Mediaboss Marketing

Republican lawmakers are pushing a bill through Congress that would allow the president to sack the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at any time for any reason.

But what are the odds President Trump would fire the head of a government agency he has issues with?

Cough.

The Republican legislation, coupled with this weeks ouster of FBI Director James B. Comey, should make CFPB Director Richard Cordray very nervous.

But when I sat down with him Wednesday, he came across as cool, calm and unfazed by the increasingly ugly attacks on him and his watchdog agency.

I dove right in and asked if the FBI mess made him anxious.

Cordray fixed me with a poker players stare and said he had no comment. He noted, though, that he and Comey had been classmates at the University of Chicago Law School.

Cordray probably meant nothing by it. Still, I took it as a veiled way of saying, There but for the grace of God go I.

Trump said last month that he plans to give the law that created the CFPB a very major haircut.

Although weve spoken in the past by phone, this was my first face-to-face conversation with the embattled bureau director. He was in Los Angeles for a CFPB hearing on lending to small businesses.

Cordray seemed sincere when he said the bureau remains focused on its job of safeguarding consumers and that he and his staff go to work every day committed to fighting financial practices that are unfair, predatory or downright illegal.

People are entitled to, and they deserve, someone to make sure these markets are fair and transparent, he told me. Theres a need for this agency. And theres more work to do.

The Republican-controlled House Financial Services Committee voted last week along party lines, 34 to 26, to approve the so-called Financial CHOICE Act and send it to the floor for a vote by the full chamber. (Thats CHOICE as in Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs.)

Among other things, the bill would allow the president to fire the director at will, rather than the current standard that the CFPB chief must be found guilty of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.

It would strip the CFPB of its authority to monitor the day-to-day activities of financial firms and prohibit it from cracking down on practices deemed unfair, deceptive or abusive. The bill also would shut down the bureaus database of consumer complaints, which contains more than 700,000 searchable listings.

In its most cynical ploy, the Republican legislation would change the name of the bureau to the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency, although it would be anything but.

I cant do a good James Brown, but I feel good, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), the author of the bill and chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said as he and his Republican colleagues cast their votes in favor of the Financial CHOICE Act.

I asked Cordray if he cared to respond with his own in-your-face reference to the Godfather of Soul.

He smiled and said, Im more inclined toward easy listening, such as the Mamas and the Papas.

Yeah, OK. But maybe next time he encounters Hensarling, he might want to borrow a lick from Browns The Payback and whisper, Payback is a thing you got to see, hell, never do any damn thing to me.

The conservative congressman has been a vocal critic of the CFPB since it opened for business in 2011. The bureaus creation was part of reforms put in place after financial firms recklessly steered the world to the brink of economic collapse.

I reminded Cordray of Hensarlings blatantly insulting tone when the CFPB director was summoned to testify last month before the Financial Services Committee.

Hensarling mockingly said at the time that he thought Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, would miss the hearing because hed be in his home state running for governor, which he isnt.

Perhaps the rumors of your political aspirations are greatly exaggerated, Hensarling sneered.

Cordray told me he doesnt dwell on the congressmans comments.

I didnt make much of that, to be honest, he said. I dont take any of it personally.

Conservatives insist that the CFPB is a rogue agency with too much power, thumbing its nose at oversight by coolheaded and responsible members of Congress.

The reality is that the bureau is a pebble in the shoe of Republicans and their business buddies by exposing practices that any reasonable person would acknowledge to be anti-consumer.

The CFPB fined Wells Fargo $100 million for the bank having opened unauthorized accounts on behalf of millions of customers. It fined Citigroup $28.8 million for failing to inform homeowners about ways to avoid foreclosure. It fined the credit agency Experian $3 million for deceiving people about the value of its credit scores.

In total, the CFPB estimates that it has returned about $12 billion to consumers over the last six years.

Which makes Hensarling trying to get on the good foot with his consumer-unfriendly bill all the more remarkable.

Cordray said hes not surprised by the pushback from business interests and their Republican allies.

Weve had challenges over the course of our existence, he said. We have consistently and steadfastly emphasized doing our work on behalf of consumers.

I also spoke with California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra at this weeks small-business event. He was in a decidedly sports-minded mood.

Continue reading here:
Consumer agency chief, his job on the line, takes Republican attacks in stride - Los Angeles Times

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