Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump's two sons and his daughter-in-law met with Republican leaders Thursday to discuss strategy ahead of the next two elections.

Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Eric's wife, Lara, met with GOP leaders at the Republican National Committee's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The trio stayed for roughly two hours and discussed the Republican Party's strategy ahead of the 2018 midterm elections and 2020 presidential race, the Washington Post reported.

Trump's two sons and his daughter-in-law volunteered for Trump's campaign, and Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., now run the Trump Organization.

According to the Washington Post, there is disagreement among Republicans as to whether the meeting with the three family members was appropriate.

The Washington Post said the meeting bothered two prominent Republicans who were briefed on the gathering. But two others familiar with the session said it was appropriate for Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Lara Trump to shed light on what they believe would be helpful to the president before the next contests.

In addition to the Trump family members, RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, RNC chief of staff Sara Armstrong, former Trump campaign digital strategist Brad Parscale, and Trump campaign committee director Michael Glassner attended the meeting.

Former White House deputy chief of staff Kate Walsh, who advises a nonprofit group that backs Trump, was also in attendance.

The meeting follows a slew of reports involving Trump, his closest advisers, and alleged ties to Russian officials, and the revelations are occurring as the FBI continues to investigate Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.

The latest, from the Washington Post, said the president's senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner asked Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak to set up secret communication channels with the Kremlin and the Trump transition team.

Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, said Saturday he wouldn't be concerned about backchannels Kushner was attempting to set up with Russia.

View original post here:
Trump family met with Republican leaders at RNC: Report - Washington Examiner

Photo illustration by Jeff Boyer / Times Union

Photo illustration by Jeff Boyer / Times Union

Confessions of a former Republican

I used to be a Republican. Having worked on New York congressional and gubernatorial campaigns and for Linwood Holton, Virginia's first Republican governor in 100 years (and father-in-law of Tim Kaine), I was a proud, liberal Republican.

Liberal Republicans are an extinct breed today. Being fiscally conservative and socially liberal was not good enough for many Republicans. Somehow, their political needle kept moving, inexorably, to the right.

As the needle moved and as Republicans embraced hard-line conservative views, those of us who believed in civil liberties and social justice, who thought foreign aid made sense from a humanitarian, foreign policy and military viewpoint, who believed the environment should be protected, and who thought health care a human, if not a legal, right were thought to be suspect. Labeled RINOs (Republican in name only), we were no longer welcome in the Republican Party.

I had become an independent long before the forced exodus began. Even in the 1970s, when I was Lin Holton's special counsel and wanted to vote Republican, I did so by using an absentee ballot and writing in Lin's name for president.

From then on, I was independent. Sometimes I voted Democrat, sometimes Republican. Always, I voted for the person, not the party.

Being tied to the Republican Party was particularly difficult this year. Ironically, at the same time the Barnum and Bailey circus announced it would close, a new carnival hawker, Donald Trump, emerged to take the place of P.T. Barnum. (It should be noted, though, Barnum had political experience in the Connecticut Legislature and as a mayor.)

Despite all odds, the new-day Barnum won the presidency. Of course, no one knows what Barnum would have thought of Trump. Clearly, though, he would have been impressed by the way Trump manipulated the press (and in some cases the public, who seemed to vote against their self-interest).

Speaking of the press, it is now playing catch-up and questioning, after the fact, the newly elected president on a range of issues and lies. Let's not forget, though, how we arrived at this point.

Early on, CBS' Les Moonves said Trump was good for business. So CBS, and other networks, reported on every tweet and gave candidate Trump the opportunity to call in whenever he wished. The result: a reported $4.6 billion in free publicity during the campaign (Hillary Clinton received $1 billion).

Thanks to that free publicity, and thanks, of course, to the FBI's role in the campaign, Attorney General Lynch's foolish meeting with Bill Clinton, Republicans who could not vote for a Democrat (at least not Clinton), people who did not vote, and Russian interference, we now have a Trump presidency.

What will the Trump presidency produce? Trump's deconstructionist cabinet appointments say a great deal. With education, energy and environment heads who have advocated for the dismantling of their departments, a Treasury secretary who wants to discard banking regulations developed following the 2008 financial crisis, and an attorney general with a questionable civil rights past, the president seems bent on dismantling government.

As for health care, the administration is turning its back on both Republican history and the American people. Beginning with Teddy Roosevelt, Republicans have long championed some form of national health care. Not today. Instead, Republicans believe if you can afford health care, fine, and they will help you with tax credits; if not, you are on your own. Besides, there is always the emergency room.

A formula for successful governance? Perhaps if your goal is to dismantle government.

Why reduce government? Because taxes on the wealthy among the lowest in the developed world can then be reduced further.

Speaking of wealth, it is amazing Republicans, who railed (rightly) about Hillary Clinton's speaking fees and supposed pay-to-play contributions to the Clinton Foundation, have remained mum on clear conflicts of interest of the president and his family. The Constitution's emolument clause restricts such conflicts. Besides, benefitting from one's office is unethical.

My suspicion/prediction: Some of the president's supporters will soon find themselves with a Flint, Mich.-like moment when mine debris pollutes drinking water, when they are without health care or when a crisis develops that cannot be solved by tweeting. Then the president's base of support will weaken. And when that happens, Republicans in Congress, who would much prefer one of their own, Mike Pence, will impeach and convict Mr. Trump.

Those of us who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal have been shut out of the Republican Party for decades. The Trump phenomenon has only highlighted the gap.

At some point, the political needle will move again. Whether it will be enough to bring back folks like me, though, I don't know.

Roger H. Hull is a former president of Union College and president of the Schenectady-based Help Yourself Foundation.

See original here:
Confessions of a former Republican - Albany Times Union

New York Magazine

The Good Republican Women - The New York Times New York Times A reader praises the courage of some female senators who put country before party. How Electing Republican Women Will Affect Politics - NYMagNew York Magazine all 2 news articles »

See the article here:
The Good Republican Women - The New York Times - New York Times

A push for gun rights including a stand your ground bill that drew a packed hearing at the Minnesota Legislature did not get a bill to the governors desk.

Both proponents and opponents of gun-rights bills expected strong backing this year, given that Republicans had just taken control of both houses.

But Republican leaders of key committees say they didnt want to push the bills when they were also working to craft a $46 billion budget for the state. They also anticipated strong opposition from DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, who has vetoed similar legislation in the past.

From a global perspective, the Senate didnt take it up, and the governor doesnt seem interested. Do you really want to take it up in a budget year? said Tony Cornish, a strong gun-rights advocate who chairs the Houses public safety committee.

The bills received a hearing in Cornishs public safety committee, but none in the Senate.

Why waste a lot of political capital on something that wont pass? asked Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, who chairs the Senate judiciary committee, through which a gun bill would likely have to pass. Dayton had vetoed bills like the ones lawmakers worked on this year in the past, and said this years measures would meet a similar fate.

The author of the gun-rights bills that received a hearing, Rep. Jim Nash, R-Waconia, said he was very disappointed that the Senate didnt move on the bill. Im just surprised that a duo Republican Legislature wouldnt move it at this time.

And Bryan Strawser of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which lobbies for gun rights, said there are a lot of people in House and Senate that have made campaign promises that will be held accountable in 2018.

Strawsers group endorsed Limmer in 2016, and gave him an A grade for his positions.

Hes been very disappointing when it comes to delivering. But prior to now, hes had an impeccable track record, Strawser said.

The Rev. Nancy Nord Bence, executive director of Protect Minnesota, a gun-control advocacy group, said her group mobilized its base eight times this year including four rallies.

She expressed exuberance that the bills hadnt made it to either full House or Senate votes in 2017, but quickly added, We have to remember theyre viable for another year.

And when it came to opposing legislation, Its also an utter defeat for the three gun-prevention bills that didnt even get a hearing.

The two bills that received a hearing this year include a constitutional carry bill, which would have eliminated the need for a gun permit on public property entirely in most cases, and the stand your ground bill, which would have expanded the types of incidents in which it is legal to take another persons life.

Current law allows a Minnesotan to use lethal force to stop a felony in their own homes. The stand your ground bill would have allowed lethal force to stop a variety of felonies, whether the potential victim was at home or not. In a home, a person could also have used deadly force in incidents they believed in good faith were required to succeed in defense.

Both bills received a hearing in Cornishs committee, but never got any further. Proponents of the stand your ground legislation were anticipating a floor vote of the entire House in the Legislatures final days, but that never materialized.

Legislation similar to the stand your ground bill reached the governors desk in 2012. At the time, Dayton said he opposed it due to strong concerns from the law enforcement community.

The hometown of Rep. Jim Nash has been corrected in this story.

Read the original here:
Minnesota gun rights legislation fails to get far, despite Republican legislative control - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

What conservative Republicans such as Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, dislike about Medicaid isnt just that its fiscally progressive. They also dislike that its working.CreditPHOTOGRAPH BY ALEX WONG / GETTY

Many people who dont use Medicaid think of it as a federal health-care program for the impoverished and destitute, but its much more than that. In the past couple of decades, as incomes have stagnated and health-care costs have accelerated, Medicaid has turned into an essential support mechanism for millions of Americans who cant be classed as poverty-stricken, strictly speaking, but who also cant afford to bear the costs of private health coverage.

The numbers involved are huge. In March of this year, according toofficial figures, 74.6 million people were enrolled in plans supported by Medicaid or its sibling, the Childrens Health Insurance Program. Thats more than one in five of the U.S. population. Since 2013, the number of Medicaid and CHIP enrollees has risen by almost twenty million. Thats largely because the Affordable Care Act of 2010 significantly increased the programs income-eligibility thresholds.

The expansion under Obamacare focussed on working families with incomes just above the official poverty line. But many Medicaid beneficiaries are elderlyand infirm individuals living in nursing homes. In fact, about sixty per cent of all nursing-home residents now receive some sort of assistance from Medicaid. Kids are also big beneficiaries: Medicaid and CHIP now help to provide medical coverage for about a third of all the children in America.

Some of the families who benefit from Medicaid might not even realize they are receiving federal aid. Take New York States Child Health Plus program, which provides medical insurance for the children of low- to middle-income families who dont qualify for regular Medicaid. The program is partially funded by New York taxpayers, but it also receives matching funds from CHIP. Other states have similar programs.

Many Republican-run states have refused to accept Obamacares expansion of Medicaid, but someincluding Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvaniahave agreed to participate. Although the detailsdiffer from place to place, the common thread is that Republican governors and legislatures in these states have seized the opportunity get more of their citizens health-care coverage.

At the national level, however, the Republican Party remains implacably opposed to Medicaid expansion. As the House Republicans health-care-reform bill, called the American Health Care Act, makes clear, the Party doesnt merely want to roll back the Obamacare reforms; it wants to shrink the entire program, transferring it to the states and imposing tight caps on the payments they receive from the federal government.

That is the blueprint for Medicaid laid out in the latest version of the A.H.C.A., which Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, and his colleagues voted through, earlier this month.According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Offices scoring of the A.H.C.A., which it released on Wednesday, the bill would reduce over-all federal spending on health care by about $1.1 trillion over ten years. Of that, eight hundred and thirty-four billion dollarsfully three-quarters of the savingswould come from cuts to Medicaid.

The political battle over the A.H.C.A., and much of the media coverage, has focussed on the individual-insurance marketand the bill would have alarming consequences there, such as forcing much higher premiums onpeople with prexisting conditionsandold people of modest means. But,in terms of over-all money spent and numbers of people affected, the bigger story lies elsewhere. From a financial and human perspective, the Republican bill is, above all else, an assault on Medicaid.

The C.B.O. estimates that by 2026, if the A.H.C.A. were enacted, spending on Medicaid would be reduced by a quarter compared to current spending. In the same time period, the number of people covered by Medicaid and CHIP would fall by about fourteen millionaccounting for almost two-thirds of the total decrease of twenty-three million predicted by the C.B.O.

Why is the Republican Party so hostile toward Medicaid? It cant simply be reflecting the wishes, and interests, of its voters, many of whom are now beneficiaries of the program. Donald Trump appeared to understand this when, from the beginning of his campaign, he promised not to cut Medicaid. (Of course, this pledge turned out to be worth about as much as a marketing flyer for Trump University.)

The two keys to the Republican attitude are money and ideology. If you view the modern G.O.P. as basically a mechanism to protect the wealthy, Medicaid is an obvious target for the Party. The program caters to low- and middle-income people, and its recent expansion was financed partly by an increase in taxes on the richest households in the country.

Under the Affordable Care Act, households with taxable incomes of more than a quarter of a million dollars a year were obliged to pay a 3.8-per-cent tax on their investment incomemoney from things like stock dividends and interest payments on bondsand a 0.9-per-cent surtax on their other earnings. TheA.H.C.A. would abolish these taxes, providing significant handouts to families in the top one per cent. From a fiscal perspective, the cuts to Medicaid pay for these handouts.

Some analysts would leave it there and say that you dont need to get into the nature of conservative ideology; that ideology is merely a pretext for taking from the poor and giving to the rich. I have some sympathy for this view, but I dont think its the whole story.

What conservative Republicans like Ryan dislike about Medicaid isnt just that its fiscally progressive. They also dislike that its working.As medical costs have risen and the private sector has failed to cover an increasing number of Americans, the Medicaid and CHIP programs have filled some of the coverage gap, and have done so relatively cheaply. (Studies show that covering people with private insurance plans costs somewhere between a quarter and a thirdmore than Medicaid.)

For any politician who loathes government interventions in the economy, and whose real goal is to head off socialized medicine, the expansion of Medicaid represents a serious threat. Here is an embryonic single-payer system that is growing fast and could befurther expanded pretty easily. That means it has to be crippled now, before it gets more firmly established. Hence, the A.H.C.A.

Of course, the A.H.C.A.isnt yet law. The measure now goes to the Republican-controlled Senate, where attention will again focus on premiums and coverage in the individual market. These are important issues, to be sure. But also keep a keen eye on what happens to the Medicaid provisions of the bill. If you want to know where todays G.O.P. ultimately stands, that will be the biggest tell.

Follow this link:
The Republicans' War on Medicaid - The New Yorker