Mediaboss Marketing

Meanwhile, taxes that fall mainly on a tiny, wealthy minority would be reduced or eliminated. These cuts would be big in dollar terms, but because the rich are already so rich, the savings would make very little difference to their lives.

More than 40 percent of the Senate bills tax cuts would go to people with annual incomes over $1 million but even these lucky few would see their after-tax income rise only by a barely noticeable 2 percent.

So its vast suffering including, according to the best estimates, around 200,000 preventable deaths imposed on many of our fellow citizens in order to give a handful of wealthy people what amounts to some extra pocket change. And the public hates the idea: Polling shows overwhelming popular opposition, even though many voters dont realize just how cruel the bill really is. For example, only a minority of voters are aware of the plan to make savage cuts to Medicaid.

In fact, my guess is that the bill has low approval even among those who would get a significant tax cut. Warren Buffett has denounced the Senate bill as the Relief for the Rich Act, and hes surely not the only billionaire who feels that way.

Which brings me back to my question: Why would anyone want to do this?

I wont pretend to have a full answer, but I think there are two big drivers actually, two big lies behind Republican cruelty on health care and beyond.

First, the evils of the G.O.P. plan are the flip side of the virtues of Obamacare. Because Republicans spent almost the entire Obama administration railing against the imaginary horrors of the Affordable Care Act death panels! repealing Obamacare was bound to be their first priority.

Once the prospect of repeal became real, however, Republicans had to face the fact that Obamacare, far from being the failure they portrayed, has done what it was supposed to do: It used higher taxes on the rich to pay for a vast expansion of health coverage. Correspondingly, trying to reverse the A.C.A. means taking away health care from people who desperately need it in order to cut taxes on the rich.

So one way to understand this ugly health plan is that Republicans, through their political opportunism and dishonesty, boxed themselves into a position that makes them seem cruel and immoral because they are.

Yet thats surely not the whole story, because Obamacare isnt the only social insurance program that does great good yet faces incessant right-wing attack. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability benefits all get the same treatment. Why?

As with Obamacare, this story began with a politically convenient lie the pretense, going all the way back to Ronald Reagan, that social safety net programs just reward lazy people who dont want to work. And we all know which people in particular were supposed to be on the take.

Now, this was never true, and in an era of rising inequality and declining traditional industries, some of the biggest beneficiaries of these safety net programs are members of the Trump-supporting white working class. But the modern G.O.P. basically consists of career apparatchiks who live in an intellectual bubble, and those Reagan-era stereotypes still dominate their picture of struggling Americans.

Or to put it another way, Republicans start from a sort of baseline of cruelty toward the less fortunate, of hostility toward anything that protects families against catastrophe.

In this sense theres nothing new about their health plan. What it does punish the poor and working class, cut taxes on the rich is what every major G.O.P. policy proposal does. The only difference is that this time its all out in the open.

So what will happen to this monstrous bill? I have no idea. Whether it passes or not, however, remember this moment. For this is what modern Republicans do; this is who they are.

Continued here:
Understanding Republican Cruelty - New York Times

Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno announced her resignation Thursday, another sign of the lack of progress at the Capitol as Illinois teeters toward a third year without a comprehensive spending plan.

The first woman to lead a legislative caucus left little doubt her departure was in part born of frustration over the partisan stalemate that has sent state government finances spiraling downward despite her efforts to reach a compromise that would satisfy a demanding Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and a Democratic-led General Assembly.

"I will say that I feel strongly that the governor has the right agenda, but it's not that easy getting there. We need fundamental change in this building, but we need to compromise in order to get there," said Radogno, 64, of southwest suburban Lemont.

"We have to put aside personalities. We have to prioritize what we want. Nobody gets 100 percent, but what do you absolutely have to have? When you negotiate, you need to understand and get in the skin of the person you're talking to," she said, providing advice for the governor and other legislative leaders.

The 20-year veteran lawmaker had earned plaudits for working with Democrats. Radogno said for months she had been looking for a "natural break" in the legislative schedule to begin her retirement. In what could be viewed as an ominous acknowledgment, Radogno said she chose Saturday, the start of the state's new budget year, to retire because "I'm not sure there's another natural break coming anytime soon."

Radogno's announcement came as the state faced increased warnings of financial doom if it went past Friday's deadline without a spending plan.

Facing a downgrade to "junk" credit status, a federal court ruling that could require increased payments to Medicaid providers, uncertainty for some school openings in the fall, the future of what remains of a frayed social service safety net and the prospect of road construction project shutdowns, Democratic Comptroller Susana Mendoza said the consequences to the state of failing to reach a budget agreement by midnight Friday go from the current "horrific" to "catastrophic."

Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan pledged to open Friday with a House vote on his members' version of a state $36.5 billion spending plan, despite no agreement on items Rauner has made a prerequisite toward signing a budget and tax increase including changes in workers' compensation and a freeze on property taxes.

Rep. Greg Harris, Madigan's top budget negotiator, said that depending on the fate of the spending plan, Democrats would then vote on their tax plan. Filed late Thursday, the proposal would raise the personal income tax rate from the current 3.75 percent to 4.95 percent.

Unlike tax legislation approved earlier by the Senate, it would not be retroactive to Jan. 1 but instead begin with the July 1 start of the budget year. That change is designed to avoid having people pay even more in income taxes the rest of the year to catch up for the past six months. Also out is an expansion of sales taxes to some services. The hike would be permanent, against Rauner's desire to make it temporary.

By calling the budget and tax plan in the House, Madigan will be taking the temperature of House Republicans with Rauner's must-have issues still undecided. Even if all House Democrats vote for measures in this special legislative session, at least four Republican votes are needed for passage.

"We are staring into the abyss," Harris said. "I think everyone who cares about the state of Illinois should support this. This is the chance."

If those measures fail to gain enough support, Harris said Democrats would consider a series of backup bills to spend money in key areas such as social services and education. But those efforts would not come with the needed dollars to actually pay for the programs, meaning they are likely designed to provide political cover to allow Democrats to say they voted in favor of projects important to their districts even if a broader deal isn't reached.

"Those are the contingencies, we don't want to vote on those," Harris said.

Madigan also maintained that he and Democratic Senate President John Cullerton insisted that Rauner sign a Democratic-passed bill to rewrite how the state divvies up money for public schools. Rauner had previously vowed to veto the measure, calling its level of funding for Chicago Public Schools a "bailout."

Madigan also said that any efforts to change the workers' compensation system for people injured on the job must include a rate review of premiums charged by insurers. Democrats contend 2011 changes should provide more savings to businesses, but insurers are increasing their profits instead. Republicans are pushing for further cuts to fees doctors, hospitals and pharmacies receive for treating workers with rates closer to those set under Medicaid.

On property taxes, Democrats have agreed to Rauner's call for a four-year statewide freeze, but are pushing for several exemptions that Republicans contend would result in little relief. They include exemptions for Chicago and troubled school districts such as CPS. The freeze also would not apply to levies that are used to pay debt or pension payments for employees, including police and firefighters.

Madigan declined to detail areas where Democrats may be open to further "adjustments" on their property tax proposal. He also refused to predict if a resolution would come ahead of the start of the new budget year, saying anything is possible if the sides remain "reasonable." That was a dig at Rauner, who he has repeatedly accused of pushing an "extreme" agenda.

"I think I have moved considerably to engage on all of these issues," Madigan said. "I don't see that I am being unreasonable. I am here. I am proposing to vote for things I don't believe in. I don't think the government should be about the business of reducing the benefit level of an injured worker. That's not the right thing to do. But in the spirit of compromise I am prepared to vote for that."

House lawmakers Thursday also approved a new version of an already passed measure that could raise monthly phone fees for 911 services money that Mayor Rahm Emanuel hopes to route toward paying down Chicago's pension debt. Rauner has threatened to veto the initial measure.

The version of the bill that's now on Rauner's desk would extend the Emergency Telephone System Act, which is set to expire Saturday, and would allow Chicago to raise its 911 fee to $5 per month from $3.90, while jurisdictions outside the city would see their monthly rate go from 87 cents to $1.50 per line.

A Rauner aide last week called on lawmakers to pass a new bill that does not include the surcharge hikes but ensures that the Emergency Telephone System Act is extended to provide for local 911 services.

Instead, Republicans and Democrats in the House came together to pass a backup version of the bill that continues the 911 funding stream if the law expires because of a Rauner veto or inaction of the original proposal. The Senate approved the legislation Wednesday.

The idea is that if Rauner vetoes the first bill while lawmakers are out of town, they can send him the second bill without having to make a special trip to Springfield to take a vote.

But the day's news was dominated by word of Radogno's retirement from a leadership post she has held since 2009 when she succeeded Frank Watson of Downstate Greenville, who had suffered a stroke.

Even before her announcement, behind-the-scenes efforts to replace Radogno were being made by state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington, who served as her top deputy in the Senate GOP caucus, and by state Sen. Karen McConnaughay, the former Kane County Board chairman from St. Charles.

In a statement, Rauner called Radogno "a consummate professional and public servant, who has championed fiscal responsibility and human services that help our most vulnerable residents."

Talk of Radogno's decision had begun spreading privately during the closing days of June in the aftermath of months of contentiousness with a Democratic legislative majority and a Republican governor who has extensively used his personal wealth to command loyalty among GOP lawmakers.

But Radogno found her members' loyalty to Rauner sometimes created conflict with loyalty to her leadership, some Republicans said privately. That surfaced in working with Cullerton to try to negotiate an end to the impasse known as the "grand bargain."

Rauner eventually contended the so-called bargain did not go far enough to satisfy him, and Democrats accused him of stripping away GOP votes from a version of the package.

Radogno said she was "disappointed" that a bipartisan package failed to materialize in May but told reporters, "If that was my motivation (to resign) I would have been gone then."

Though Radogno has been in the General Assembly for two decades, a decision to step down had been expected as the grind of legislative sessions, particularly serving in the minority, began to take its toll.

Besides the political battles, Radogno also had some personal tragedies during her tenure, including the June 2014 death of her 31-year-old daughter, Lisa, who worked for then-U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk's office in Washington.

"As you may know, my daughter was on the Hill, so politics was really important to her, so knowing (that, I) doubled down my interest in it," Radogno said, tearing up.

"But it did give me the perspective that nothing's forever and I don't want to be squandering my life with my husband and my grandkids and my other daughters," she said. "We only all have a certain amount of time and that experience told me that's for sure."

rap30@aol.com

Twitter @rap30

View original post here:
Illinois Senate Republican leader Radogno steps down - Chicago Tribune

The Fix's Callum Borchers explains the years-long feud between President Trump and the hosts of MSNBC's "Morning Joe." (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

People suffering from Alzheimers often experience something called sundowning, when in the early evening they become particularly disoriented and erratic in their behavior. The president of the United States experiences something we might call mornraging, when at the beginning of the day he tunes in to morning television shows, hears something that makes him mad and fires off tweets that highlight the darkest recesses of his id.

At the precise moment when President Trump is trying to persuade Republican senators not to abandon one of the partys most critical policy initiatives, its almost as though hes trying to give members of his party reasons to get as far from him as possible. That could have continuing consequences for the partys ability to achieve tricky and complex policy and political goals.

Heres what Trump sent this morning:

If Donald Trump were your friend, your uncle or your co-worker, youd feel compelled to say to him, Dude, cmon. Dont be such a jerk. But hes not any of those things. Hes the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world.

And some Republican members of Congress are indeed telling him to stop being such a jerk. This has to stop we all have a job 3 branches of govt and media. We dont have to get along, but we must show respect and civility, tweeted Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Please just stop. This isnt normal and its beneath the dignity of your office., added Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).

Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America, said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). The Presidents tweets today dont help our political or national discourse and it does not provide a positive role model for our national dialogue, said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).

This is not okay, said Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.). As a female in politics, I am often criticized for my looks. We should be working to empower women.

But he wont stop. This is who he is. We all know that. Trump is not going to become presidential, hes not going to rein in his worst instincts, and hes not going to stop mornraging. Hes a petty, vindictive, insecure little man with no impulse control. Its who he is and who he will always be.

After President Trump tweeted insults at MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski on June 29, White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Trump and said Americans "knew what they were getting" when they elected him. (Reuters)

Republicans knew exactly who he was when they all lined up behind him in 2016, even if many harbored the naive hope that he would be changed by the office. But they also assumed that with total control of the government, they would pass a boatload of bills, hed sign them, and his personal weaknesses wouldnt much matter. It turns out, however, that it isnt so simple. As were seeing in the health-care debacle currently underway, when youre trying to accomplish something complex and politically perilous, you need the president. You need him to be a persuasive public advocate for your policy, and you need him to help resolve internal differences and forge consensus.

But Trump fails on both both counts. He cant be a persuasive advocate because he doesnt understand the policies he advocates for, and he has focused so relentlessly on telling his base what they want to hear that people outside that base just dont believe him. When he gives an interview or makes a speech about what Republicans are trying to do, hes likely to say something that contradicts or undermines their case. And internally, hes rapidly losing whatever respect he had from Republicans.

Consider this description from a recent article by some of The Posts political reporters about how Trump is viewed by members of his own party in Congress:

In private conversations on Capitol Hill, Trump is often not taken seriously. Some Republican lawmakers consider some of his promises such as making Mexico pay for a new border wall fantastical. They are exhausted and at times exasperated by his hopscotching from one subject to the next, chronicled in his pithy and provocative tweets. They are quick to point out how little command he demonstrates of policy. And they have come to regard some of his threats as empty, concluding that crossing the president poses little danger.

Republicans are facing some tricky challenges in the months ahead passing a budget, increasing the debt ceiling, tax reform and success can require subtle negotiations. At times, it may be necessary for the president to convince individual members to put aside their own ideas and interests in favor of something that is good for the party but might not be good for them. Who thinks Trump is capable of that?

Now lets be clear about something: Republicans are not a profile in courage on the question of Donald Trumps boorishness. They supported him in 2016 when he was accused by multiple women of harassment, when he made racist attacks on a judge, when he picked a fight with a Gold Star family, when he was caught on tape bragging about his ability to commit sexual assault with impunity and they still support him as long as hes doing what they want. There are precious few of them who stood up and said that they could not in good conscience stand behind such a despicable human being, and history will judge them harshly for their complicity in this disaster of a presidency.

But what Im talking about here are the moments when they arent all in agreement, and Trump would have to exercise leadership to pull them together. If youre a member of Congress, making the decision to overcome your doubts and do what the president asks isnt easy. A lot of factors play into it your fear that he might punish you, the personal relationship youve built with him, your constituents feelings about him, your worries about reelection, your belief in your own independence and so on. Trump has been president for barely five months, and were already seeing that members of Congress dont really fear him, theyre continually amazed by his ignorance about policy, and they think his White House is a bunch of amateurs.

Trump could change that state of affairs, but it would take time, work and an inclination he apparently lacks. Instead, hed rather just say that everything is going great. So he keeps making it worse. If youre in the midst of sensitive negotiations over health care and you desperately need to hold the votes of (among others) Sens. Collins, Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), maybe launching puerile sexist tweets at cable news personalities is not going to help.

There are always going to be times when a member of Congress says, Mr. President, I respect and admire you, but I have to say no this time. That happens to every president. But if you convince them that youre not worthy of their respect and admiration, saying No becomes a lot easier.

Read more:
How Trump's disgusting behavior will make Republican disunity more likely - Washington Post (blog)

President Trump unified Washington Thursday in opposition to a pair of tweets he wrote in which he criticized a female MSNBC anchor and said she had undergone plastic surgery.

"Obviously, I don't see this as an appropriate comment," House Speaker Paul Ryan said when asked about the tweets Thursday.

"I think it's a blatantly sexist [tweet]," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said of Trump's social media rant. "That really saddens me because it is so beneath the dignity of the president of the United States to engage in such behavior."

Criticism of Trump's comments poured in from both sides of the aisle and spilled into the White House briefing room on Thursday, where deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders faced an onslaught of questions about whether the president crossed an ethical line with his tweets.

The host he attacked, MSNBC "Morning Joe" co-anchor Mika Brzezinski, has been an outspoken critic of Trump and has even questioned his mental stability.

Few rallied to Trump's defense in the wake of his attack on Brzezinski, and even the president's strongest supporters questioned the wisdom of his early-morning Twitter tirade.

Laura Ingraham, a conservative radio host who has been considered as a possible candidate for press secretary, chided Trump for diverting attention away from his administration's crackdown on illegal immigration.

And Mike Huckabee, a longtime Trump supporter and father to Sanders, stopped short Thursday of saying his daughter defended the president's words and cautioned Trump against using the same harsh tactics in future situations.

Trump's tweets about Brzezinski come as Republicans in the Senate struggle to sell their Obamacare repeal legislation to the public in one voice amid intra-party disputes about the direction of the healthcare plan.

The president, who had stayed mostly on the sidelines of the Obamacare repeal debate as senators put together a bill behind closed doors over the past month, emerged as a leading spokesman for the bill after the GOP released it last week. His latest tweets could provide a distraction from his efforts to build support for the policy.

But it wouldn't be the first time Trump's social media antics disrupted the work of his White House and united lawmakers against his Twitter feed.

Earlier this month, for example, Trump seemingly announced that he was under investigation for alleged obstruction of justice just as the frenzy surrounding former FBI Director James Comey's testimony before Congress had finally begun to die down.

The tweet revived scrutiny of Trump's efforts to downplay an investigation into his former associate, Gen. Mike Flynn, and gave Democrats room to hammer home the latest set of allegations against his administration.

In early June, Trump threw a wrench into his Justice Department's efforts to defend an executive order temporarily suspending immigration from the Middle East by embracing the "travel ban" nickname with which several courts had taken issue.

Trump's tweets soon surfaced in court documents as critics of the so-called "travel ban" fought to block it in the legal system.

The president touched off a firestorm of controversy in May when he hinted that the White House may have "tapes" of conversations between Trump and Comey.

Comey cited the tweet as the motivation behind his decision to share details from his Trump talks with the media, which in turn prompted the deputy attorney general to appoint a special counsel.

And in March Trump drew widespread condemnation with his claim that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

In each case, Trump put Republicans in the awkward position of having to defend his rants and stole the focus from their attempts to build support for GOP legislative items.

The White House has relied on a familiar tactic to dismiss questions about the president's disruptive social media habits.

For nearly every day that's dominated by an off-message Trump tweet, White House officials have clung to the line so ubiquitous that it has become a running joke in some corners of the media: "The tweet speaks for itself."

Read the rest here:
Trump's tweets unnerve Republican allies - Washington Examiner

A Republican opposition researcher with a potential connection to President Trump's former national security adviser Mike Flynn tried to obtain emails he thought were stolen from Hillary Clinton's email server, according to a new report.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the GOP operative, Peter W. Smith implied to people he sought to recruit to participate in his mission to access the stolen emails that he was working with Flynn, who was then a national security adviser to then-candidate Trump.

The Journal said the stolen emails in question were likely hacked by Russians.

The newspaper reported that emails written by Smith and one of his associates show Flynn and his consulting company, Flynn Intel Group, were allies in their effort.

Flynn's actual role in the project is unknown, the Journal reports. Smith told the Journal he knew Flynn but didn't say if he was involved. Smith, 81, died about a week and a half after his interview with the Journal, the report notes.

A Trump campaign official told the Journal that Smith never worked for them, and if Flynn coordinated with Smith, it would have been in his private capacity.

The Journal reports that U.S. investigators, as part of the probe of Russia's election interference, have examined reports from intelligence agencies that describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain emails from Clinton's server and then give them to Flynn through an intermediary.

Smith was targeting 33,000 emails that Clinton said were deleted and not provided to investigators because they were personal. Smith thought the emails might have been obtained by hackers and that they actually concerned official matters Clinton wanted to hide.

The Journal said Smith gave no evidence for his speculation.

Former FBI Director James Comey has said there is no evidence Clinton's private server has been hacked, but he left open the possibility it might have been.

Flynn is a central figure of investigations into Russia election interference and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was fired from his role as national security adviser after admitting he had misled the vice president and other White House officials about the contents of a phone call he had with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. weeks before Trump's inauguration.

Read more here:
Republican operative tied to Mike Flynn tried to obtain Hillary Clinton's emails: Report - Washington Examiner