Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Obama says Senate health care bill has ‘fundamental meanness …

Former President Barack Obama defended his signature legislative achievement in a lengthy Facebook post on Thursday | Getty

Former President Barack Obama on Thursday denounced the Senate proposal to repeal and replace parts of the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, calling the Republican bill a massive transfer of wealth to the richest people in America with a fundamental meanness at its core.

Obama, who has largely stayed out of the political fray and refrained from publicly criticizing President Donald Trump since leaving office, defended his signature legislative achievement in a lengthy Facebook post on Thursday, hours after Senate leaders unveiled the bill. And he accused Republicans of promoting legislation that will harm Americans.

Story Continued Below

The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill, Obama wrote. Its a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America. It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else.

Simply put, if theres a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family this bill will do you harm, he added. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation.

Get the latest on the health care fight, every weekday morning in your inbox.

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

In the post, Obama acknowledged that Republicans have run on a platform of repealing Obamacare for years, but called on them to work with Democrats to offer fixes to the health care system rather than support the proposed overhaul.

He also argued, as he has previously, that his 2010 legislation is imperfect but has helped many people.

I still hope that there are enough Republicans in Congress who remember that public service is not about sport or notching a political win, that theres a reason we all chose to serve in the first place, and that hopefully, its to make peoples lives better, not worse, Obama wrote.

But right now, after eight years, the legislation rushed through the House and the Senate without public hearings or debate would do the opposite, he added.

Obama also called on his supporters to call lawmakers and voice their opposition to the proposal.

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

See the original post:
Obama says Senate health care bill has 'fundamental meanness ...

Frustrated Dems say Obama botched Russia response

The Obama administration is under fresh scrutiny for its response to Russian meddling in the election after new details emerged this week about how the White House weighed its actions against the 2016 political environment.

Then-President Obama was too cautious in the months leading up to the election, frustrated Democratic lawmakers and strategists say.

It was inadequate. I think they could have done a better job informing the American people of the extent of the attack, said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who co-chairs the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.

And even after the election was over, they say, the penalties Obama levied were too mild to appropriately punish what by all accounts was an unprecedented attack on a U.S. election.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), another House Intelligence member, called the penalties barely a slap on the wrist. Sen. John McCainJohn McCainFrustrated Dems say Obama botched Russia response Coats: Trump seemed obsessed with Russia probe The Hill's Whip List: Senate ObamaCare repeal bill MORE (R-Ariz.), who supports tougher sanctions Russia, said in a statement Friday that the administration abjectly failed to deter Russian aggression and failed to impose any meaningful costs on Russia.

Some Republicans argue the Obama administration only started to take the Russia threat seriously after President Trump had won the election.

Trump has called the influence operation a hoax and dismissed the various inquiries into Russian interference in the election which include looking for possible collusion between his campaign and Moscow as a witch hunt.

By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them? Trump tweeted Thursday.

The Obama administration announced on Oct. 7 that the theft and release of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails was part of a widespread campaign intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.

But it was not until January that it issued a separate declassified intelligence report that assessed Moscow was attempting to tip the election in t Trumps favor and only in December did Obama approve a modest package of retaliatory sanctions and expel a compound of Russian diplomats.

Former Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday told lawmakers that the White House held back on responding to Russia because it didnt want to play into fears, propagated by then-candidate Trump, that the election would be rigged.

One of the candidates, as you'll recall, was predicting that the election was going to be rigged in some way, Johnson said. And so we were concerned that, by making the statement, we might in and of itself be challenging the integrity of the election process itself.

Trump had repeatedly claimed that the outcome of the election would be rigged against him, alleging widespread voter fraud and inaccurate polling. He provided no evidence to back up his claims, but critics feared that his rhetoric could undermine public trust in the outcome of the election.

On Friday, The Washington Post published a detailed post-mortem of the administrations decision-making process that showed the former president agonizing over how to prevent politicization of the threat and arguably failing, critics say.

While Democrats appreciated Obamas sensitivity to the potential appearance of partisanship, they say the Russian influence campaign should have been treated like any other national security threat, without respect to politics.

I understand the analysis, but look where we are right now. This was the worst mess our democracy has been in since the Civil War, Swalwell said.

Other onlookers point to then-ongoing and extremely delicate negotiations with Russia over a ceasefire in Syria. The Obama administration publicly levied blame on Russia for the DNC hack and the wider interference campaign just a few days after former Secretary of State John KerryJohn KerryFrustrated Dems say Obama botched Russia response Budowsky: Dems madder than hell Tillerson: 'My view didnt change' on Paris climate agreement MORE officially suspended those talks.

I think the Obama administration figured, we have to deal with the Russians in the Middle East and they didnt want the stuff with the hacking to interfere with that, said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. But I think that was a mistake because if voters dont trust the integrity of the electoral system, weve got nothing left.

Johnson defended the White Houses response, arguing the administration repeatedly banged the drum on election cybersecurity throughout the summer and fall but was appropriately leery of undermining trust in the integrity of the election.

The Oct. 7 statement, Johnson said, was one in a series of public statements but it was overshadowed in the media by the leak of the Access Hollywood tape in which Trump spoke of grabbing women by the genitals.

Other former officials are less confident that Obama went far enough in his response.

It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend, a former senior official involved in the deliberations on Russia told The Post. I feel like we sort of choked.

Read more:
Frustrated Dems say Obama botched Russia response

Obama launches a two-front war on President Trump – Washington Post (blog)

Rather than let nature take its course and gently glide into revered ex-president status, former president Barack Obama has launched a two-front war on President Trump. And frankly, it could help Republican leadership in Congress just when it needs it.

By becoming such a pointed and vocal criticof the GOP health-care bill, Obama is forcing Republicans to choose whether they will vote against the bill and save Obamacare or evolve with Trump and fix a broken system that has only gotten worse with time. Trumps America First policies threaten Obamas legacy. Trump has already rolled back several burdensome regulations from the Obama years, but what worries Obama most is Trumps commitment to repealing and replacing the national disaster that is Obamacare.

At this point, the worst thing that could happen for Trump and congressional Republicans would be for Obama to sit silently on the sideline. Obama may think hes helping his cause, but forcing Republicans to choose between him and Trump is misguided.

President Trump held a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on June 21 and discusses his plan for health-care. (The Washington Post)

Oh, and by the way, lets not forget that Obamas recent foray into the health-care conversation comes at a time when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is struggling to survive after going 0-4 in the special elections for seats vacated by Republicans since November. She has discredited herself and the entire Democratic Party. A lot of Democrats understand the extent of her failure, hence their gravitation to every word that comes out of Obamas mouth. They are desperate for leadership but have no one in office to look to.

And as if gratuitously weighing in on health care was not enough, Obama wants to retell the story of his management of Russias meddling into the 2016 election. He is working with the mainstream media to concoct a narrative so wildly inconsistent with the facts that only the most gullible Obama apologist would believe his latest version of the truth.

For one, Democrats would have you believe that Obama did all he could to sound the alarm and call attention to Russian hacking during the election. But that is far from the case. As I wrotein December, the administration failed to take effective action for two reasons. It did not think Trump was going to win and it wasincompetent. As the New York Times reported, the Obama Justice Department via the FBI first tried to warn the Democratic National Committee of hacks on its systems in September 2015. The result was a comedy of complacency, neglect and stupidity that let the problem linger on until October 2016 over a full year later when the administration confirmed the hacks.

Obama says he acted decisively, but telling Russian President Vladimir Putin to cut it outwas about as useful as his red line in Syria.

And for good measure, the liberal mainstream media seems to be pushing the idea that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is somehow to blame for allowing the Russian hacking to go on unaddressed. Citing anonymous officials, the media went so far as to suggestMcConnell voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence. But the narrative does not end there. As if to insinuate McConnells remarks had some sort of effect in swaying the administrations handling of the hacking, reports claimhe voic[ed] skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White Houses claims. Really? Since when did the Obama administration ever listen to McConnell?

Anyway, Obama and Co. did not think Trump had a chance. They did not properly call attention to the hacking and they are only now baselessly alleging some sort of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. If they had this great intelligence that Putin was to blame, wouldnt that same intelligence have uncovered collusion? Of course it would have. And if Obama had any credible evidence of such activity, he would have been the first person to make sure the news leaked.

But that did not happen. Obama had no hint of collusion then, and he surely has no proof of it now. If Obama wants to be truly helpful and honest, he would confirm that immediately.

The Democrats are desperate and the Obama-Pelosi tag team is thrashing around the ring, unable to land any blows. They have no momentum, no ideas and no leadership. Trump and the entire GOP could not be any luckier to have such a weak opponent fighting to take them down.

Read the original post:
Obama launches a two-front war on President Trump - Washington Post (blog)

Dem senators urged Obama to take action on Russia before election – The Hill

A pair of Democratic senators warned then-President Obama about Russian hacking and election meddling and urged himto take action against Moscow before the 2016 presidential election, according to newly released materials.

Such attacks cannot be tolerated and the United States must take immediate measures to ensure that those responsible are held to account,Democratic Sens. Dianne FeinsteinDianne FeinsteinDem senators urged Obama to take action on Russia before election Senate panel questions Lynch on alleged FBI interference The Hill's 12:30 Report MORE (Calif.) and Ben CardinBen CardinDem senators urged Obama to take action on Russia before election Overnight Cybersecurity: Trump tweetstorm on Russia probe | White House reportedly pushing to weaken sanctions bill | Podesta to testify before House Intel Senate expected to pass Russia sanctions bill for a second time MORE (Md.) wrote to Obamain a letterreleased Friday.

The seminal event in a functioning democracy is an election, and the international implications of the results of the U.S. election are far reaching. Russias actions threaten to undermine our process, they added in the letter dated Nov. 1, 2016, a week before the election.

The two senators then offered solutions to the president, including freezing assets of individuals who had taken part in cyber activity, expanding the use of secondary sanctions as well as taking proportional cyber responses.

The letter was released by the State Department and Department of Homeland Security to the transparency project Operation 45 as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

Among the released documents were letters from Julia Frifield, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs at the State Department, to the senators on Dec. 7, in which she wrote that the administration "will not tolerate attempts to interfere with the U.S. Democratic process, and we will take action to protect our interests, including in cyberspace, and we will do so at a time and place of our choosing."

The Obama administration eventually took action in December, a month after Trump won election, with Obama approving targeted economic sanctions and expelling 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S.

The released Democratic letter comes after The Washington Postreported on the Obama administration's response to Russia's election meddling, including one official who said the administration "choked."

The former administration has garnered bipartisan criticism for its handling of reports about Russian election engagement.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) described the Obama administrations response to Russian meddling as barely a slap on the wrist, while President Trump tweeted on Friday asking why Obama did not work harder to stop Russian election meddling.

Just out: The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?

Link:
Dem senators urged Obama to take action on Russia before election - The Hill

Can Trump Destroy Obama’s Legacy? – New York Times

Shirley Anne Warshaw, director of the Fielding Center for Presidential Leadership Study at Gettysburg College, said Mr. Trump is not unusual in making a clean break from his predecessor. Trump isnt doing anything that Obama didnt do, she said. He is simply reversing policies that were largely put in place by a president of a different party.

The difference, she said, is that other presidents have proactive ideas about what to erect in place of their predecessors programs. I have not seen any constructive bills in this vein that Trump has put forth, she said. As far as I can tell, he has no independent legislative agenda other than tearing down. Perhaps tax reform.

With a flourish, Mr. Trump has staged signing ceremonies meant to show him tearing down. Not only did he pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and the Paris climate accord, he approved the Keystone XL pipeline Mr. Obama had rejected and began reversing his fuel-efficiency standards and power plant emissions limits. Not only is he trying to repeal Obamacare, he has pledged to revoke regulations on Wall Street adopted after the financial crash of 2008.

Still, he has not gone as far as threatened. He has for now kept Mr. Obamas nuclear agreement with Iran, however reluctantly, and while he made a show of overturning Mr. Obama on Cuba, the fine print left much of the policy intact. He did not rescind Mr. Obamas order sparing younger illegal immigrants from deportation. Senate Republicans released a new version of legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare in recent days, but it may yet end in impasse, leaving the program in place.

Advisers insist Mr. Trump is not driven by a desire to unravel the Obama presidency. But like the Manhattan real estate developer he is, they said, he believes he must in some cases demolish the old to make way for the new.

He hasnt dismantled everything, and I dont know that thats exactly what hes looking to do, said Hope Hicks, the White House director of strategic communications. That may be a side effect of what hes building for his own legacy. I dont think anybodys coming into the office every day saying, How can we undo Obamas legacy, and how can he go back?

Yet Mr. Trump has depicted the Obama legacy as a disastrous one that needs unraveling. To be honest, I inherited a mess, he said at a news conference soon after taking office. Its a mess. At home and abroad, a mess. Jobs are pouring out of the country. You see whats going on with all of the companies leaving our country, going to Mexico and other places, low pay, low wages, mass instability overseas no matter where you look. The Middle East is a disaster. North Korea. Well take care of it, folks.

Critics say Mr. Obama brought this on himself. His biggest legislative achievements were passed almost exclusively with Democratic votes, meaning there was no bipartisan consensus that would outlast his presidency. And when Republicans captured Congress, he turned to a strategy he called the pen and the phone, signing executive orders that could be easily erased by the next president.

Ive heard it joked about that the Obama library is being revised to focus less on his legislative achievements as each week of the Trump administration goes by, said Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union. Its like living by the sword and dying by the sword. When your presidency is based on a pen and a phone, all of that can be undone, and I think were seeing that happening rather systematically.

Mr. Obama would argue he had little choice because of Republican obstructionism. Either way, he has largely remained quiet through the current demolition project, reasoning that speaking out would only give Mr. Trump the public enemy he seems to crave. He made an exception on Thursday, taking to Facebook to assail the new Senate health care bill as a massive transfer of wealth from middle class and poor families to the richest people in America. But Mr. Obamas team takes solace in the belief that Mr. Trump is his own worst enemy, better at bluster than actually following through.

Obamas legacy would be under much greater threat by a more competent president than Donald Trump, said Josh Earnest, who served as Mr. Obamas White House press secretary. His inexperience and lack of discipline are an impediment to his success in implementing policies that would reverse what Obama instituted.

Other Obama veterans said much of what Mr. Trump has done was either less dramatic than it appeared or reversible. He did not actually break relations with Cuba, for instance. It will take years to actually withdraw from the Paris accord, and the next president could rejoin. The real impact, they argued, was to Americas international reputation.

Theres a lot of posturing and, in fact, not a huge amount of change, and to the extent there has been change, its been of the self-defeating variety, said Susan E. Rice, the former national security adviser. Whats been happening is not that the administration is undoing President Obamas legacy, its undoing American leadership on the international stage.

Mr. Trump, of course, is hardly the first president to scorn his predecessors tenure. George W. Bush was so intent on doing the opposite of whatever Bill Clinton had done that his approach was called ABC Anything but Clinton. Mr. Obama spent years blaming his predecessor for economic and national security setbacks blame that supporters considered justified and that Mr. Bushs team considered old-fashioned buck passing.

For decades, presidents moving into the Oval Office have made a point on their first day or two of signing orders overturning policies of the last tenant, what Mr. Riley called partisan kabuki to signal that a new president is in town.

The most tangible example is an order signed by Ronald Reagan barring taxpayer financing for international family planning organizations that provide abortion counseling. Mr. Clinton rescinded it when he came into office. Mr. Bush restored it, Mr. Obama overturned it again and Mr. Trump restored it again.

Even so, neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Obama invested much effort in deconstructing programs left behind. Mr. Bush kept Mr. Clintons health care program for lower-income children, his revamped welfare system and his AmeriCorps service organization. Mr. Obama undid much of Mr. Bushs No Child Left Behind education program, but kept his Medicare prescription medicine program, his AIDS-fighting program and most of his counterterrorism apparatus.

That was in keeping with a longer tradition. Dwight D. Eisenhower did not unravel Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal, nor did Richard M. Nixon dismantle Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society. Mr. Reagan promised to eliminate the departments of Education and Energy, created by Jimmy Carter, but ultimately did not.

Mr. Obama understood that his legacy might be jeopardized by Mr. Trump. During last years campaign, he warned supporters that all the progress weve made over these last eight years goes out the window if Mr. Trump won. Only after the election did he assert the opposite. Maybe 15 percent of that gets rolled back, 20 percent, he told The New Yorkers David Remnick. But theres still a lot of stuff that sticks.

Indeed, when it comes time to tally the record for the history books, Mr. Trump can hardly reverse some of Mr. Obamas most important achievements, like pulling the economy back from the abyss of a deep recession, rescuing the auto industry and authorizing the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Nor can Mr. Trump take away what will surely be the first line in Mr. Obamas obituary, his barrier-shattering election as the first African-American president.

Conversely, Mr. Obama owns his failures regardless of Mr. Trumps actions. Historys judgment of his handling of the civil war in Syria or the messy aftermath of the intervention in Libya or the economic inequality he left behind will not depend on his successor. If anything, Americas decision to replace Mr. Obama with someone as radically different as Mr. Trump may be taken as evidence of Mr. Obamas inability to build sustained public support for his agenda or to mitigate the polarization of the country.

But legacies are funny things. Presidents are sometimes defined because their successors are so different. Mr. Obama today is more popular than he was during most of his presidency, likely a result of the contrast with Mr. Trump, who is the most unpopular president this early in his tenure in the history of polling. By this argument, even if Mr. Trump does disassemble the Obama legacy, it may redound to his predecessors historical benefit.

Richard Norton Smith, who has directed the libraries of four Republican presidents, said presidents are often credited with paving the way toward goals that may elude them during their tenure. Harry S. Truman is called the father of Medicare even though it was not achieved until Johnsons presidency. Mr. Bush is remembered for pushing for immigration reform even though Congress rebuffed him.

Its hard to imagine future historians condemning Barack Obama for breaking with his countrys past ostracism of Cuba or joining the civilized world in combating climate change or pursuing a more humane and accessible approach to health care, Mr. Smith said. Indeed, we build memorials to presidents who prod us toward fulfilling the egalitarian vision of Jeffersons declaration.

But that may not be all that comforting to Mr. Obama. Presidents prefer memorials to their lasting accomplishments, not their most fleeting.

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The Times and author of Obama: The Call of History.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this news analysis appears in print on June 25, 2017, on Page SR1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Anti-Legacy.

Here is the original post:
Can Trump Destroy Obama's Legacy? - New York Times