Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) appears on CBS Face the Nation on March 12, 2017.

CBS News

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) hasnt been shy about his issues with the Republican health care overhaul plan -- and on Sunday, he said congressional conservatives are not going to vote for it.

Right now I think theres a charm offensive going on -- everybodys being nice to everybody because they want us to vote for this, but were not going to vote for it, Paul told CBS Face the Nation.

Paul said House Speaker Paul Ryan is pitching the health care bill as a binary choice between his overhaul plan and Obamacare as it currently stands -- and isnt interested in negotiating with the more conservative members of his party.

What were hearing is a binary choice is that its the Ryan plan or the status quo, he said. And what hes rammed through his committee is his, without any amendments, and thats the question. If we get what weve got from Ryan, Obamacare lite, he will not have the votes.

The biggest problem with the new GOP plan, Paul said, is that it doesnt fix the fundamental problem with Obamacare.

The one primary thing thats wrong with Obamacare thats visible to everybody is that premiums are rising through the roof, soaring in the individual market, Paul said. That will happen under the Ryan plan as well because they do nothing to fix the fundamental problem.

He repeatedly referred to the bill as Obamacare lite, saying it keeps the major components of Obamacare in place: it includes insurance subsidies, keeps certain taxes in place for one year, keeps the Cadillac tax in place indefinitely and still contains a penalty for people who dont get insurance.

Paul said the bill is currently in the pre-negotiation phase -- and that he believes President Donald Trump is open to negotiating.

I dont think the president is rigid in support of the House bill, I think hes open to seeing how we can get consensus, he said. And what Ive told the president is what Im telling everybody: were united on repeal, not so much on replacement. We do not agree with the fundamental three or four things that the ryan has: subsidies, taxes, mandates and insurance bailout.

Asked about Mr. Trumps claims that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign, Paul said he doesnt believe the Obama administration directly targeted Mr. Trump for wiretapping -- but that they may have picked up conversations of his associates while wiretapping foreign individuals.

I doubt that Trump was a target directly of any kind of eavesdropping but Im not saying it didnt happen, I think theres a very good chance it does, he said. I dont have any special information but the way it works is the FISA court ... wiretaps foreigners and then listens to Americans. Its a backdoor search of Americans.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Go here to read the rest:
Rand Paul: Conservatives "not going to vote for" GOP health care plan - CBS News

A Republican governor who had to back down from his own vows to dismantle Obamacare in his state is siding with congressional conservatives like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who say GOP leadership is not going far enough in its bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

"Sen. Paul ... is not impressed with what has currently been offered," Gov. Matt Bevin (R-KY) told reporters Friday, according to the Associated Press. "Truth be told, I'm not either. So I'm with him."

Paul and other conservatives object to some of the replacement provisions, like refundable tax credits, that leadership has placed in the repeal bill, and have argued that Republicans should vote on a "clean" repeal akin to the 2015 bill they passed but which was vetoed by President Obama. The potential replacement plans can then be brought up separately, argue conservatives, including Paul, who introduced his own ACA alternative. The conservatives also want to speed up the sunset period of Medicaid expansion, which the leadership bill would begin to wind down in 2020.

It's a little awkward that Bevin is bashing the leadership's legislation, known as the American Health Care Act, given that Vice President Mike Pence is traveling to Kentucky this weekend to promote it (though Bevin did say that he will tell Pence "we support their effort to fix this problem," according to the AP.)

It's also a little ironic that Bevin is criticizing other Republicans for recalibrating their repeal promises once they are in power. Bevin kicked off his campaign for governor of Kentucky, a Medicaid expansion state, in 2015 with a promise to uproot Obamacare in the state in every way possible. Over the course of the race he softened that stance, particularly in regards to the Medicaid expansion, which had extended coverage to 400,000 Kentuckians. He ultimately sought to maintain the expansion and apply for a waiver with the Obama administration to change the program instead. For the first year of his term he and the administration were in a back and forth about whether he could impose work requirements, cost sharing and other obstacles for Medicaid recipients. The Trump administration will likely be more amenable to those requests.

Read more here:
O'Care-Hating KY Guv Sides With Rand Paul In Fight With Leaders Over GOP Bill - TPM

Rand Paul contended that if we get what we have from Ryan, he will not have the votes in the Senate. | AP Photo

Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday that Republicans lack sufficient votes to even begin real negotiations on House leaders Obamacare replacement plan.

We are still in the pre-negotiation period, the Kentucky Republican told host John Dickerson on CBS Face the Nation.

Story Continued Below

Paul, who has panned House Speaker Paul Ryans American Health Care Act as Obamacare-lite, outlined the pathway toward legitimate negotiations with fellow Republicans.

The real negotiation period comes and I promise this is the way it's going to work: We will get Obamacare-lite, Ryan's plan, unless there's enough conservatives in the House to say no, he explained. If there's enough to say no, when they start voting on the rules of debate, if they bring down the rule, if they stop him in the tracks, then a true negotiation begins. No negotiation right now counts, until they determine to have enough votes to stop Obamacare-lite.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said earlier Sunday that the current version of the House bill would not only fail in the Senate but could also cost House Republicans their majority in 2018. Ryan was more optimistic Sunday about the bills fate, insisting it could muster 51 votes in the Senate and dismissing objections from Republicans as efforts to negotiate.

But Paul contended that if we get what we have from Ryan, he will not have the votes in the Senate.

And we have to get to that point before true negotiations begin, he added.

Paul, whom President Donald Trump tried to nudge toward supporting the bill via Twitter, said Trump isnt firm in his support of the legislation and is open to seeing how he can reach a consensus.

And what I have told the president is what I am telling everybody: We are united on repeal, not so much on replacement. We do not agree with the fundamental three or four things that Ryan has: subsidies, taxes, mandates and insurance bailout, Paul said. That is Obamacare. We don't want that.

Continued here:
Paul: GOP lacks votes to begin 'real' negotiations on health care - Politico

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