
When Republican officials and insiders talk about their fears for the party's national convention in Cleveland, they're generally talking about the concerns surrounding the process itself. Will the voting go smoothly? How many ballots will it take?
But there's also a very different kind of fear unfolding. As Politiconoted, some Republicans are worried about their personal safety.
In their Wednesday [Republican National Committee] meeting, the party chairs discussed developing security measures for delegates at the national convention. Louisiana chairman Roger Villere said he felt reassured by RNC chairman Reince Priebus and other party leaders that the security situation -- helmed by the Secret Service -- would be more than adequate to keep delegates safe.
"A lot of us bring our wives and children. Do we really want to? That's one of the things that was asked," Villere said. "They assured us that we would be protected."
And while I don't doubt that's true, what's striking is that these concerns exist at all. Ordinarily, both parties' national conventions are carefully scripted events -- sometimes derided as political "infomercials" -- in which the parties, their tickets, their candidates, and their base try to put forward their best possible message to a national audience.
In 2016, largely because of the unpredictability surrounding Donald Trump, his supporters, and the possibility of on-the-convention-floor violence, Republicans are forced to consider circumstances that would otherwise be unthinkable.
After a year of campaigning, it seemed as if we knew just about every point of contention between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, but on "Meet the Press" yesterday, NBC's Chuck Todd asked the Vermont senator about a relatively new one.
TODD: Why are you against the consumption tax -- the soda tax in Philadelphia -- that would pay for Pre-K? Universal Pre-K. Hillary Clinton's for it.
SANDERS: Yes. I'll tell you why. Because it is a totally regressive tax and right now, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when the wealthy are getting wealthier-- many of them pay an effective tax rate lower than working people. You have large multinational corporations not paying a nickel in federal taxes. That's where you get the money. Somebody's making $20,000 a year and they buy a bottle of soda, I don't think you charge them $0.30 more for that bottle of soda.
Sanders went on to note that he endorses Clinton's goal of universal pre-K, but he opposes the proposal put forward by officials in Philadelphia to pay for the policy through a soda tax.
This wouldn't be the first proposed soda tax, but it would be the largest: under the Philadelphia plan, the city would impose a 3-cent per ounce tax -- on distributors -- on sugary drinks. There's still some question about just how much of that would be passed along to consumers, but everyone agrees the cost of soda in the city would inevitably rise as a result of the policy.
It's also very likely that the tax would, in fact, be regressive, with evidence suggesting lower-income consumers are more likely to buy sugary drinks than higher-income consumers.
For local officials, however, it's worth pursuing a progressive goal -- universal pre-K -- even if that means adopting a regressive tax. Clinton is on board with the plan; Sanders is not.
Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* In keeping with the recent pattern, Ted Cruz's campaign dominated at Maine's state Republican convention over the weekend: "Nineteen of Cruz's slate of 20 delegates were picked for the Republican national convention, meaning that at least 19 out of the 23 delegates Maine will send to the convention in Cleveland will be Cruz supporters."
* In Rhode Island, one poll shows Sanders ahead by four points, while another shows Clinton ahead by nine points. We'll find out tomorrow which one is correct.
* The latest PPP results show Donald Trump cruising to easy wins in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
* On a related note, Trump told a Connecticut audience over the weekend that the recent chatter about him becoming more presidential is wrong. "I sort of don't like toning it down," he said. "Isn't it nice that I'm not one of these teleprompter guys?"
* In still more Trump-related news, the Republican tried on Friday to clarify his beliefs about transgender bathroom rights, but his comments didn't make any sense.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) delivered a speech last week at the Ethics and Public Policy Center's anniversary gala, and the Wisconsin Republican highlighted an interesting excerpt from the remarks on social media over the weekend:
"That is the key difference between ourselves and the progressives: We do not believe we should be governed by elites. We do not believe that there are experts or elites who should steer us in their preferred direction. We see that sense of organization as condescending, paternalistic, and downright arrogant. We know it's wrong. [...]
"Because we believe that all of us are equal, we believe there is no problem that all of us -- working together -- cannot solve. We believe every person has a piece of this puzzle, and only when we work together do we get the whole picture."
The speech as delivered was slightly different from the speech as written, and some of the changes are notable.
Regardless, I found the speech interesting because it sheds light on Ryan's broader worldview and what he sees as the major points of contention in these divisive political times. What was challenging, however, was understanding the meaning of some of the Speaker's labels.
For example, what exactly is an "elite" and who believes we should be governed by them? Ryan didn't specify, though he did note that he supports the idea of crafting a health care reform plan that's guided by consumers guided by the free market, rather than relying on guidance from health policy experts at HHS.
In other words, Paul Ryan seems to have a problem with expertise. Indeed, he explicitly rejected the idea of "experts" helping guide policy debates.
And if the Republican Speaker believes this is an important difference between conservatives and progressives, he may be onto something.
It wasn't the most offensive thing Donald Trump has said as a presidential candidate, but when it comes to public policy, it was almost certainly the most ridiculous: the Republican frontrunner vowed earlier this month that, if elected, he would eliminate the national debt in eight years.
Specifically, Trump told the Washington Post that he wants to see the United States "get rid of the $19 trillion in debt." Pressed for details, the GOP candidate said he "could do it fairly quickly," eliminating the debt "over a period of eight years."
Even by Trump standards, this was bonkers. He was effectively promising to deliver multi-trillion-dollar surpluses every year for eight years, even while approving massive tax breaks and increasing military spending. By any sane measure, the arithmetic made this literally impossible.
Last week, in an interview with Fortune magazine, Trump quietly pretended he never said what he said.
FORTUNE: You've said you plan to pay off the country's debt in 10 years. How's that possible?
TRUMP: No, I didn't say 10 years. First of all, with low interest rates, you can think in terms of refinancings, and get it down. I believe you can do certain things to pay off the debt more quickly. The most important thing is to make sure the economy stays strong. You can do it in smaller chunks. You can do it in larger chunks. And you can do it in refinancings.
FORTUNE: How much of the debt could you pay off in 10 years?
TRUMP: You could pay off a percentage of it.
Asked what percentage he had in mind, the GOP candidate added, "It depends on how aggressive you want to be. I'd rather not be so aggressive."
In other words, what Trump said three weeks ago is pretty much the opposite of what he said last week.
Though this may come as a bit of a surprise, the No Labels organization continues to exist, despite the fact that it doesn't appear to have had any influence on anyone at any time on any level. A couple of years ago, Yahoo News reported that the outfit "spends a disproportionate part of its budget maintaining and promoting its own organization, trying to keep its profile high while ensuring a steady flow of fundraising dollars" from undisclosed donors.
The revelations did not, however, do any real lasting damage to No Labels, and as Slate's Jim Newell explained the other day, the group and its leader even have a new election-year blueprint it wants the political world to take seriously.
Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, co-chairman of the nonpartisan "problem-solving" advocacy group No Labels, has a novel theory of what we're seeing this campaign. "Take a look at the two most interesting, surprising candidacies of the presidential year," he said Thursday at an event celebrating the release of No Labels' "policy playbook" for the 2016 election. "They want people to do something different. The best politics may be unconventional politics."
Lieberman, unconventionally, was explaining why he believes the moment is ripe for entitlement reform.
Ah, yes, there's the Joe Lieberman we all know. The aggressively centrist former senator sees Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders generating some excitement on the right and left, respectively, and Lieberman naturally assumes their success reflects an opportunity for a policy agenda neither Trump nor Sanders want any part of.
"The best politics may be unconventional politics"? Maybe so. But consider the gap between the message and the messenger: a senator-turned-lobbyist appeared in a D.C. ballroom at a luxury hotel to pitch a centrist platform that no doubt delighted other D.C. centrists. It's hard to even imagine a more "conventional" scenario. To think this relates in any way to the excitement surrounding Sanders and Trump is to miss the point of recent political developments in a rather spectacular way.
Or as the Slate piece put it, "For today's discontented voters, the sort of ballroom-luncheon centrism practiced for so long by the likes of Lieberman is more the target than the solution."
The conventional wisdom has shifted more than once about Donald Trump's chances of locking up the Republican nomination before the party's convention, but as things stand, his odds aren't bad at all.
There are five primaries tomorrow, and Trump is well positioned in all of them, including a big lead in Pennsylvania, this week's largest prize. Next week is Indiana's primary, and twonew polls show Trump ahead there, too. For good measure, the GOP frontrunner even has a sizable advantage in California, which has more delegates available than any other state.
The road ahead for Trump isn't easy, but if these polls are correct, and he wins by sufficient margins, it's hardly unrealistic to believe the New York developer will secure the necessary delegates by the time voting ends in early June. If Ted Cruz and John Kasich are going to prevent that outcome, they're going to have to do something.
The campaigns of Ted Cruz and John Kasich announced an agreement Sunday night to coordinate their efforts to prevent Donald Trump from winning the GOP's presidential nomination before the Republican National Convention.
"To ensure that we nominate a Republican who can unify the Republican Party and win in November, our campaign will focus its time and resources in Indiana and in turn clear the path for Gov. Kasich to compete in Oregon and New Mexico," Cruz's campaign manager Jeff Roe said in a statement late Sunday.
The Kasich campaign sent its own statement minutes later.
For his part, Trump accused his rivals of "colluding" against him, which seems fair, given that his rivals really are "colluding" against him.
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert is facing two very different kinds of accusations. One, which led to his arrest, involved the Illinois Republican lying to the FBI about covering up "misconduct" from his tenure as a high school coach many years ago. Hastert has already issued a guilty plea as part of an agreement with federal prosecutors.
The second is the "misconduct" itself: Hastert is accused of being an alleged serial child molester. It's the severity of these accusations that's led prosecutors to seek the harshest possible penalty, including jail time. It's also prompted many of the former Speaker's allies to seek leniency.
The wife and sons of Dennis Hastert and former politicians have written letters asking a judge to spare the ex-Speaker of the House prison in his hush-money case, according to court documents made public Friday.
Prosecutors are asking that Hastert, 74, be sentenced to six months in prison for structuring withdrawals to avoid bank reporting laws. Hastert's attorneys are asking for probation.
Perhaps no letter is quite as striking as the one sent by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who told the judge, "We all have our flaws, but Dennis Hastert has very few."
It's almost like an ugly punch line to an inappropriate joke: Hastert's few "flaws" include being accused of sexually abusing several minors and then orchestrating a scheme to cover up his alleged misdeeds.
DeLay added that Hastert "doesn't deserve what he is going through."
In recent weeks, as his odds of winning the Democratic nomination have grown longer, Bernie Sanders has offered different explanations of why he's come up short thus far. The senator has pointed several times, for example, to the results from Southern primaries, which has proven problematic for a variety of reasons.
Yesterday, however, talking to NBC News' Chuck Todd, Sanders put forward a new take on the Democratic race. Here was the exchange on "Meet the Press":
TODD: I have quite some interesting numbers here. So 17 of the 25 states with the highest levels of income inequality have held primaries. Sixteen of those 17 states have been won by Hillary Clinton, not by you. Why?
SANDERS: Well, because poor people don't vote. I mean, that's just a fact. That's a sad reality of American society. And that's what we have to transform. We have one -- as you know, one of the lowest voter turnouts of any major country on Earth. We have done a good job bringing young people in. I think we have done -- had some success with lower income people. But in America today -- the last election in 2014, 80% percent of poor people did not vote.
It's a provocative thesis, which is half-right. Note, for example, that Sanders' case that low-income Americans vote in much lower numbers is absolutely correct. There's ample evidence that points to a striking relationship between income and voting participation: the more money a voter makes, the more likely it is that he or she will participate in an election.
Demos published a fascinating report on this a couple of years ago, scrutinizing the 2010 cycle, and making the same point Sanders stressed yesterday: affluent citizens voted at rates "as high as 35 percentage points [higher] than low-income citizens."
There are all kinds of important political and societal consequences associated with this trend, not the least of which is policymakers, eager to keep their jobs, catering to the interests of those most likely to be engaged. If low-income Americans voted in greater numbers, national politics would likely look a lot different.
Where Sanders' explanation comes up short, however, is his belief that he'd be the principal beneficiary if these struggling voters showed up in greater numbers.
First up from the God Machine this week is a story out of Kentucky that we've been watching for years, about a controversial theme park that's subsidized by taxpayers, but which is nevertheless openly discriminating in its hiring.
The Kentucky Associated Press reported, "Want to serve food or operate rides at Kentucky's new Noah's Ark attraction? Then you must first pledge your Christianity."
The theme park will be searching for 300 to 400 workers to fill food service, ticketing and other theme park-related positions at the 510-foot long Ark Encounter before it opens in July and Ken Ham, founder of the ministry Answers in Genesis, says employees will be required to sign a statement saying they're Christian and "profess Christ as their savior."
The religious group, which will run the ark's operations, won a federal court ruling in January that clarified that it can make religious-based hires even as it seeks a Kentucky tourism tax incentive worth millions.
Ken Ham said last week that he's "requiring" employees to be Christians, even if their specific jobs have nothing to do with religion.
A report from Raw Story added job seekers must submit a "creation belief statement" and "salvation testimony" before being hired, in addition to endorsing the official Answers in Genesis "Statement of Faith," which among other things, dictates that the planet is roughly 6,000 years old.
On Twitter, Ken Ham wrote, "Secular media think it's big news that a Christian organization with a specific Christian purpose @ArkEncounter will employ Christians -DUH!"
And while that may not seem controversial, this story is a little different. As longtime readers may recall, the Answers in Genesis ministry sought and received taxpayer support for the project, and state officials, in the name of boosting tourism, approved $18 million in tax subsidies to bolster the theme park's finances.
The state of Kentucky pulled back, however, after it learned that Ark Encounter intended to discriminate in hiring. If the ministry wants taxpayer money, the state said, it can't discriminate against the same taxpayers supporting the project.
Answers in Genesis took the matter to court, arguing that Kentucky was discriminating against the ministry because the group wants to discriminate. Inexplicably, a federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush ruled in the ministry's favor, ordering the state to subsidize employment discrimination.
Maybe this will be reversed on appeal? Actually, no -- because new Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) likes the ruling and has no interest in challenging it.
And so, the theme park will discriminate against Kentucky residents, even as Kentucky residents help pay for the theme park.
Launched in 2008, “The Rachel Maddow Show” follows the machinations of policy making in America, from local political activism to international diplomacy. Rachel Maddow looks past the distractions of political theater and stunts and focuses on the legislative proposals and policies that shape American life - as well as the people making and influencing those policies and their ultimate outcome, intended or otherwise.