Mediaboss Marketing

SOUTHERN INDIANA All of Indianas Republican members of Congress signed off on a letter delivered Thursday opposing Democratic President Joe Bidens administrations block of the states work requirements for Medicaid recipients.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services informed state officials last week that the Indiana Gateway to Work Program, which includes an employment mandate, risks significant coverage losses and harm to beneficiaries and does not promote the objectives of the Medicaid program, according to the Associated Press.

Those requirements are included in Gov. Eric Holcombs 2019 Healthy Indiana Plan program, which was approved by former President Donald Trumps administration.

But the program was halted during the pandemic after a challenge through a federal lawsuit.

According to the AP, the agencys response referenced the time and paperwork required for Medicaid recipients to receive coverage. The agency stated the Gateway to Work program would influence the behavior of a very small number of individuals, while risking coverage loss for many.

The letter sent Thursday by the Republican lawmakers and dispersed via a news release was addressed to Xavier Becerra, secretary for the agency.

We write today to express our dismay that, under your watch, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) withdrew authorities enjoyed by the State of Indiana through its Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) that permit our state to determine appropriate work and community engagement requirements for its Medicaid recipients, Indianas Republican Congressional members wrote in the letter.

Those who signed the letter include Sen. Todd Young and Sen. Mike Braun, as well as Rep.Trey Hollingsworth.

Indianas Gateway to Work program aims to require Healthy Indiana Plan members to report 20 hours of work, volunteer, school and other activities every month, the members of Congress wrote in the letter. CMS has not allowed the state of Indiana to fully implement the program, even while our states Governor has noted that the Gateway to Work program has the potential to help many Hoosiers.

The Republicans go on to infer that its curious that the Biden administration is resorting to fear tactics by prematurely rescinding the program before the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision.

They focus on a part of the agencys response stating that the pandemic and its aftermath would make the work or volunteer requirements infeasible.

As of May, Indianas unemployment rate stands at 4 percent well below the national average despite the challenges associated with the pandemics recovery, they state in the letter. Our state has low unemployment, employers looking to hire, educational and training opportunities abound, and yet your agency is making decisions to curtail our states ability to connect our Medicaid recipients to a network of community engagement that makes sense to Hoosiers.

The letter concludes with a request for a response by July 12 to include documentation and communications regarding the decision.

Indianas plan included exemptions for people 60 or older, those with medical problems and people who are primary caretakers of young or disabled children.

According to the AP, more than 130,000 Hoosiers were predicted to be affected by the requirements as of 2019. Other states have attempted to implement similar restrictions, which were blocked by federal court orders.

Read the original here:
Indiana Republicans oppose Biden administration's block of Medicaid work rules - Evening News and Tribune

[Sun Gazette Newspapersprovides content to, but otherwise is unaffiliated with, InsideNoVa or Rappahannock Media LLC.]

Is it hip to be a Republican in Arlington again?

The Arlington County Republican Committee continues to see a resurgence in membership driven, perhaps counterintuitively, by the results of the 2020 national election.

Were close to 100 members, said Matthew Hurtt, communications chairman for the Arlington County Republican Committee.

Its a major increase since the start of the year, and a testament to excitement and enthusiasm that is happening here in Arlington, Hurtt said.

Being a party member involves paying dues and meeting other obligations. Under rules of the Republican Party of Virginia, the Arlington committee can have a maximum of 163 members, something still down the road but within the realm of possibility.

I dont think weve hit that limit [since sometime before] 1987, Hurtt said.

What happens if Republicans reach that magic number? They will start to have to hold elections to determine who gets to be a party member and who doesnt.

Thats how Scott McGeary entered the Arlington County Republican Committee in the early 1970s. He later rose to chair the committee, and currently serves as secretary of the Arlington Electoral Board.

McGeary said that, under the current leadership of party chair Andrew Loposser, there has been a boost in interest in GOP activities.

Loposser has seen us through a very challenging year, McGeary said, noting that most Republican gatherings since the onset of the pandemic had been forced into a virtual setting.

But not on June 29, when the Arlington GOP held its monthly meeting in person at Crystal City Sports Pub. About 75 people attended.

Order food, take care of your [wait] staff, Loposser exhorted at the start, expressing hope that the restaurant could become the partys meeting place for the next few months.

During the Trump era, the Arlington GOP splintered into factions and saw its share of the vote in Arlington plummet. The former president received less than 18 percent of the county vote in both 2016 and 2020, and his victory that first time energized county Democrats into further dominance in local politics.

The election of Joe Biden seems to have had the same motivating effect on Republicans as that of Trump did on Democrats the party is more cohesive and more focused on getting its message out.

Loposser and other local GOP leaders were even able to recruit contenders to take on Arlingtons four Democratic members in the Virginia House of Delegates, who made their debut at the June 29 meeting.

Weve got a lot of great candidates, Loposser said, although (left unsaid) was they face a decidedly uphill battle in November.

But hope springs eternal.

I dont think we realize how fantastic our message is were in a really good position, said Ed Monroe, the Republican nominee hoping to unseat Del. Rip Sullivan in the 48th District, which spans portions of Arlington and McLean.

More:
Post-Trump Republicans appear to be picking up tailwinds - Inside NoVA

WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) Members of Congress and advocates are pushing for the Biden administration to evacuate more than 18,000 Afghans, to keep a promise many service members made.

Lets show these Afghans, lets show the world, we have their backs, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) said.Moulton says the U.S. needs to support Afghans who risked their lives to help Americans.

When guys like me asked Iraqis or Afghans to work for us, we said to them We have your backs,' Moulton said.

Moulton served and fought with Afghan allies. He is calling on the president to evacuate more than 18,000 Afghans, before finishing the military withdrawal.

It takes 800 days to get a special immigrant visa, and were going to be out of Afghanistan in 80 days, Moulton said.

Hussain Kazimi is one of many Afghans who served the troops as a translator. He fears for those still in his home country.

I feel and understand their situation, because the threat is real and they are in danger, Kazimi said.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are voicing support for the thousands who say their lives are threatened by the Taliban.

This would be somebody who was beneficial and helpful to our troops. We should look at what we can do to be helpful to them, Rep. Fred Keller (R-Pa.) said.

Republicans like Keller and Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) are calling on the president to take action now.

The idea that we would abandon them would set a terrible precedent for the united states and our military moving forward. We must secure their safety before an entire pullout takes place, Meuser said.

Get the free WAVY News App, available for download in the App Store and Google Play, to stay up to date with all your local news, weather and sports, live newscasts and other live events.

Go here to read the rest:
Republicans and Democrats calling on Biden to save Afghan allies - WAVY.com

Opinion: There are parallels to the attack in Libya and the attack on the Capitol. But the GOP doesn't want an investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Capitol riot commission to study Jan. 6 blocked by Senate Republicans

Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan commission to study the U.S. Capitol riot in January. Partisanship was the reason Republicans opposed it.

Staff Video, USA TODAY

There are lots of similarities between the two horrific events.

Plenty of parallels.

And one glaring disparity: How Republicans in Congress reacted.

Each incident began when an angry, radicalized mob attacked a U.S. government compound.

The first happened in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012.

The latest in Washington, D.C., in 2021.

In each instance it became clear right away that security measures at the facility under assault was inadequate.

It also was evident from the beginning that security personnel at both places performed heroically in defense of U.S. officials.

Still, four Americans died at Benghazi.

Likewise, four Americans died during the Capitol insurrection.

Five when you include Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, who collapsed hours after having confronted rioters, during which he was sprayed with a chemical. The medical examiner later ruled that Sicknick suffered two strokes that were not caused by any chemical reaction, saying Sicknick died of natural causes but adding, All that transpired played a role in his condition.

Back in 2012 there was an immediate call for a congressional investigation into the Benghazi incident and both Democrats and Republicans agreed, establishing an inquiry under the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

But it wasnt the same for the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Republicans in the Senate actually blocked a bill designed to set up a bipartisan investigation.

With Benghazi, there wound up being at least 10 investigations, the majority conducted by Republicans in the House. They went on for four years, longer than Congressional investigations into 9/11 or the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Its different with the Jan. 6 insurrection. After Republicans in the Senate blocked a bill to investigate, the House decided to investigate on its own.

This time around, however, all but two Republicans in the House Reps. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Liz Cheney of Wyoming voted against setting up a committee to find out what happened onJan. 6.

All of Arizonas Republican representatives voted no.This would include Reps. Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar. You may recall that right-wing political activist Ali Alexander claimed that these two Arizona representatives worked with him to plan pro-Trump rallies, including the one that ended with an attack on the Capitol.

That kind of connection to the Capitol riot seems to be what Republicans are worried about. Theyfear the exposure of possiblelinks between the rioters and Republicans, and the implications that may have for former President Donald Trump.

Gladys Sicknick, the mother of Brian Sicknick, said of the Republicans who voted not to investigate the event, I just dont believe anybody could vote no, it doesnt make sense.

Sicknicks partner on the Capitol police, Sandra Garza, wrote an essay about the attack and the aftermath in which she said in part, I saw officers being brutalized and beaten, and protesters defying orders to stay back from entering the Capitol. All the while, I kept thinking, Where is the President? Why is it taking so long for the National Guard to arrive? Where is the cavalry!?

She added, As the months passed, my deep sadness turned to outright rage as I watched Republican members of Congress lie on TV and in remarks to reporters and constituents about what happened that day. Over and over they denied the monstrous acts committed by violent protesters.

For example, when Gosar called the Jan. 6 attackers peaceful patriots.

During the Benghazi hearings, Republicans were laser-focused on trying to place blame on then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But after four years of investigations, most of them purely partisan affairs, they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on her part.

Republicans dont want anything close to that type of scrutiny on the Capitol attacks of Jan. 6. In fact, they dont seem to want any scrutiny at all.

Almost as if they know what will be found.

Almost as if I didnt have to use the word almost.

Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.

For more opinions content, please subscribe.

Original post:
Why Republicans fear an inquiry of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, our homeland Benghazi - The Arizona Republic

The conventional wisdom is that the Senate has to prove that it can work, and the test of its functioning is how much of Bidens spending Republicans endorse.

This is a distorted view of the Senates role, which shouldnt be to get on board a historic spending spree for which Biden won no mandate and which isnt justified by conditions in the country (its not true, for instance, that the nations infrastructure is crumbling).

Besides, if bipartisan spending is the test, the Senate just a few weeks ago passed a $200 billion China competition bill by a 68-32 vote. It used to be that $200 billion constituted a lot of money, but now it doesnt rate, not when theres $6 trillion on the table.

The infrastructure deal lurched from gloriously alive to dead when Biden explicitly linked its passage to the simultaneous passage of a reconciliation bill with the rest of the Democratic Partys spending priorities in it.

Then, it revived again when Biden walked this back, and promised a dual track for the two bills.

The fierce Republican insistence on these two tracks doesnt make much sense and amounts to asking Democrats to allow a decent interval before going ahead with the rest of their spendingDemocrats are going to try to pass a reconciliation whether the bipartisan deal passes or not.

At the end of the day, then, theres only one track: Democrats are going to spend as much money as they possibly can. The bipartisan deal might shave some money off the hard infrastructure priorities (according to Playbook, the White House says it doesnt want to double dip, on say, electric cars or broadband by getting some money for them in the deal and then getting yet more in the reconciliation bill). But the emphasis is going to blow out spending across the board.

The calculation of Republicans supporting the bill is that a significant bipartisan package can take some of the heat off of Sen. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema in their resistance to the filibuster.

A deal that passes and is signed into law will certainly be a feather in their caps, but its hard to believe theyd change their minds on the filibuster if the deal fell apart.

They are both so extensively and adamantly on the record in favor of the filibuster that a climb-down would be politically embarrassing and perilous. They may be sincere in believing that the filibuster is important institutionally to the Senate. But the politics also work by allowing them to brand themselves as a different breed of Democrat.

If they flip-flip on the filibuster, they release the brake on the left-most parts of the Democratic agenda and find themselves taking a lot of tough votes on priorities dear to the Democratic base.

Republicans supporting the deal also think that it will make passing the subsequent reconciliation bill harder. First, the parts of infrastructure that have the widest supportroads and bridgeswill be in the deal and not in the reconciliation bill. Second, the unwelcome tax increases excluded from the bipartisan deal will be in the reconciliation bill.

This isnt a crazy calculation, although its not clearly correct, either. The higher the top-line number is for the reconciliation bill, the harder it is to pass. By allowing Democrats to cleave off some of their spending into a bipartisan deal, the overall number for the reconciliation bill gets smaller. In other words, the bipartisan deal could make the partisan reconciliation easier rather than harder to pass.

If this is true, the deal is bipartisanship in the service of a partisan end.

It not as though Biden is fiscally prudent on all other fronts, except in this one area which he considers a particularly important national investment with unmistakable returns. No, hes universally profligate. His reckless spending on all fronts (except defense) makes it more imperative for Republicans to stake out a position in four-square opposition.

Its not as though the bipartisan bill is exemplary legislation, by the way. It resorts to all the usual Beltway gimmicks to create the pretense that its paid for, when its basically as irresponsible as the rest of the Biden spending.

Bipartisanship has its uses, but so does partisanship. Joe Biden wants to be known for his FDR- and LBJ-like government spending, believing that its the key to political success and to an enduring legacy. Fine. Let him and his party own it.

View original post here:
Opinion | Republicans Shouldnt Sign on to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal - POLITICO