Philly-area House Dem says he won't seek reelection
'I remain in good health and fully capable of continuing to serve. After some discussions this weekend and thoughtful reflection, I have decided that the time is right to announce that I will not be seeking re-election in 2026,' the congressman said in a statement.
Evans, 71, suffered a stroke last year that kept him from voting at the Capitol for seven months. Several local Democrats said last week, before Evans's announcement, that they were weighing primary challenges against the congressman, who until recently maintained that he was still running.
Evans has held the seat since 2016, after 35 years as a state legislator. He said that he planned to serve out his full term.
Several state lawmakers are now weighing bids for his seat, including Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chair Sharif Street and Reps. Morgan Cephas and Chris Rabb.
Evans is the third Democrat over 70 to announce his retirement this year. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-lll.) said this year that she wouldn't seek a 15th term. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said in April he wouldn't seek reelection before dying the next month from cancer. He was 75.
Debate over the age of Democratic incumbents has been a flash point for the party of late, with former Democratic National Committee vice chair David Hogg announcing a $20 million fund to support young candidates challenging aging lawmakers. He lost his spot in formal party leadership in the ensuing controversy.
More than half of the 30 House Democrats over 70 in May told Axios that they were planning to run again.
Democrats are not the only party with older representatives, however. Former Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) stopped coming to votes last year because she had been living in an assisted-living facility with what her son called 'dementia issues.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
The ‘woke right' free-trade critics are only fooling themselves
Capitalism gets a lot of hate. I expect it from the left. They blame free markets for racism, 'horrifying inequality' and even, according to economist Joseph Stiglitz, 'accelerating climate change.' People on the right generally defend capitalism, but today, a growing number agree with the left. Advertisement Author James Lindsay says, 'They make the exact same arguments that we've heard for decades: 'capitalism has made everything about the dollar. Everything's about GDP . . . you lose everything that really matters, like kinship and nation and identity.' ' Tucker Carlson, who Lindsay calls 'woke right,' praises Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren's economic programs, saying they 'make obvious sense.' 'Astonishing!' says Lindsay. Advertisement 'Warren put forth something called the 'Accountable Capitalism Act,' which was going to restrain the way that corporations are able to behave under the brand name of 'accountability'.' Even Vice President JD Vance attacks free trade. 'While the government shouldn't be controlling the American economy,' Vance said, 'we should . . . put a little bit of a thumb on the scale . . . protect nascent industries from foreign competition.' That is 'just another way of saying, 'your company got too big, so we need to take some of your property and distribute it further down the chain,'' says Lindsay. Advertisement The veep is 'very against large multinational corporations and the things that they do and wants to limit them.' But why? Large companies get large mostly by doing things right. Businesses don't make profits unless they please their customers. Look at places that mostly embrace free markets — the United States, Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand and Hong Kong (until China's government clamped down). Advertisement These are good places to live. People prosper when markets are free. 'It works!' says Lindsay. 'When you have free people who can engage freely with one another and trade . . . you actually have a rising of all ships. Because what you have is a people who are free to do with their things as they will. 'They, therefore, can implement their stuff, their money, their resources, their talents, whatever they happen to be, to solve problems for other people. And when you solve a problem for other people, even if it's a kind of silly thing, like entertaining them with a silly game on their phone, when you solve a problem for other people, they'll give you money for it in exchange.' Exactly: Trade is win-win. Otherwise, we wouldn't engage in it. So it puzzles me that as markets continue to lift more people out of poverty, capitalism faces more attacks — even from the right. 'The problem,' says Lindsay, is 'it requires people to be free . . . You can't control people who are free. 'So we need to have a government system to tell them to do the right thing in the name of the common good. That's the mentality.' Advertisement Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Lindsay once hoaxed a conservative magazine, American Reformer, into publishing part of the 'Communist Manifesto,' merely by substituting Christian nationalist language for words like 'proletariat.' When the editors learned that they'd been tricked, they left the article up, saying it was 'a reasonable aggregation of some New Right ideas.' Advertisement Yikes. Government-managed trade, protection for politically connected industries, state promotion of Christianity, speech restrictions, morality laws, state-owned industry, cronyism — these are bad ideas, no matter which side sells them. John Stossel is the author of 'Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.'
New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
Sorry, New York: West Virginia won't clean up your climate mess
West Virginians mined the coal that forged the steel that built New York City. The Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge, even the subway — none of these iconic landmarks would exist without the blood and sweat of West Virginia coal miners. West Virginia still powers the nation, supplementing its coal production with oil and natural gas. An overview of the city is seen on Wednesday, May 31, 2023, in Welch, McDowell County, West Virginia. AP But New York elites want to punish West Virginians for doing the very jobs that provide them so much comfort in their ivory towers. The Climate Change Superfund Act, which the Democrat-run state Legislature passed and Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law in December, imposes liability on energy producers for doing just that — producing energy. It declares that carbon emissions cause climate change, and are therefore to blame for any and every undesirable weather condition the state faces. New York's state government has bungled disaster response time and again. Its politicians want someone to blame, and they chose the energy industry. They chose wrong. West Virginians don't back down. And we won't allow political elites to serve as judge, jury and executioner against the industry that employs thousands of West Virginia coal miners and gas and oil technicians and operators. New York's law imposes strict liability on any company producing a certain, arbitrary amount of carbon emissions, to be determined by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Worse, the law targets past emissions, punishing producers retroactively for lawfully running their businesses. One World Trade Center rises amongst the downtown Manhattan skyline in New York City, U.S., July 22, 2025. REUTERS The DEC doesn't have to find fault. It doesn't have to file a lawsuit and convince a judge or jury that a particular energy producer caused specific harm to New York. No, the law declares energy producers to be automatically 'responsible' just because politicians say so. That's not justice, and it's not the rule of law. That's authoritarian bureaucrats picking winners and losers. And the losers will be many. The statute requires energy producers to pay $75 billion to the state of New York — money that could be spent on salaries and benefits for workers, or for new infrastructure projects to make everyone's energy more affordable. That $75 billion loss will cause three things: job loss, higher prices at the pump and higher utility bills — hurting hardworking Americans across the board, New Yorkers included. The only winners are the political elites who aim to bend America to their radical agenda, no matter the cost. Fortunately, the United States Constitution has something to say about this lawlessness. For starters, it prohibits any state from unduly regulating commerce in another state. West Virginia can't tell Idaho potato farmers how to harvest their spuds — and New York can't tell West Virginia energy companies how to mine coal or extract gas and oil. The Constitution also doesn't allow states to come up with their own regulatory schemes when the federal government has rules controlling specific conduct, especially in areas of unique federal interest. The US Environmental Protection Agency regulates greenhouse-gas emissions; New York doesn't have that power. So New York can't go back in time and penalize energy production in other states that the EPA said was lawful. In fact, a federal appellate court ruled against New York City when it tried to do much the same thing just a few years ago. On top of that, the law is simply unfair. Our country was founded on the principle of due process of law. Every citizen has the right to be heard, and every citizen has the right to conform their conduct to the law. New York's law takes away those rights. Imagine a state lowering the highway speed limit from 65 to 55 miles per hour — then ticketing you for going 65 last year. That's what this law does to energy producers, slammed with a staggering $75 billion fine by unelected backroom bureaucrats without any meaningful chance to defend themselves. It blatantly offends the Constitution and the fundamental sense of fairness that has existed in our country for 250 years. That's why I, along with 21 other state attorneys general, three energy trade associations and one energy company, have sued the New York politicians responsible for implementing the Climate Change Superfund Act. Our coalition is asking a federal court to issue an injunction stopping this unconstitutional overreach that would wreck our nation's power grid and put thousands of Americans out of work. New York's political elites may think they can seize control of America's energy industry, but we won't allow them to go unchecked. This is a fight for America's energy independence, for American jobs and for the rule of law. West Virginia won't go quietly. J.B. McCuskey is the attorney general of West Virginia.
NBC News
4 minutes ago
- NBC News
Some Republicans push to undo gambling tax hike they passed in Trump's megabill
WASHINGTON — Some top Republicans are regretting that they inserted a tax hike on gamblers into President Donald Trump's megabill, with several lawmakers who supported the legislation now calling for rolling back that policy. Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., the chair of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, told NBC News that the provision was a 'mistake' and needs to be undone. 'It was definitely not something that we did in the House. I don't understand why the Senate decided to do something like that,' Smith said in a brief interview Wednesday. 'And so it is definitely a provision that — I'm interested in making sure that we fix the Senate's mistake.' The new law cuts the tax deduction on 'wagering losses' from 100% to 90% of losses starting in 2026, disrupting the current dynamic where bettors can offset losses with gains and pay taxes only on net earnings. The new policy could tax gamblers even in years where they break even or net-out losses. For instance, a bettor who wins $100,000 and loses $100,000 in the same year would be stuck with a taxable income of $10,000. 'It would be potentially catastrophic for the industry as it would disproportionately affect high volume gamblers,' said Jack Andrews, the professional sports bettor who goes by that alias. 'Those high volume players are the lifeblood of most casinos,' he added. 'If they realize they could lose, and still have taxable income to pay that they didn't make, they'll stop playing. Or find ways to play that don't generate a paper trail.' Andrews said the new law 'could result in players losing money gambling, but still owing taxes on 'income' they didn't make.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the gambling tax change will raise $1.1 billion over a decade. At least a couple of senators who supported the megabill — which passed with only GOP votes — want to undo the gambling tax. Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee have signed on to legislation to roll it back, alongside Nevada's two Democratic senators, Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen. The bill is called the Facilitating Useful Loss Limitations to Help Our Unique Service Economy Act, or the FULL HOUSE Act. 'It's unfair. It makes no sense,' Cruz, who plays poker in his spare time, said in an interview of the tax provision. 'The income tax is designed to tax actual income,' he said. 'For example, playing poker for profession — not allowing them to deduct their losses means they're paying taxes not on their actual income.' 'I think we should fix it,' he added. Cruz said most Republicans voted to pass the gambling tax change without knowing about it, a damning indictment of the legislative process for the bill. 'Nobody really takes responsibility for introducing it,' Cruz said. 'None of us knew about it. It's a very big, beautiful bill, and so there are lots of provisions there that at the end, things were moving very fast. I don't know of anyone who was aware of the provision at the time it passed.' The provision was introduced in the mid-June version of the bill, with Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, overseeing the tax portion as chair of the Senate Finance Committee. And he, too, is open to revisiting it. 'Senator Crapo is open to receiving feedback from affected stakeholders and learning more about industry reporting and compliance,' a Crapo spokesperson said. 'To comply with the rules of reconciliation, every provision from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act needed to be modified to create a budgetary effect. In order to retain the gambling loss provision, it was changed to 90 percent,' the spokesperson added. 'While the committee heard from gaming associations on other provisions after text was released on June 16th, there were no concerns raised with lowering the threshold.' The blowback from bettors has since grown since Trump signed the bill into law on July 4, and Democrats have added it to their list of grievances with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'Republicans' hastily put-together bill is full of provisions that are completely counterproductive and harmful to Americans. The provision limiting the wagering loss deduction will have a negative impact on Nevada, and it's one of the many reasons I voted no,' Cortez Masto, the author of the FULL HOUSE Act. On July 10, she sought unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass the legislation but was met with an objection from Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., which prevented speedy passage. Her office said she will 'continue to explore all options available to restore the 100% dedication for gambling losses and protect Nevada's gaming and hospitality industries.' If the tax change isn't undone, it will come as a shock to some bettors, as 'many of them wouldn't realize this until they do their 2026 taxes, which would be early 2027,' Andrews said. But reversing it won't be so easy. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., poured cold water on the proposals from some Republicans to roll back parts of the bill. Asked by NBC News on Tuesday whether measures offered by his colleagues to undo the Medicaid cuts and gambling tax were going to succeed, Thune said flatly, 'No.' 'There are members out there who are saying, we'd like to do this or that differently. That's always the case,' Thune said. 'This was a big piece of legislation that had a lot of moving parts. Not everybody got everything they wanted, but at the end of the day, it's historic in its breadth and the things that it addresses.' The White House didn't immediately return a message seeking comment on whether Trump is open to revisiting the provision. Other Republicans say they're unfamiliar with the industry blowback to the gamblers' tax change. 'I honestly, frankly, haven't had a chance to look at it. So I don't even know what they're talking about,' Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., the second ranking Republican on Ways and Means, said. On the other hand, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, sounded surprised by how much attention the issue is getting. 'Why do so many people care about the gamblers tax?' he quipped. 'I'm kind of agnostic. I don't, frankly, understand why it's such a big deal. But happy to look at anything they propose.'
