Mediaboss Marketing

Earlier in the week, it looked like the Senate healthcare bill -- the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) -- was dead and buried. That very well may still end up being the case, but perhaps rumors of the proposal's death have been premature. According to multiple reports, Republican Senators are still in talks to revive the effort, with some signs of incremental progress starting to emerge. It sounds like developments are still quite some distance away from a House-style bounce-back, but it still sounds like marginal progress. First, Rand Paul -- who's faced some heat for his at-times contradictory intransigence -- appears willing to throw an important procedural bone to his fellow Kentuckian, Mitch McConnell:

Additional details from The Hill:

This strikes me as constructive and fair. Rather than debating nothing, upper chamber Republicans would consider a number of options, including (presumably) a finalized version of the still-evolving BCRA. Speaking of which, a new CBO score of the bill didn't result in too many changes -- people are again seizing on it to perpetuate the "22 million lose coverage" myth -- with one potentially-significant exception. McConnell has opted to leave a few more Obamacare taxes in place, freeing up more on-paper dollars to address concerns raised by moderate holdouts:

This appears to confirm whispers about GOP leaders' next move, first reported earlier in the week:

In a bold move to revive their healthcare bill, Senate Republican leaders are getting ready to propose giving $200 billion in assistance to states that expanded Medicaid, according to a person familiar with internal Senate negotiations. The huge sum would be funded by leaving in place ObamaCares net investment income tax and its Medicare surtax on wealthy earners, according to the source briefed on the proposalThe source said the aid would be targeted primarily at Medicaid expansion states, adding it would be distributed on the back end of the bills timeline, when the legislation would phase out the generous federal contribution for expanded Medicaid enrollment a central pillar of ObamaCare. The goal is winning the support of wavering moderate Republicans who will make or break the legislation...

On one hand, this move could pay double dividends. It would help assuage centrists who are worried about the (needed and fair) Medicaid reforms, while also eliminating two "tax cuts" (really reversals of tax increases) that Democrats have argued are sweetheart deals for the rich. On the other hand, with Paul still almost certainly in the "no" camp on final passage, joining at least Susan Collins and Mike Lee, McConnell is stallion grave danger of falling short of the requisite 50 votes -- a challenge made more difficult by John McCain's indefinite absence. Someone like Mike Lee's vote is likely essential for the legislation to have any chance of passage. How does greasing moderates' skids with more tax dollars help attract skeptical conservatives? Don't they need policy sweeteners, too? Ed Morrissey addressed this 'see-saw' problem yesterday:

That may appeal to the moderates, but the conservatives wont like it at all. They want the savings to go toward tax reform, which the savings from necessary Medicaid reforms will help buffer. While there is enough deficit improvement from these reforms to allow for horse-trading at this level, its about all McConnell can afford to give up while still qualifying the BCRA under reconciliation, and it could complicate the tax-reform effort that is next on the Republican agenda. Its tough to imagine Mike Lee and Ted Cruz coming along for this buyoff, let alone Rand Paul and if they dont, then the whole effort is pointless.

Cruz seems willing to play ball so long as his amendment survives, but Lee broke ranks on this front a few nights ago. Winning him over is just as crucial as bringing Capito or Heller into the fold. Perhaps if the chips are down and the Texan is satisfied with imperfect compromises, he can convince his Utah ally to hold his nose and pass something that improves upon the failing Obamacare status quo. Step one is getting onto the bill, which is by no means a foregone conclusion at all, even with Paul's concession. With votes supposedly scheduled for next Tuesday, let's stand by for updates. I'll leave you with this brutal takedown of baseless anti-BCRA propaganda offered by a former top Obama healthcare official. Cynical lies or revealing ignorance? Take your pick:

Read the original post:
Movement: Rand Paul Now Open to Motion to Proceed, McConnell Adds Medicaid Funding to Woo Moderates - Townhall

The greatest trick any politician can pull off is to get his self-interest and his principles in perfect alignment. As Thomas More observed in Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons," "If we lived in a State where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would make us saintly."

Which brings me to Sen. Rand Paul, the GOP's would-be Man for All Seasons. Paul emerged from the smoldering debris of the Republican health care-reform train wreck as a figure of high libertarian principle, the shining "no" vote on any compromise that came short of full repeal.

"Look, this is what we ran on for four elections," Paul told Neil Cavuto of Fox News. "Republicans ran four times and won every time on repeal Obamacare, and now they're going to vote to keep it. Disappointing."

I found many of Paul's arguments and complaints entirely persuasive on the merits. But there have been times when I had to wonder if the merits were all that was driving him.

Was it just a coincidence that the bill was terribly unpopular in his home state of Kentucky, where more than one in five Kentuckians are on Medicaid?

This is the problem. When touting your principles is a politically expedient way of avoiding accountability, it's hard to tell whether principles or expedience is in the driver's seat. But not impossible.

Paul learned politics on the knee of his father, Ron Paul, a longtime Texas congressman and irrepressible presidential candidate. In the House, the elder Paul earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he voted against nearly everything on the grounds that it wasn't constitutional or libertarian enough.

"I'm absolutely for free trade, more so than any other member of the House," he told National Review's John Miller in 2007. "But I'm against managed trade."

So Paul opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement and all other trade deals, not on Trumpian protectionist grounds but in service to his higher libertarian conscience, which, in a brilliant pas de deux, landed him in the protectionist position anyway.

Ron Paul loved earmarks. He'd cram pork for his district into must-pass spending bills like an overstuffed burrito and then vote against them in the name of purity, often boasting that he never approved an earmark or a spending bill.

In 2006, Republicans proposed legislation to slow the growth of entitlements by $40 billion over five years. Democrats, as usual, screamed bloody murder about Republican heartlessness and voted against it. And so did Ron Paul on the grounds the reform didn't go far enough. Man, that sounds familiar.

Now I can't say for sure that Rand Paul is carrying on the family tradition. He is different from his dad in many ways.

And yet: Every time health-care proceedings moved one step in Paul's direction, he seemed to move one step back. Sen. Ted Cruz offered an amendment that would open up the market for more flexible and affordable plans, like Paul wanted. No good, Paul told Fox's Chris Wallace. Those plans would still be in the "context" of the Obamacare mandates.

"My idea always was to replace it with freedom, legalize choice, legalize inexpensive insurance, allow people to join associations to buy their insurance," Paul said.

Sounds good. Except a provision for exempting associations from Obamacare mandates was already in the bill.

Paul insists he's sympathetic to the GOP's plight and its need to avoid a midterm catastrophe. (It would look awful if the party did nothing on health care at all.) His solution? Just repeal Obamacare now, and work on a replacement later. "I still think the entire 52 of us could get together on a more narrow, clean repeal," he told Wallace.

That sounds like a constructive idea, grounded in principle.

And yet: That's what GOP leaders wanted to do back in January. And one senator more than any other fought to stop them, and even successfully lobbied the White House to change course and do repeal-and-replace simultaneously. Guess who?

"If Congress fails to vote on a replacement at the same time as repeal," Paul wrote back then, "the repealers risk assuming the blame for the continued unraveling of Obamacare. For mark my words, Obamacare will continue to unravel and wreak havoc for years to come."

In the wake of the Senate bill's collapse this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he's all for a clean repeal, and so does Rand Paul. For now.

Jonah Goldberg is a senior editor of National Review. Email him at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com.

Excerpt from:
Rand Paul elusive on health care: Jonah Goldberg - GoErie.com

Republican Sen. Rand Paul sided with President Trump on Thursday after the commander-in-chief criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

Paul, R-Ky., tweeted Thursday morning:

I agree with @realDonaldTrump, his Attorney General should not have recused himself over reported incidental contacts with Russian officials.

The tweet comes after the president told The New York Times that the attorney generals recusal was very unfair to the president.

How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? Trump said, slamming Sessions. If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, Thanks. Jeff, but Im not going to take you.'

The libertarian-leaning Paul went on to take a shot at Sessions over a separate policy move a day earlier -- tweeting his concerns about the DOJ's shift on what's known as asset forfeiture.

SESSIONS OPENS DOOR FOR POLICE TO SEIZE ASSETS, FACES GOP PUSHBACK

What Im most concerned about though is the Attorney Generals actions yesterday to push forward with federal asset forfeiture, Paul tweeted.

He added, Asset forfeiture is an unconstitutional taking of property without trial. Its wrong and I call on the AG and Administration to stop.

Pauls comments come after Sessions ordered the expansion of the governments ability to seize suspects propertya move that put him at odds with Republicans who have slammed the practice as a violation of civil rights.

Sessions touted the use of asset forfeiture as a key tool for law enforcement and said it weakens criminal organizations and the cartel.

Fox News Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.

Brooke Singman is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.

Read more:
Rand Paul sides with Trump on Sessions slam - Fox News

The goal is to remove what critics of the criminal justice system call an unfair disadvantage for poor people and people of color, who reportedly pay disproportionately higher amounts for bail.

Nationally, African American men pay 35 percent higher money bail amounts than white men, and Hispanic men pay 19 percent higher money bail amounts than white men, part of the Harris-Paul bill reads. The individuals who would be exempt from bail are described as low-risk individuals awaiting criminal trials.

The bill continues:

Money bail systems have resulted in disparate harms to poor people and communities of 12 color. Studies have shown that African American 13 and Hispanic defendants are more likely to be detained pretrial than white defendants and less likely to be able to post money bail so they can be released. Moreover, race and money bail amounts are significantly correlated.

The concern is that individuals earning lower wages are not able to pay bail, which could result in them losing their jobs, having their cars towed, and possibly losing their children.

Critics and opponents of the legislation include bail bonds companies and public safety organizations.

Harris, in a written statement announcing the bill, reportedlysaid, In our country, whether you stay in jail or not is wholly determined by whether youre wealthy or not and thats wrong. We must come together to reform a bail system that is discriminatory, wasteful, and fails to keep our communities safe.

Americans deserve fair and equal treatment under the law regardless of how much money is in their pockets or how many connections they have, Paul said, according to theSan Francisco Chronicle.

According toBay Area public radio station KQED, Harris and Pauls bill estimates that 450,000 people are incarcerated in the U.S. without having been convicted of a crime, and while awaiting trial.

The bill seeks to distribute$10 million between stateand tribal court systems in order to replace the use of bail with risk-based decision making that includes objective, research-based, and locally-validated assessment tools that do not result in unwarranted disparities.

In April, Duane Dog Chapman, known for his show Dog the Bounty Hunter appeared in the Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing to testify against similar legislation.

Adelle Nazarian is a politics and national security reporter for Breitbart News. Follow her onFacebookandTwitter.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read more:
Rand Paul Teams Up With Kamala Harris for Bail Reform - Breitbart News

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) came to President Donald Trumps defense on Thursday.

In an interview in theNew York TimesWednesday, Trump told the paper he would not have hired Jeff Sessions as attorney general if he knew that Sessions would ultimately recuse himself from the Department of Justices Russia investigation.

You know, I think the President has a point, because the thing here isif everybody is going to recuse themselves just for incidental contact, I think you dont get really good governance, Paulsaid in an interview on Fox and Friends, the Presidents favored morning news show. I believe that Jeff Sessions contact with the Russians was incidental. In the usual duties of being in Senate, and it being incidental, he should have stayed in the fray and been more supportive of the President.

Paulwent on to rail against Sessions for his actions enforcing asset forfeiture policy, which he says gives the attorney general the power to disproportionately take property from minority and low-income people.

I think we shouldnt take peoples property without conviction. This is something I believe very strongly in, and Im disappointed that Sessions is going after a lot of poor minorities to take their property without due process, he said.

Read more here:
Rand Paul Agrees With Trump: Sessions Shouldn't Have Recused Himself - TPM