Mediaboss Marketing

Turning to a single-payer system, instead of trying to improve the Affordable Care Act, maybe with a public option, is a loser on the politics and policy

Democrats relish the Republicans inability to pass even a pathetic alternative to Obamacare.

For 7 years, Republicans have campaigned and voted to replace the Affordable Health Care Act. When given a real chance at success, with governing control, they were impeded by a president whos ignorant on the issue. Then, after Republican senators slipped behind closed doors to come up with their own plans, they provided products that voters, even some Trump supporters, overwhelmingly spotted as frauds.

As justified as the Democrats ridicule is of this, its also creating a trap for them: They overreach if they think they can now push for a single-payer, government-run system. Such a course threatens to be a problem in the 2018 midterm election cycle and certainly would be in 2020.

Turning to a single-payer system, instead of trying to improve the Affordable Care Act, maybe with a public option, is a loser on the politics and policy a fools errand, says Ezekiel Emanuel, a leading Democratic health care expert who helped craft Obamacare.

The pressure on Democrats is building, as conversations with several members of Congress suggest. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, leaders of the influential left wing, are pushing a single-payer system. In the House, 115 members have sponsored this initiative, and more state and county Democratic Party committees are embracing it.

On single payer, says Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minnesota, rank-and-file Democrats are energized in a way I have not witnessed in a long, long time. Hes a veteran liberal who wins in the populist Iron Range district of Minnesota that Donald Trump also carried.

But this wont play out well for Democrats. If the United States were starting anew on health care, perhaps it would have been better to enact something like the systems in Canada or Australia, praised by Trump. But to try a radical overhaul, throwing out the entire system with a new one funded by federal taxes, would be a humongous jolt.

Changing one-sixth of the American economy would be traumatic for the system and the public. Look at the fallout from the far milder Obamacare changes or the agony the Republicans are currently enduring.

A public option for those people in the federal exchanges would be resisted by the insurance industry and most all Republicans. But its far less radical, and potentially more feasible, than a single-payer system that nationalizes coverage for everyone.

To their dismay, Republicans now own health care, whether they try to repeal and/or replace the Affordable Care Act or let the issue wither away. Obamacare today is far more popular with voters than any alternative Congress has suggested.

But Republicans could lighten the load of their albatross if Democrats also propose to repeal Obamacare and instead spend trillions of federal tax dollars on a government-run system. That debate might energize a depressed Republican electorate and turn off a lot of swing voters.

Its worth reprising the wisdom of one of Americas great pollsters, the late Bob Teeter, a Republican, who two decades ago foresaw that the political party that owns health care will suffer.

Al Hunt is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was the executive editor of Bloomberg News, before which he was a reporter, bureau chief and executive Washington editor at the Wall Street Journal.

Read the original:
COMMENTARY: Democrats would make a big blunder by pushing socialized medicine - Las Vegas Review-Journal

Top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Raul Grijalva said Ryan Zinke had crossed the line. | Robyn Beck/Getty Images

Democrats and their allies off the Hill pushed back hard at the Trump administration on Thursday after a report that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke threatened projects important to Alaska in retribution for Sen. Lisa Murkowski's vote against health care legislation.

House Democrats vowed to seek an investigation into Zinke's call to Murkowski and fellow Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan on Wednesday a day after Murkowski voted against taking up Obamacare repeal to warn them that the administration's support for energy projects in the state are now at risk. And a conservation group that often works with Democrats sought internal documents on Zinke's calls as well as to any others that he may have made to other GOP swing votes on health care.

Story Continued Below

The Freedom of Information Act request filed by the group, the Western Values Project, seeks records of any contact Zinke made with the Alaskan senators as well as Sens. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), according to a copy shared with POLITICO.

The group plans to sue Interior to force the release of any relevant information that it doesn't receive by the time its legal window closes, Executive Director Chris Saeger said.

Meanwhile, Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee plan later Thursday to seek an investigation conducted by the Government Accountability Office or Interior's independent inspector general, according to a spokesman.

Murkowski confirmed to reporters Thursday that the call with Zinke took place, as well as a second call she received from President Donald Trump on Tuesday, the day she voted with Collins against taking up the GOP's Obamacare repeal bill.

She denied any suggestion that she had used her power as chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over Zinke's department, to hit back by postponing a committee meeting that would have included votes on three Interior nominees.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

In addition to her energy panel gavel, Murkowski chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee in charge of deciding how much money Interior has to spend each year.

Zinke holds ample sway over the state of Alaska, where the federal government controls 61 percent of the land in the state. Interior is reviewing a multitude of projects tied to Alaska energy development, including a possible opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas drilling and allowing offshore oil drilling in currently off-limits Arctic waters.

Sullivan touted that potential to develop more of the state's resources in urging that his senior senator and the Trump administration return to harmony.

"[T]hat cooperation has been very useful and very important in the last six months, reversing what the previous administration did to Alaska," Sullivan told reporters. "So, from my perspective, the sooner we can get back to that kind of cooperation between the administration and the chairman of the [energy] committee, the better for Alaska and the better for the country.

Asked if he had any advice for Murkowski, Sullivan demurred: Im not telling Sen. Murkowski anything. I work super closely with Sen. Murkowski, but thats my statement.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) offered advice of his own to the Trump administration on the matter. "I've been doing this for a long time and Ive seldom seen threats to be very effective," Blunt said.

Arizona's Raul Grijalva, the House Natural Resources panel's top Democrat, said Zinke had crossed the line.

Running a department of the federal government means you serve the American people as a protector of their rights and freedoms, Grijalva said in a statement. It doesnt mean you serve the president as a bag man for his political vendettas. Threatening to punish your rivals as political blackmail is something wed see from the Kremlin."

Beyond its stewardship over oil and gas resources, Interior also has the final say over whether to allow a road through Alaskas Izembek National Wildlife Refuge to take residents of an isolated village reach a nearby hospital, something Murkowski has pushed for years.

Even if this road provides health care access to hundreds, which is very much in doubt, Secretary Zinke thinks the price to build it is a vote to deny health care access to millions, Grijalva said.

Zinke's phone call, first reported by the Alaska Dispatch News, came after Trump tweeted his displeasure with Murkowski's vote. But Murkowski is unlikely to face serious political consequences in the near term. She will not be up for reelection until 2022, and she has previously proved her political mettle in the state winning a rare write-in victory to be reelected in 2010 after she lost the GOP primary to a Tea Party challenger.

House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop on Thursday defended Zinke's call to Murkowski.

"That is not unprecedented, [he] has a right to do that," Bishop told reporters in the Capitol. Bishop said former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell would call him "complaining about some things that we were doing."

Spokespeople for the Interior Department, Murkowski and Sullivan did not respond to requests for comment.

Alaska Oil & Gas Association President Kara Moriarty called the threats unfortunate.

As the secretary has said, they want to have American energy dominance, and the only way to do that is through Alaska, Moriarty told POLITICO. When the time comes when Alaskan energy projects are in front of Congress, I hope they are considered on their merits and not used as a political chits.

Environmentalists were unsparing in their assessment.

Ryan Zinke is revealing himself as Trumps hitman. Hes now threatening to hold public lands and energy policy hostage over a health care bill. This is the U.S. government, not the Corleone family," Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said in a statement.

Zinke is not the first member of Trump's Cabinet without a health care portfolio to insert himself into the debate over the Senate's effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. The Energy Department earlier this week posted, then deleted, a tweet saying it was time to "discard" the law, with a link to an op-ed on the subject from DOE Secretary Rick Perry.

Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) asked GAO Wednesday to investigate whether Perry or others at DOE violated federal laws relating to lobbying and influencing the public.

Meanwhile, some Republicans back in Alaska said Murkowskis vote was stirring up trouble for her at home, with state GOP Chairman Tuckerman Babcock saying his party is in full revolt.

I think among Republicans it is causing tremendous damage, Babcock said in a phone interview Thursday, citing a grass-roots swell of comments on Facebook pages for the party, Murkowski and Sullivan. Its evident to me that the Republicans [in Alaska] are in full revolt over the idea that these promises arent going to be kept.

He added that Interiors ownership of so much of Alaska raises the stakes of any clash with Zinke.

What the secretary of Interior does will have a major impact on Alaska. Hes absolutely vital to moving forward with the development of the coastal plain at ANWR, National Petroleum Reserve on the Western North Slope, building the road from King Cove, the land exchange that Congressman [Don] Young has gotten through the House of Representatives, Babcock said.

Im just hitting the tip of the iceberg on how important a cooperative relationship is with that department.

Seung Min Kim, Esther Whieldon and Jake Lahut contributed to this report.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Continued here:
Democrats vow investigation, lawsuit over 'political blackmail' against Murkowski - Politico

But President Donald Trump is -- and has always been -- a culture warrior.

And he made an aggressive move to elevate those issues to the political forefront Wednesday by announcing via Twitter that he is banning transgender Americans from serving in the military.

This time, though, top Democrats say they don't fear that a political debate over transgender rights will damage them in the Rust Belt. And some Democratic senators running for re-election in red states were sharply critical of Trump's move.

"Democrats need to show -- and can show -- that they can simultaneously fight for a society that is both more fair and more prosperous -- and drive home the fact that Trump is delivering neither," long-time Democratic strategist Ron Klain said in an email.

Democrats seen as prospects for the party's presidential nomination in 2020 immediately lambasted Trump's move. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand vowed to introduce legislation to overturn it. California Sen. Kamala Harris called it "discriminatory, wrong, and un-American." Former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted that "patriotic American who is qualified to serve in our military should be able to serve."

The Democrats Trump is really seeking to put in an uncomfortable position, though, are the 10 senators up for re-election in states he won -- all of which have more white, Christian voters who polls show are more likely to oppose transgender rights.

Some of those senators also attacked Trump's decision.

"If a service member can do the job and is willing, they should be able to serve -- and they should be able to be open about who they are," said North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, among the Democrats facing the toughest re-election battles in 2018.

"Decisions about military force posture and readiness are matters of life and death that should be among the most seriously considered by a president, and motivated by the best military judgment of the armed forces -- not by politics," Heitkamp said.

Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly cited Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby's criticism of Trump's transgender military service ban.

"When the stakes are as high as the safety and security of the United States, we should always have an open door for the best, most talented patriots," Donnelly said in a statement. "Military service should be about abilities, integrity, and performance, and I agree with my Republican colleague Sen. Shelby that everybody should be treated fairly and given a chance to serve."

"The decision announced by the administration today will prevent highly qualified, patriotic Americans from serving in our military," said Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown sounded a similar note, saying: "We should not turn away anyone who is willing and able to serve this country and help keep American safe."

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, tweeted: "A ban against any patriotic American who wants to serve our country is wrong."

Democrats have at least two major recent data points that suggest the political tide has shifted on LGBT issues.

In Wisconsin -- one of the states Trump won that is holding a Senate contest in 2018 -- Baldwin, who became the first openly gay senator when she won the seat in 2012, is running for re-election.

And in North Carolina, the economic backlash against Republicans' transgender bathroom bill played a central role in GOP Gov. Pat McCrory's loss in his re-election bid in 2016.

Trump himself had campaigned on a promise to protect LGBT Americans -- although it was always through the lens of defending them from "radical Islam," rather than civil rights.

"This will become the latest example for voters that the GOP agenda is about keeping their most extreme base happy to protect Trump, not about delivering on the things people care about so we protect the middle class," said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson.

"If they think voters will reward them for an agenda that discriminates against people by firing thousands of them who want to protect our country instead of getting results on health care and the economy, they're tragically misreading America," he said.

In a sign that the politics of the issue might not be in Trump's favor, Republicans in purple states, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, criticized his broad tweets that left unanswered questions about whether thousands of transgender people currently serving in the military will be kicked out.

Other Republicans in swing states who are on the ballot in 2020 also criticized Trump's decision. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said he agrees with McCain. "Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity," said Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, a veteran. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, told reporters, "I think anybody who wants to serve in the military should serve in the military."

Read more from the original source:
Democrats say they're ready for a culture war as Trump bans transgender people from military service - CNN

What is it about Russia some vestige of all those Cold War spy films, perhaps that mentioning it makes so many people, on all political sides, behave so irrationally?

Consider the behavior of Democrats who are seeking to prove that Donald Trump or his campaign "colluded" with Russia, with the implication that this "collusion" somehow determined the outcome of the 2016 election.

The mainstream media feeds this narrative with breathless multiple-bylined stories about Attorney General Jeff Sessions's casual encounter with the Russian ambassador in the Mayflower Hotel or Donald Trump Jr.'s ludicrous meeting with the Russian lady lawyer.

Of course, a genuine conspiracy would have been conducted with the Internet-age equivalent of secret messages written in invisible ink delivered to secret dropboxes. And it's not clear what useful guidance the shambolic, tweet-driven Trump campaign could have given to Russians bent on messing with the American electoral process.

In any case, the Russia issue was litigated during the campaign. Candidate Trump's weird unwillingness to say anything negative about Vladimir Putin, plus his past business dealings in Russia, raised legitimate questions about his Russia policy. Hillary Clinton intelligently and aggressively aired these issues in debate and on the stump.

No evidence has been found that any state's election system was hacked. Hackers, apparently Russian (though Trump weirdly said he doubted that), tried to access Republican and Democratic servers. They penetrated the Democrats' system and publicized embarrassing emails. Does anyone believe those stories switched the 77,000 votes by which Trump narrowly carried Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin? Not really.

Ever since about 9:00 Eastern on election night, Democrats have been yearning to oust Trump from office. Some otherwise intelligent liberals outlined scenarios putting Hillary Clinton in the White House. Many imagine now that some smoking gun of "collusion" evidence will result in Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

But it's hard to imagine what it could be. Special prosecutor Robert Mueller may ensnare some witness in a perjury trap, but how do you have a smoking gun when there's no identifiable crime?

I think it's irrationally risky for Democrats to make "collusion" their major issue and effectively to promise they'll impeach Trump if they win a House majority next year. More to the point, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi seems to agree and has told colleagues to downplay the I-word.

She doesn't want to alienate that quantum of voters willing to vote for Democrats to check Donald Trump, but not to force an impeachment trial which will, as in 1999, result in acquittal in the Senate. But such cool rationality seems rare among her fellow Democrats.

Cool rationality is not a term anyone, fan or foe, seems likely to attach to Donald Trump any time soon. His tweets and interview responses, seemingly determined to prompt Jeff Sessions's resignation as attorney general, are as irrational as critics' scenarios of his imminent replacement by Hillary Clinton.

Sessions, the only senator to endorse him before he clinched the Republican nomination in May 2016, has striven faithfully to carry out his policies. His recusal from involvement on Russia matters last March, though over-cautious in my view, was something Trump could have cautioned against then. And Trump could now legitimately call on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to cabin in what National Review's Andrew McCarthy has argued is Mueller's illegally broad mandate. Presidents have lines of communication with appointees less public than Twitter.

Trump, of course, has only himself to blame for Mueller's appointment, which resulted from self-admitted clever leaking and maneuvering by James Comey after he was abruptly fired as FBI director in May.

Meanwhile, it's hard to dismiss as fake news reports that other cabinet members and Republican senators are dismayed and disheartened at Trump's treatment of Sessions. You would surely feel that way yourself if you were in their shoes.

Moreover, if Sessions resigns or is fired, there will be confirmation hearings for his replacement. One thing Democrats and maybe some Republicans will demand is a commitment that Mueller not be fired or his investigation limited.

Similar commitments extracted from Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus prompted their resignations when Richard Nixon ordered them to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox in October 1973. Nixon resigned 10 months later.

It has long been my contention that the political marketplace, like the economic marketplace, operates tolerably well when competitors, constrained by the rule of law, act out of rational self-interest.

It doesn't work so well when, as today, people on both sides keep acting irrationally.

Continued here:
Democrats and Trump: both behaving irrationally - Washington Examiner

Theodore Roosevelt offered Americans a "Square Deal." His fifth cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, gave us "The New Deal." Modern Democrats, who have lost election after election, are now offering the country "A Better Deal."

Speaking in Berryville, Virginia, a small town that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump and is represented by a Republican in Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, "Too many Americans don't know what we stand for."

Actually, they do know and that's why Democrats don't have the White House, why they lost their congressional majority and the reason they are in the minority in most state legislatures and governorships.

Standing on a platform with other aging, hard-left Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the "Better Deal" sounded like warmed over hash. Here's how The New York Times described it: "The policies combine left-leaning doctrine old and new -- a $15-an-hour minimum wage, a crusade against monopolies, and efforts to lower prescription drug costs -- elevating issues Democrats expect to animate next year's midterm elections and supplying an answer to critics who accuse them of offering nothing but obstruction."

It would be nice if one of those monopolies targeted by Democrats were the public schools and the increasingly popular school choice option, which The Wall Street Journal recently noted is working to improve grades of especially poor and minority children. Don't look for that to happen, as Democrats aren't about to give up campaign donations from the teachers unions.

Wasn't the expansion of the Medicare program under President George W. Bush to include prescription drug payments supposed to have reduced costs? Not so. When the government gets involved in almost anything -- from college tuition, to drugs -- costs go up, not down.

As for the $15-an-hour minimum wage suggestion, we have heard this argument from Democrats in previous calls for its increase. A recent Harvard Business School study of restaurants in San Francisco found that every one-dollar increase in the minimum wage led to a 4 to 10 percent increase in the likelihood of a restaurant closing.

A University of Washington study on the minimum wage law's impact on restaurant workers in Seattle found that while hikes accounted for higher wages, the number of hours low-wage earners were allowed to work declined, producing a net loss in earnings. In other words, the restaurant workers earned more before the government mandated a higher minimum wage. Doesn't anyone in government understand basic economics, not to mention human nature?

Nowhere in the unveiling of their "Better Deal" is there any suggestion by Democrats that low-income Americans can, or should, work for the day when they are independent of government. As the party of government, Democrats have addicted millions of people to the notion that they are owed, or "entitled," to other people's money. Theirs is a party of envy, greed and entitlement, pitting the successful -- and envy of them -- against the less successful with little expectation that those at the bottom of the wage scale can, or should, rise from their current circumstances to embrace a better life.

The Times story called the Democrats' announcement "the battle cry of a party in the wilderness." Question: If a Democrat speaks in the wilderness, will anyone hear?

This latest effort to fool voters into believing Democrats have something new to say, or better policies to try, isn't a better deal, it's a raw deal.

Thomas is a columnist with Chicago Tribune.

See the original post here:
Thomas: Democrats offer a raw deal - Quad City Times