Latest news with #JamesGarfield
Yahoo
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Centrist Rep. Don Bacon is done with Congress — but open to a potential presidential bid
WASHINGTON — Centrist Rep. Don Bacon, one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House, said this week he doesn't have the 'hunger' for another grueling re-election campaign and won't run for a sixth term next year. But Bacon, who spent 30 years in the Air Force and specialized in intelligence matters, said he's interested in serving in an executive role down the road, and wouldn't rule out running for Nebraska governor, or even president in 2028. 'I got asked the other day, 'You say you're interested in being an executive — is that governor or president?' I go, 'Yes,'' Bacon said in an interview in his office. 'If there's an opportunity and I can make a difference, a unique difference, I would like to keep serving. I just don't want to do two-year elections.' Bacon, 61, acknowledged that it'd be incredibly difficult to run for the White House as a current or former House member — James Garfield was successful way back in 1880. And Bacon said he's not sure his brand of Republicanism — Reaganism and a muscular view of foreign policy — can ever make a full comeback in the party, though he said he will continue making the case for it. 'I don't think it would be very easily done,' he said. 'All I know is I have a heart to serve our country, and I have a vision.' Defense secretary is another option 'if God opens up that door,' he said, though he's not sure a Republican president would nominate him. He said he would not run against incumbent Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, a fellow Republican and close friend who took office in 2023. Bacon's retirement from Congress is notable because he is one of the few sitting Republicans on Capitol Hill who have been willing to publicly criticize President Donald Trump, who has a reputation for retaliating against his enemies and ending their political careers. Bacon's announcement came just a day after another Republican who's clashed with Trump, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said he wouldn't seek re-election in 2026. The pair of retirements came as both Tillis and Bacon were preparing to vote on Trump's mammoth domestic policy package — what the president calls his 'big, beautiful bill' — as both lawmakers expressed concerns about Medicaid cuts in the package. Tillis voted against it; Bacon voted for it. But in the interview, Bacon insisted that neither the public feuds with Trump nor the violent threats he and his wife have faced had any impact on his decision to leave Congress. First elected alongside Trump in 2016, Bacon represents a swing district that includes Omaha and rural areas to the west; in 2024, Democrat Kamala Harris beat Trump in the district by 4.6 percentage points, while Bacon prevailed over his Democratic challenger, Tony Vargas, 50.9% to 49.1%. Bacon lamented that running in a tough battleground district every two years was an exhausting endeavor, and that he didn't have 'the fire in my belly' to win a sixth race. 'This job requires a 14-hour day during the week, Saturdays, parades and a variety of things, and Sunday sometimes. And do I want to do this for two more years? I just didn't have the hunger to want to work at that intensity level,' said Bacon, who has a large pig figurine sitting on his desk. 'And my wife has wanted me to come home. I'm gone to D.C. four days a week, and I have a chance to be home now seven days a week, and I have eight grandkids within 10 minutes of my house.' Bacon said he thinks he could have won re-election had he run, even though the party that controls the White House typically loses House seats in a president's first midterm election. On top of that, Democrats are salivating at the chance to attack Republicans for voting for Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which slashes Medicaid benefits that are critical to districts like Bacon's. A Nebraska rural hospital said Thursday it would close in the coming months due to looming Medicaid cuts. Bacon argued the legislation had not taken effect yet and that it included $50 billion for rural hospitals. He said he had to weigh the pros and cons in the bill; he decided that extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts and boosting military and border funding outweighed any negative impacts. 'There's some things I wish were better,' he said. 'But am I going to vote to raise taxes on middle-class Americans? I'm not.' On the day of the interview, NBC News and other outlets reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered a pause in sending a shipment of missiles and ammunition to Ukraine amid concerns about the U.S. military's stockpiles. Bacon, who has a photograph on the wall of him meeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has consistently been critical of Trump's handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and his 'appeasement' of Putin. Whoever ordered the weapons pause should be fired, Bacon said. 'If Ukraine falls, the world's a more dangerous place. I really don't understand why President Trump doesn't see that. And if Ukraine goes down, Moldova will definitely fall. I think Georgia is in trouble,' said Bacon, a retired brigadier general who did four tours of duty in Iraq and also spent time in Afghanistan. 'President Trump has done worse than Biden [on Ukraine], and I'm embarrassed to say that,' he continued. 'I don't like it. He seems to have a blind spot with Putin. I don't know what purpose it serves to withhold weapons to Ukraine and not see that Putin is the invader.' 'I do believe that if I was the president,' Bacon said, 'I'd be trying to provide Ukraine with every weapon they needed to convince Putin he has no chance to win.' Bacon said he was a big fan of former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley when she ran for president in 2024, and he likes Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as potential candidates in 2028. Asked about JD Vance, who famously dressed down Zelenskyy at a White House meeting in February, Bacon suggested the vice president needed to take a tougher stance toward Moscow. 'He's a contender. I like him personally, but I wish he saw the Russian threat a little better,' Bacon said. This article was originally published on
Washington Post
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
How assassinations and war changed how the U.S. remembers its presidents
On July 2, 1881, just four months into his presidential term, James Garfield was shot by a mentally ill office seeker. The 20th president survived for 2½ months before dying of sepsis. And then began an extraordinary outpouring of national grief, including a funeral train and elaborate ceremonies, culminating nine years later in the dedication of a massive Garfield memorial and tomb on a hill overlooking Lake Erie, in Cleveland.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Ashland's Juneteenth celebration brings history to life with local stories
The Ashland County Historical Society will host its second annual Juneteenth Celebration of Freedom 4-7 p.m. Thursday, June 19, at 420 Center St., Ashland. This year marks the 160th anniversary of Juneteenth, which commemorates the abolition of slavery in the United States. The celebration aims to educate attendees about Ashland County's role during the American Civil War and the fight for freedom, according to an announcement. The event will feature living historians sharing firsthand accounts from mid-19th century residents who contributed to the understanding of liberty. Attendees can learn about the Underground Railroad, Union recruitment by Colonel James Garfield, and stories of local figures like Seth Barber and Gilbert Locke, a freedman who settled in Hayesville. A free community picnic will be offered. The Ashland Public Library bookmobile will be present, providing books related to the celebration and activities for children. Living history walking tours will be available at 4:15, 5:15 and 6:15 p.m. The event is free and open to the public, with free parking available onsite. For more information, visit or call 419-289-3111 during regular business hours. The celebration is a collaboration between the Ashland County Historical Society, Ashland Main Street, the Ashland County Juneteenth Committee and the Ashland Public Library. This story was created by Jane Imbody, jimbody@ with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Journalists were involved in every step of the information gathering, review, editing and publishing process. Learn more at or share your thoughts at with our News Automation and AI team. This article originally appeared on Ashland Times Gazette: Free Juneteenth event in Ashland features food, tours and history
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - The ‘big, beautiful bill' would secretly dismantle the civil service
The House-passed budget reconciliation bill contains a troubling provision so dangerous and corrosive to the integrity of the federal government that it demands immediate scrutiny and swift rejection by the Senate. Buried in more than 1,000 pages of legislative text is Section 90002, a provision that strikes at the heart of the professional, nonpartisan civil service. It proposes a 9.4 percent salary surcharge on newly hired federal employees who wish to retain their civil service protections, ostensibly to pay for their retirement benefits. Those who cannot afford this effective tax on the rights that federal employees currently enjoy would be forced into permanent at-will employment. Although they would then qualify for a lower retirement deduction of 4.4 percent, as purely at-will employees they could be fired at any time, for any reason — or for no reason at all — with no legal recourse. This is not just bad policy — it is a direct attack on more than 140 years of bipartisan civil service tradition. Our professional civil service was born out of the rampant corruption of the 19th-century 'spoils system,' in which federal jobs were handed out as political favors by victorious candidates. That system came to a halt with the Pendleton Act of 1883, passed after President James Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled office-seeker who believed he had been improperly denied a patronage job. The Pendleton Act established a competitive, merit-based hiring system and laid the foundation for the modern professional civil service that serves the nation — not the party in power. This commitment was reaffirmed and modernized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter. That law improved efficiency and accountability and codified labor rights while protecting employees from arbitrary or politically motivated firings. It also created federal bodies — the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems Protection Board — to safeguard merit principles and the integrity of public service. Now, with a single provision rolled out with little debate and no hearing record, the House reconciliation bill threatens to undo all this hard-won progress. If enacted, it would create a two-tier federal workforce: one class protected by civil service laws, and another completely vulnerable to the whims of political appointees. Worse still, the measure is designed to coerce new hires into giving up their rights for the rest of their careers. Faced with a 9.4 percent pay cut, most new federal employees — already earning salaries that are an estimated 25 percent lower than their private-sector counterparts — will feel they have no real choice. Many early-career workers live paycheck to paycheck; this surcharge would be an impossible burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of new hires would likely be driven into at-will status. Among the 800,000 federal workers I represent as president of the American Federation of Government Employees, few if any could afford to pay the surcharge. That inability to pay is one reason why the provision raises so little money — less than $500 million annually according to the CBO — or just 0.1 percent of the cost of the bill's accompanying tax cuts. Clearly, revenue is not the point. The point is to erode labor rights and weaken the civil service. This provision is also a political time bomb. If passed, it sets a precedent that could be exploited by any future administration. Imagine a newly inaugurated Democratic president firing every at-will federal employee hired during the previous Republican administration — no hearings, no cause, no appeal. If Republicans are willing to set this precedent, they must be prepared to live under it. But the real danger is institutional. How can federal scientists, doctors, safety inspectors or law enforcement officers operate with independence and integrity if they can be dismissed on a whim? These protections are what enable civil servants to speak truth to power — even when that truth is inconvenient. This proposal is also a direct attack on organized labor. Without civil service protections, unions are hamstrung in their ability to represent their members. Workers afraid of being summarily fired are unlikely to file grievances, assert their rights or even speak candidly in meetings. Only those who can afford the surcharge would retain access to effective representation. Section 90002 isn't just misguided — it's union-busting by design. Imagine the outcry if a Democratic Congress imposed a 5 percent income tax on corporations to preserve their rights to challenge unions under the National Labor Relations Act. Republicans would rightly decry this as the weaponization of tax policy. Yet that's precisely what this bill does to federal workers — using financial coercion to undermine their legal protections. The civil service exists to provide stability, expertise and continuity regardless of the party holding office. It is one of the bedrock institutions that has sustained American democracy through wars, crises and peaceful transitions of power. The Trump administration may not like the idea of a government that can resist political manipulation — but that is exactly what democracy requires. Section 90002 is not reform. It is sabotage. Congress must reject it and reaffirm its commitment to the principles that have guided our civil service since 1883. Our institutions — and the American people they serve — deserve no less. Dr. Everett B. Kelley is national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
The ‘big, beautiful bill' would secretly dismantle the civil service
The House-passed budget reconciliation bill contains a troubling provision so dangerous and corrosive to the integrity of the federal government that it demands immediate scrutiny and swift rejection by the Senate. Buried in more than 1,000 pages of legislative text is Section 90002, a provision that strikes at the heart of the professional, nonpartisan civil service. It proposes a 9.4 percent salary surcharge on newly hired federal employees who wish to retain their civil service protections, ostensibly to pay for their retirement benefits. Those who cannot afford this effective tax on the rights that federal employees currently enjoy would be forced into permanent at-will employment. Although they would then qualify for a lower retirement deduction of 4.4 percent, as purely at-will employees they could be fired at any time, for any reason — or for no reason at all — with no legal recourse. This is not just bad policy — it is a direct attack on more than 140 years of bipartisan civil service tradition. Our professional civil service was born out of the rampant corruption of the 19th-century 'spoils system,' in which federal jobs were handed out as political favors by victorious candidates. That system came to a halt with the Pendleton Act of 1883, passed after President James Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled office-seeker who believed he had been improperly denied a patronage job. The Pendleton Act established a competitive, merit-based hiring system and laid the foundation for the modern professional civil service that serves the nation — not the party in power. This commitment was reaffirmed and modernized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter. That law improved efficiency and accountability and codified labor rights while protecting employees from arbitrary or politically motivated firings. It also created federal bodies — the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems Protection Board — to safeguard merit principles and the integrity of public service. Now, with a single provision rolled out with little debate and no hearing record, the House reconciliation bill threatens to undo all this hard-won progress. If enacted, it would create a two-tier federal workforce: one class protected by civil service laws, and another completely vulnerable to the whims of political appointees. Worse still, the measure is designed to coerce new hires into giving up their rights for the rest of their careers. Faced with a 9.4 percent pay cut, most new federal employees — already earning salaries that are an estimated 25 percent lower than their private-sector counterparts — will feel they have no real choice. Many early-career workers live paycheck to paycheck; this surcharge would be an impossible burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of new hires would likely be driven into at-will status. Among the 800,000 federal workers I represent as president of the American Federation of Government Employees, few if any could afford to pay the surcharge. That inability to pay is one reason why the provision raises so little money — less than $500 million annually according to the CBO — or just 0.1 percent of the cost of the bill's accompanying tax cuts. Clearly, revenue is not the point. The point is to erode labor rights and weaken the civil service. This provision is also a political time bomb. If passed, it sets a precedent that could be exploited by any future administration. Imagine a newly inaugurated Democratic president firing every at-will federal employee hired during the previous Republican administration — no hearings, no cause, no appeal. If Republicans are willing to set this precedent, they must be prepared to live under it. But the real danger is institutional. How can federal scientists, doctors, safety inspectors or law enforcement officers operate with independence and integrity if they can be dismissed on a whim? These protections are what enable civil servants to speak truth to power — even when that truth is inconvenient. This proposal is also a direct attack on organized labor. Without civil service protections, unions are hamstrung in their ability to represent their members. Workers afraid of being summarily fired are unlikely to file grievances, assert their rights or even speak candidly in meetings. Only those who can afford the surcharge would retain access to effective representation. Section 90002 isn't just misguided — it's union-busting by design. Imagine the outcry if a Democratic Congress imposed a 5 percent income tax on corporations to preserve their rights to challenge unions under the National Labor Relations Act. Republicans would rightly decry this as the weaponization of tax policy. Yet that's precisely what this bill does to federal workers — using financial coercion to undermine their legal protections. The civil service exists to provide stability, expertise and continuity regardless of the party holding office. It is one of the bedrock institutions that has sustained American democracy through wars, crises and peaceful transitions of power. The Trump administration may not like the idea of a government that can resist political manipulation — but that is exactly what democracy requires. Section 90002 is not reform. It is sabotage. Congress must reject it and reaffirm its commitment to the principles that have guided our civil service since 1883. Our institutions — and the American people they serve — deserve no less. Dr. Everett B. Kelley is national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.
