Mediaboss Marketing

Across the country in Washington, fresh trouble was breaking out by the hour, enveloping a Republican president and stalling a raft of campaign promises in his young presidency. But here, at a gathering of Republican Party leaders, the mood was upbeat.

On Wednesday, the second day in which President Trumps administration was buried in fallout from his decision to fire FBI Director James B. Comey, Republican National Committee members and guests gathered under festive white lights on the lawn of the elegant Hotel del Coronado, serenaded by a guitarist who played Hotel California as the sun set.

Desserts, more beverages and fine cigars were waiting at the RNCs next private party stop, a host told the happy and relaxed crowd.

On Thursday, RNC members heard optimistic assessments of the partys financial standing, listened to an invitation-only speech by the presidents daughter-in-law Lara Trump and talked up strategies for the 2018 election.

For a few days, the members of the RNC are happily in a bubble.

Members of Congress might be growing a bit wobbly on Trump and the media atmospherics may be cloudy and getting darker, but little of that negativity was visible at this sun-splashed resort.

Im the chairman of the California Republican Party, Jim Brulte pointed out, making reference to the GOPs fading registration numbers in the state: By definition Im optimistic.

Party activists here seemed confident not only of securing the three congressional seats up for grabs in special elections this spring, he said, but also of making a strong showing in House and Senate races in 2018, despite Democratic glee at Trumps current problems.If you want an optimistic bubble, you ought to be talking to congressional Democrats because theyre in an optimistic bubble, he said.

Some RNC members quietly hinted at concerns about the president, given that the Republican healthcare bill an answer to years of promises that the GOP would repeal and replace Obamacare faces weeks of work, at a minimum, after a narrow win in the House.

Even before the healthcare debate, the Comey controversy and the continuing investigation into whether Trump allies colluded with Russia to affect the 2016 election, the president suffered from historically low approval ratings.

Id like to see him get some stuff done, said one RNC member, who requested anonymity to preserve relations within the party.

To some extent, the presidents troubles are helping to energize the party, conversations here made clear.

Little cements support for an elected official more than criticism from the enemy, and the raft of insults leveled at Trump by Democrats over recent weeks and months have only buffed his image in the minds of some here.

As RNC member Steve Scheffler of Iowa put it: The mood of Republican activists is that theyre thrilled to have a president and an administration going to basically try to fulfill the promises Donald Trump made, and also to push back against what I would call the shrill, unhinged, socialist left that just never seems to accept the fact that Donald Trump was elected president.

Scheffler cited ruckuses at recent town halls, where Republican officeholders have faced angry crowds worried about losing healthcare benefits or, he suggested, bent on causing trouble in a way that will boomerang in the next elections.

GOP Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, he recalled, was shouted down and called a liar before shed even said her piece at one recent event.The American people see that for what it is, he said. Its not really a civil discourse.

For more on politics

The party could suffer, however, if the president remains under siege as the midterm election arrives. Midterm votes usually play out as referendums on the sitting chief executive.

Several RNC members said the overwhelming view among them of the Comey matter was that the FBI director should have been fired long ago, and that Democrats were hypocrites for defending him now after blaming him for Hillary Clintons loss in 2016. (They avoided noting that late in his campaign, Trump had fiercely defended the man he fired this week.)

As for healthcare, the controversial House bill was a glitch in the road,as Scheffler put it, which Republicans here hope will prove less dangerous once Senate Republicans craft their version. (Several nonpartisan congressional handicappers have moved their forecasts for nearly two dozen House seats toward Democrats in recent weeks a figure perilously close to the number of seats that would give them control of the chamber.)

Some RNC members expressed more open concern. Steve Duprey, the Republican committeeman from New Hampshire and a veteran of that states political races, said Democrats were being hypocritical about Comey. But he added that an errant signal may have been sent when Trump met with two high-ranking Russian officials a day after firing the FBI director in apparent pique over the investigation into Russia and the Trump campaign.

There are some of us who wish the optics were a little different, and the timing, he said. It wouldnt have been how I scheduled it.

Few of the partys major activists backed Trump when his campaign began in 2015, but Duprey and others say members appreciate him now. They specifically cited his appointment of Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Trumps pursuit of a foreign policy more aggressive than President Obamas.

This a president who is trying to make things happen, Duprey said. While some of us would like him to shut down his Twitter account and perhaps change his comportment a little bit, its part of who he is. Yes, he has to deliver on some things, but I think the perception is hes doing a good job.

Although no one was indiscreet enough to say so, another possibility seemed to be in the air among Republicans in Coronado. If Trump could actually pull off a presidential victory despite all the odds, whos to say that Republicans cant succeed just as well in 2018?

I think anybody that will suggest that in May of 2017 they can tell you with certainty whats going to happen in November of 2018 is either a prophet or a charlatan, said California party chief Brulte. And we havent had any prophets that were 100% accurate since Old Testament times.

cathleen.decker@latimes.com

@cathleendecker

seema.mehta@latimes.com

@LATSeema

ALSO

Read the original post:
Sunshine, optimism and a few crossed fingers as Republican Party leaders gather in California to plan for 2018 election - Los Angeles Times

Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday presented a slightly sunnier view of Californias economy than he offered just four months ago, but nonetheless delivered one of his vintage sermons on the evils of overspending when outlining a new state spending plan.

And this time, the man who once trained to be a Jesuit priest singled out the states Republican members of the House for their unanimous vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act a move that alone would result in California losing $18.6 billion in federal funds a decade from now.

They werent sent to Congress just to take orders from that crowd, or from Donald Trump, Brown said. I think they made a mistake, and theyre going to have to do penance for it.

The $183.4-billion spending plan, revised from his first version in January, does not assume any actual loss of federal dollars, given that Congress remains divided over a number of issues on how to rework the Obamacare law. Nor does it offer any assurances that the state has a plan B should it come to pass. Brown has insisted that detailed plans must emerge in Washington before the state changes course.

What the new spending outline does do, though, is offer a handful of concessions to lawmakers, local governments and advocacy groups that had criticized Browns earlier budget proposal as too meager. The governor abandoned his call to delay expansion of full-day preschool and higher payments for child care providers. He also agreed to expand dental benefits for low-income adults, and reversed a decision to fully transfer a new healthcare delivery system to county governments.

Counties had been particularly vocal about Browns winter healthcare proposal, which would have cut annual state spending by $600 million on a program that seeks to streamline the use of medical and in-home support services by seniors and disabled citizens. Instead, the state will gradually reduce its subsidy over a four-year period.

We think well be able to avoid significant cuts to vital county services as a result of the infusion of cash, said Matt Cate, executive director of the California State Assn. of Counties.

The updated spending plan also, at first blush, offers good news for K-12 education. Under the long-standing constitutional guarantee, schools are generally promised more money when tax revenues rise. The governor proposes $1.4 billion more in general fund spending than he did in January. He also has dropped his effort to use future education dollars to pay current obligations, a complicated plan strongly opposed by education advocates.

But Browns new budget seeks to trim future school spending. We wouldnt be growing as fast as the rest of the budget under this plan, said Kevin Gordon, a longtime education lobbyist.

The new budget is likely to raise eyebrows, too, at the University of California, where Brown proposes tying $50 million in funding to recent promises on accepting more transfer students as well as recommendations made in the recent audit of UC President Janet Napolitanos office operations.

Political Road Map: California has $55 billion in tax breaks on the books, many here to stay

That the governor can offer more money to a variety of programs is a sign that he and his advisors now believe their original economic projections were too conservative. In fact, completely missing from the governors question-and-answer session with reporters on Thursday was one of his most dire warnings in the first budget: a projected deficit of $1.6 billion.

Only later did his budget director, Michael Cohen, confirm that the new projected shortfall absent any action to prevent it would be only $400 million in the coming fiscal year. The change is driven by substantially higher estimates of personal income tax collections in the coming budget year, offset by weaker-than-assumed tax receipts for a time period that stretches back the summer of 2015. State budget writers generally use a three-year view of revenue collections to craft, and revise, Californias spending plan.

While the governor backed down on some of his preferred spending constraints, he held fast on others. Perhaps most contentious of those is Browns broad interpretation of the rules governing last years tobacco tax increase, Proposition 56.

Advocates believe that revenue from the new $2-per-pack tax is supposed to go to increasing access to Medi-Cal, the states healthcare program for the poor, and raising the low reimbursement rates paid to Medi-Cal providers. The governor, on the other hand, is calling for that money to be used to maintain existing program levels.

I think the voters voted in good faith, thinking that the money would be there, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) said in an interview with The Times Sacramento bureau this week.

While the majority of the new spending plan represented tweaks or modifications of existing ideas, Brown introduced one notable and unique idea on Thursday when it comes to the states daunting obligation to pay for public employee pensions. In essence, the state would tap an internal government fund to make a one-time $6-billion payment to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

The money would effectively double the total size of the states contribution to the pension fund next year, and budget writers believe it could slightly ease the states obligation in future years to make rapidly rising annual payments for retirement promises made to government workers. The money would be a loan from the internal fund, and the debt would be paid back in part with money set aside in Californias newly expanded rainy-day fund.

Even with the proposals outlined Thursday, Brown insisted the states financial future remains unclear. And he offered a particularly sharp critique of the president and Republicans in Congress for changes that could send shockwaves westward.

Read the original here:
Gov. Jerry Brown urges Republican 'penance' for healthcare vote, warns of the impact on California's budget - Los Angeles Times

New York Times

Midwestern Manners a Memory at One Iowa Republican's Town Halls New York Times Be an adult! Hey, shut up! Booooo! A congressman's ears may still be burning after he met with constituents back home. and more »

Read the rest here:
Midwestern Manners a Memory at One Iowa Republican's Town Halls - New York Times

Passing a health care bill out of the House was the first step, but now the challenge of guiding a bill through the Senate -- where Republicans have an even slimmer majority -- begins. Republican senators have already said they will craft their own legislation and will use a process known as budget reconciliation to move it out of the upper chamber with 51 votes instead of 60, but that approach gives Majority Leader Mitch McConnell little room for error. Republicans can only afford two defections in their ranks.

Here are the five flash points you can expect as the Senate Republicans debate their way forward on health care:

Medicaid has long been in conservatives' crosshairs, but the benefit for states has been undeniable. Medicaid expansion has been a lifeline for constituents who suffer from mental illness or addiction and have been able to access treatment through the expansion.

Of the 52 Republicans in the Senate, 20 hail from states that expanded Medicaid in recent years.

Ohio's Rob Portman, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, West Virginia's Shelley Moore Capito and Colorado's Cory Gardner sent a letter to McConnell in March, when the House's bill was first released, expressing their concerns with the way the House bill handled Medicaid expansion.

The House's plan would end enhanced federal funding for Medicaid expansion in 2020. After that year, individuals on the program weren't kicked off, but once they cycled off the program, they weren't allowed to re-enroll. Essentially, the House's bill phased out Medicaid expansion over time.

The bill would also curtail federal support for the overall Medicaid program, giving states either a set amount of money per enrollee or a fixed block grant -- shifting the financial burden to the states.

Expect in the Senate that many of the lawmakers whose constituents have benefited from the Medicaid expansion will fight to keep the program intact longer. They will want to give individuals more time to transition off Medicaid and provide additional safety nets to ensure that people who may become ineligible for the program have another means to buy insurance. Meanwhile, expect Republicans who came from states that didn't expand Medicaid to argue that the program be phased out as soon as possible to save money.

One of the earliest controversies in the House's health care bill was the issue of tax credits. Conservatives argued the House's refundable tax credits were little more than a new entitlement program, a new name for the Obamacare subsidies Republicans had railed against for years. The similarities between the two -- Obamacare subsidies are also refundable tax credits -- prompted some lawmakers to dub the House plan "Obamacare Lite."

But more moderate Republicans argued that refundable tax credits in the House bill were inadequate -- largely because the tax credits were based on age, not income.

As CNN reported at the time when the Congressional Budget Office released its initial score of the House's bill, a 64-year-old making $26,500 would pay $1,700 for coverage in 2026 with Obamacare subsidies. But under House Speaker Paul Ryan's plan, that same person would pay $14,600 in premiums with the GOP tax credits.

In an attempt to lower the burden for low-income and older Americans, expect some GOP senators to push for some sort of means testing, which would take into consideration someone's income when calculating the size of their tax credit. In March, South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune, a member of leadership and a member of the health care working group, introduced a proposal along those lines targeted to boost the size of tax credits for lower income people.

The House health care bill would defund Planned Parenthood for one year, a provision that could face increased scrutiny in the Senate where some moderate lawmakers like Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have already said they'd prefer to keep funding the women's health care provider.

Taking the provision out could alienate the Senate's conservatives who viewed the House's funding repeal as a major victory and are now feeling pressure from outside religious groups to keep the defund in the Senate's version of the bill.

One key Obamacare-era regulation that would be changed dramatically under the House's health care bill protects people with pre-existing conditions.

The promise of protecting people with pre-existing conditions was at the epicenter of Trump's own campaign stump speeches. But under the House's health care bill, states would be able to opt out of the community rating protection, which would allow insurers to base premiums based on a person's medical history. This would only apply to those who are not continuously insured.

Experts have argued that it could have major ramifications for people with pre-existing conditions.

Expect moderate Republicans to take a serious look at how to make sure that people with pre-existing conditions have additional safeguards as they craft their own bill. The messaging for Republicans has already been brutal as Democrats have very publicly argued that Republicans are gutting an overwhelmingly popular protection from the Affordable Care Act.

Under Obamacare, insurers are required to cover 10 key benefits for consumers. Those range from hospitalization to maternity care, but the House health care bill changes that. In an attempt to drive down premiums, the House's conservative Freedom Caucus insisted that states be able to opt out of the essential health benefits requirements.

Conservatives in the Senate are expected to push for even more robust insurance deregulation in an attempt to lower premiums. One idea being considered would give states an "opt in" rather than an "opt out" on key Obamacare-era regulations like requiring insurers cover the 10 essential health benefits.

But that could stir concerns from moderate senators who already fear that the GOP has gone too far to scale down insurance protections for consumers back home. Waiving the essential health benefits could hurt people with pre-existing conditions because insurers could opt not to cover their treatment. Also, it could make it harder for those dealing with substance abuse or mental health issues to get help.

Here is the original post:
The five fights Republican senators will have on health care - CNN

Donald Trump is president because he won about 78,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Hes also president because he beat her more soundly in Florida and Texas and so on, sure, but its those 78,000 votes that have captured the publics imagination. Why? For one thing, those states collectively had backed the Republican precisely zero times in presidential contests from 1992 to 2012. Moreover, those states reinforced the argument that Trump had made from Day One: Disaffected working class-white voters in the Rust Belt would put him over the top. Polling missed this surge and so, too, did media observers like yours truly leading to a barrage of

whats going on with working-class whites? analysis.

The Atlantic has entered the fray on the strength of a poll conducted in partnership with PRRI. Their analysis suggests that cultural anxiety, not economic stress, pushed those voters to endorse Trump. This agrees with exit polling, which showed that those most worried about the economy preferred Clinton in all of those states and in most other states, too.

But this graph from PRRIs analysis is worth breaking out separately. It suggests that younger working-class white voters defined by PRRI as those without a college degree who dont have salaried employment are more strongly Republican than older members of that group.

Because party identity is generally fairly static over time, that graph suggests a potential long-term problem for a Democratic Party that received the strong support of younger voters for Barack Obamas victories in 2008 and 2012 and that seemed likely to be able to count on support from those voters over time. As I wrote in March, millennials defined broadly and inconsistently as those born from 1980 to 2000 tend to lean left, while older voters tend to lean more heavily conservative. This PRRI poll seems to add an asterisk, perhaps along the lines of this 2014 analysis: the economic struggles felt by these young people under a Democratic president might turn them off over the long term.

But Republicans shouldnt celebrate just yet. First of all, this is a very small group of voters. And, second, PRRIs numbers dont match other polls.

Lets address the second part first. PRRIs poll used a very particular definition of white working class thats a bit tricky to replicate. Often, pollsters use college degrees as a marker: Those without a four-year degree are determined to be in the working class, given how those degrees correlate to income.

When The Post and ABC News polled shortly before the election, whites younger than 40 and without a college degree were more likely to say they were Republican than Democrat but by a much smaller margin than other age groups. (They were also far more likely to offer some other response besides Democrat, Republican or independent.)

The General Social Survey, a biannual national survey funded primarily by the National Science Foundation, gives us a bit more detail. Although the 2016 survey doesnt break down income by type (hourly vs. salary) as was done in years past, we can get a more fine-tuned look at the group under consideration.

The survey offers a seven-part scale for partisanship: Strong Democrat, Democrat, independent who leans Democrat, independent, independent who leans Republican, Republican and strong Republican. (Its important to remember that, broadly, there are more independents in the United States than Democrats or Republicans but that most independents still tend to vote on partisan lines.) If we clump those results together into Democrat, independent or Republican, the result is as follows.

Younger whites without a college degree are much more likely to say theyre independent than older working-class whites but are not any more likely to say that they are Republican.

The GSS also asks people to self-identify their economic class. Among young whites who identify as working class, the split isnt much different from those with no degree or from young white voters overall.

If, however, we include those independents who lean Democratic or Republican with those who identify specifically with a party, the results change a bit. Here, 19- to 29-year-old whites without college degrees are more likely to be strong Republican, Republican or independent-leaning-Republican than those ages 30 to 44. But most still identify with the Democrats, far more so than older whites without degrees.

Thats not the case with whites who self-identify as working class. In that group, those younger than 30 are more likely to identify as leaning Republican than Democratic (although still less so than older whites). Since this is a self-identification, theres likely some overlap here with partisan identity. (For example, 15 percent of those making $100,000 or more view themselves as working class or lower class.)

Back to the broader point: The PRRI assessment seems to be something of an anomaly. That doesnt mean its incorrect; it just means that we should be cautious about making detailed assumptions based on these figures.

Among the assumptions that we should be hesitant to make is that this bodes poorly for the Democrats long-term. Not only because the poll numbers arent replicated in other surveys, but because whites without college degrees are a smaller part of the young population than the older population.

The Census Bureau has tracked educational attainment for decades. Over time, the number of Americans with college degrees has increased sharply; more Americans today have degrees than at any point in the past.

Whats more, younger Americans are more likely to have a degree than older Americans meaning that a smaller percentage of that age group likely fits into PRRIs definition of white working class.

College degrees and economic success dont necessarily go hand-in-hand, as anyone with outstanding college debt can tell you. Nor is it the case that having a college degree will continue to be a strong predictor of economic class. That so many more Americans will have college degrees in the future will shift the significance of this metric.

For now? The broad pattern still holds. Young people are more supportive of the Democrats than the Republicans. But the results of 2016 should be reminder enough for the left: Thats not necessarily going to be good enough.

Read the original post:
Are young working-class whites skewing more Republican than older ones? - Washington Post