Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Rand PaulRand PaulSunday shows preview: Trump admin makes healthcare pitch Obstacles mount for tax reform Pence takes GOP healthcare pitch on the road MORE (R-Ky.) is pushing an alternative ObamaCare repeal bill amid growing opposition to the House GOP leadership's plan.

Paul introduced a bill known as the ObamaCare repeal bill mirrored off a 2015 bill that cleared the Senate along party lines.

The Republican Party is unified on Obamacare repeal, Paul said in a statement.We can honor our promise right away by passing the same language we acted on in the last Congress."

Paul's proposalwouldeffectively separate repeal of ObamaCare from replacement. The move could alienate a group ofcentrist Republicans who want, at aminimum, the key details of replacement nailed down before they vote to repeal.

"[After repeal]we can have a separate vote on replacement legislation that will deliver lower costs, better care, and greater access to the American people," he said.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has introduced the legislation in the House.

The bill includes a staggered repeal of ObamaCare taxes, including a repeal of the Medical Device Tax in 2018 and the Cadillac Tax in 2020.

The legislation would also eliminateeligibility for ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion as of 2020 as well as the higherfederal matching rate included in the Affordable Care Act.

The move would likely draw opposition from agroup of moderate Senate Republicans who havethreatened they would voteagainst any bill that doesn't protect the Medicaid funding expansion in their home states.

1. House health-care bill can't pass Senate w/o major changes. To my friends in House: pause, start over. Get it right, don't get it fast.

"I support making structural improvements to the Medicaid program, but we must provide stability and certainty for individuals and families in Medicaid expansion programs and real flexibility for states," he said.

Republicans have a narrow path to passing ObamaCare repeal. They have a 52-seat majority, meaning they can only afford to lose two GOP senators and still pass repeal.

The rest is here:
Rand Paul introduces ObamaCare repeal alternative - The Hill (blog)

Police in riot gear watch protesters in Ferguson, Mo. on Aug. 13, 2014. Jeff RobersonAP

The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri and across the nation.

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldnt have expected to be shot.

The outrage in Ferguson is understandablethough there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.

Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics , recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:

Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. ... Police look inward. They're supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.

It's the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.

The Cato Institutes Walter Olson observed this week how the rising militarization of law enforcement is currently playing out in Ferguson:

Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street) and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times , the firing of tear gas at people in their own yards? (This my property! he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.) Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone?

Olson added, the dominant visual aspect of the story, however, has been the sight of overpowering police forces confronting unarmed protesters who are seen waving signs or just their hands.

How did this happen?

Most police officers are good cops and good people. It is an unquestionably difficult job, especially in the current circumstances.

There is a systemic problem with todays law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armieswhere police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundations Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, the Department of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft, and other equipment.

Bernick continued, federal agencies of all stripes, as well as local police departments in towns with populations less than 14,000, come equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery.

Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the equipment some police departments possess and the constituents they serve, today, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted on an armored vehicle. The Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of military equipment to police departments across the countrytanks included.

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jurynational security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiturewe begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.

Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.

Let us continue to pray for Michael Browns family, the people of Ferguson, police, and citizens alike.

Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky.

VIEW GALLERY | 54 PHOTOS

... VIEW MORE

Continue reading here:
Rand Paul: We Must Demilitarize the Police - Time.com

Sen. Rand PaulRand PaulRand Paul: Ryan, Trump giving 'different impression' on healthcare plan Rand Paul: Trump 'very open to negotiation' to ObamaCare bill Kentucky governor says he's 'not impressed' with GOP healthcare plan MORE (R-Ky.) on Friday said President Trump is open to changing parts of the House GOP's ObamaCare repeal bill.

Paul added that during their talk on Thursday night, Trump "said he's open tonegotiation."

His comments come after a spokesman for Paul hinted that heexpected the bill would "be up for renegotiation."

Hearing that very soon the Obamacare Lite bill will be up for renegotiation and this time we will have CONSERVATIVE input!

Paul and House conservatives are pushing an alternative ObamaCare repeal bill that mirrors legislation passed by Congress in late 2015.

The legislation would effectively separate repeal and replacement, a move that could draw opposition from a handful of centrist GOP senators who want the details of replacement locked down before they vote on repeal.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer pushed back on Friday against a question on whether Trump is willing to renegotiate the House bill, but stressed that the president is open to hearing other ideas on how to improve the legislation.

"The president's also been very clear through all of the discussions ... that as he meets with members of Congress and outside groups, that if someone's got an idea that can make this legislation more accessible, give more choice to the American people, drive down costs, make it more patient centric, he wants to listen to it," Spicertold reporters during the daily press briefing.

TwoHouse panels passed their portions of the GOP repeal and replacement bill this week, with the House hoping to pass the legislation by the end of the month.

Senate GOP leadership wants to vote on the legislation by early April when lawmakers leave a two-week recess but the House bill is facing growing opposition in the upper chamber.

Meanwhile, a group ofmoderate senators are keeping a close eye on what happens to ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion.

GOP leadership faces a narrow path to getting ObamaCare repeal through the upper chamber.Republicans have 52 seats in the Senate, meaning they can only lose two GOP senators and still pass the legislation if all Democrats and Independents oppose it.

Go here to read the rest:
Rand Paul: Trump 'very open to negotiation' to ObamaCare bill - The Hill (blog)

Adam Beam, AP Published 12:29 p.m. CT March 10, 2017 | Updated 4 hours ago

Rand Paul(Photo: File photo)

FRANKFORT Duard Rutledge voted for Donald Trump and Rand Paul for the same reason: They're not afraid of a fight.

That's why the 66-year-old retired Toyota worker wasn't worried to see Kentucky's junior senator getting in the way of the Republican plan to replace Obama's health care law.

"When you get two thoroughbreds, they are high strung," he said. "But if you get them headed the right way they can both win the race."

Paul has been one of the most vocal Senate critics of the GOP plan to replace the federal Affordable Care Act, even before he knew what was in it. Last week, he hauled a copy machine outside of the room where House Republicans were writing the bill and asked for a copy, highlighting the secrecy surrounding the proposal. Since then, he has declared the plan dead, calling it "Obamacare lite."

Trump has pushed back, but without the blunt-force approach that has defined his politics. He dispatched top aide Kellyanne Conway to appear via phone on a Louisville radio station to express disappointment with Paul's comments. And while Trump has used his Twitter account to call Paul a "spoiled brat" in the past, he used his powerful social media presence this week to call Paul "my friend" and said he was sure he would "come along with the new and great health care program."

Paul won another six-year term last year and White House pressure is unlikely to make him reverse course.

On Saturday, Vice President Mike Pence is scheduled to appear in Louisville, possibly to advocate publicly for the replacement plan. For Terry Wright, a retired union worker in Louisville who voted for Trump, that's all he needs to hear.

"I trust him (Trump) more than I would trust anybody else," he said, adding he did not vote for Paul in the U.S. Senate election.

After years of Democratic dominance, Kentucky voters are becoming accustomed to Republican rule and the infighting that can come with it. Whether it's U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Matt Bevin the two fierce primary foes turned allies after Bevin won the 2015 governor's race or Trump and Paul's vicious barbs during the GOP presidential primaries, many conservative voters see conflict as a healthy part of politics.

"Whenever we get into this kinder, gentler, 'Well I'm not going to say that because it will make them mad,' that's how we get in trouble," said Alan Halsey, a 31-year-old publisher of The Swift Creek Courier and owner of a general store who voted for Trump and Paul. "We need people that will stand. And butting heads is part of standing."

The Trump-Paul spat is more complicated for Phyllis Vincent, a 70-year-old retired teacher in Frankfort who is running to be the chairwoman of her county Republican party. She wants to do away with Affordable Care Act, but she acknowledges it will be difficult to repeal it "root and branch" now that nearly half a million people in the state depend on it for health coverage.

"Part of me is a bit disappointed (Trump) is not pushing any harder than what he's doing," she said. But she also understands how many people have health care, and "we can't just pull the rug out from under them overnight."

The friction occurs against a backdrop of intense debate over the success or failure of the Affordable Care Act in Kentucky, where it has been touted as a success story by Democrats and some independent studies.

When the original roll-out of health care was plagued by technical problems, Kentucky's state-run exchange, dubbed kynect, ran smoothly. The exchange, combined with an expansion of the state's Medicaid program, brought health care coverage to nearly 500,000 people, lowering the state's uninsured rate from more than 20 percent to 7.5 percent.

But the program has cost taxpayers an extra $257 million in the state's most recent spending plan, and the current governor has called the program a disaster and moved to overhaul it.

Read or Share this story: http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/03/10/kentuckys-rand-paul-obstacle-trumps-health-plan/99007870/

Excerpt from:
Kentucky's Rand Paul an obstacle to Trump's health plan - The Gleaner

In a hearing for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered a much-needed critique of the interventionist foreign policy pursued by the bipartisan establishmentin Washington for the better part of two decades.

Paul used U.S. intervention in Yemen a war many Americans do not even know our government is fighting as the launching pad for his argument. Central to Pauls comments, posed as a question to Dr. Dafna H. Rand of the National Defense University, who was testifying, is the issue of whether the United States present foreign policy is dictated more by what wecan do than what weshould do.

RELATED:President Trump is amping up Barack Obamas worst Middle East war

The United States has the technical ability to kill anyone anywhere anytime, Paul began. Yet, he continued, just because we can doesnt mean we should, and I think we dont have enough discussion about the practical ramifications of whether or not we kill more terrorists than we create. He continued:

I think Yemen is a perfect example of this. Were supplying the Saudis with bombs, refueling the planes, picking the targets. I assume that we didnt pick the target of a funeral procession, but we wounded 500 people and 140 people I say we; the Saudis did it, but with our armaments. You think that Yemenis dont know where the bombs are coming from?

We recently had a raid and I dont blame our soldiers. I mean, I have members of my family who actively serve. They do what theyre told. But were the policymakers. I mean, we sent them into Yemen. Ive still not been told while we went to Yemen. Someones got to make a decision: Did we in killing a, you know, a few of the al Qaeda [members] in that village was that worth the fact that we had to kill women and children, or women and children were inadvertently killed in that, including an American citizen?

I guess my question to Dr. Rand is: Do you think were adequately weighing whether were creating more terrorists than we kill, whether were doing more good than we are doing harm, whether we are safer or more risk? I think your testimony was at least reasoned in the sense that [it asked] will we be better off. Yes, we can take a new port in Yemen. We can do anything. But in the end, will we be safer, better off if we continue the way were continuing?

In her response to Paul, Rand largely agreed with his point, noting that some military actions may be lawful without being wise.

Shes right, but since Congress has not authorized U.S. military action in Yemen at all, Id suggest it is unlawful specifically, unconstitutional too. Though the executive branch has, under Presidents Obama and Trump alike, claimed authority to intervene in Yemen under the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed in the wake of 9/11, the Yemeni civil war has nothing to do with 9/11; and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the branch of al Qaeda in Yemen, did not exist until eight years after 9/11.

RELATED:Rand Paul can save health care reform

Unless Congress magically knew the future back in 2001 and Im going to go out on a limb here and say that is not what happened this war is illegal and unwise at once.

It is also mostly unquestioned in Washington, which is why Pauls questions here are so important. This willingness to ask questions about our foreign policy that others wont is why, whatever our differences, Im glad to see Paul back in the Senate for at least six more years.

More:
Rand Paul on Yemen: Are US interventions doing more harm than good? Are we actually any safer? - Rare.us