Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Senate Republican leaders cant seem to find the votes to repeal and replace Obamacare. Theyve had no help from Democrats, of course, who oppose what theyre doingand havent been consulted anyway. But theyve also had no help from two senators in their own party: Susan Collinsof Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Collins and Paul have been a hard no on both of the GOP health care bills unveiled over the last month. Thats made things exceptionally difficult for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),who can afford to lose only two Republican votes. Its left his latest Obamacare repeal bill hanging by a thread, as a handful of Republicans on the fence threaten to produce the fatal third vote.

Theyre an unlikely pair to ended up united against their party on something. Collins is a pro-abortion rights moderate from a state that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton carried in 2016; Paul is a libertarian-leaning conservative who regularly rails against big government. But their different ideologies explain why they are so opposed to what GOP leaders are doing.

The thrust of Collinsconcern is that Republicans are trying to repeal too much of the Affordable Care Act, to the point where people will get hurt. The GOPs latest bill, which was released Thursday, would cut overall Medicaid funding by more than 30 percent and eliminate the Affordable Care Acts expansion of that program. That would mean millions fewer people would have access to Medicaid, namely low-income and elderly people.

Collins wasted little time announcing her opposition to the bill and instead urged her colleagues to change course and work on a bipartisan fix to Obamacare.

Collins also has problems with the sheer number of people who would lose health care coverage under the bill and the plans negative effect on health care access in rural areas.

The Congressional Budget Office hasnt yet released its estimates on the revision of the health care bill, but under the original Senate version, which isnt that different from the new one,roughly 22 million people would lose coverage.

Susan Collins

Paul, meanwhile, argues that the GOP health care billswouldnt repeal enough of the Affordable Care Act. Hes complained all year about Republicans leaving too much of the law intact, and, when GOP leaders unveiled their initial health care bill in June, he ripped it as too expensive and doomed to fail.

The bill is just being lit up like a Christmas tree full of billion-dollar ornaments, and its not repeal, Paul fumed in a Fox News Sunday interviewearlier this month.

Now the Republicans are getting so weak-kneed theyre saying, Oh, were afraid to repeal the taxes, he continued. What happened to these people? They all were for repealing Obamacare. Now theres virtually no one left.

The Kentucky senator is even less happy with the revised health care bill, which includes new insurance deregulation provisions. The language was added to win support from conservatives, but it comes with more federal spending a big no-no for Paul, who fundamentally disagrees with the idea of the government subsidizing health care.

He aired his grievances in a Thursday op-ed in The Washington Times, headlined Crony Capitalism Isnt a Right, So Why Does Senate Healthcare Bill Give Insurance Companies the Right to a Bailout?

I really cant describe my level of disappointment, Paul wrote. Crony capitalism is enshrined as a right by the new GOP Obamacare bill, while that bill does little to nothing to repeal Obamacare or fix our ailing healthcare sector.

Read this article:
How 2 Republicans Ended Up At Odds With Their Party On Health Care - HuffPost

Photo: Johnathon Henninger / For Hearst Connecticut Media

Tim Herbst signs a banner for a friend after announcing his run for Governor of Connecticut at Trumbull High School on Thursday, June 8, 2017.

Tim Herbst signs a banner for a friend after announcing his run for Governor of Connecticut at Trumbull High School on Thursday, June 8, 2017.

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton attended the announcement by New Milford's Pete Bass of his candidacy for mayor on Tuesday evening, July 11, 2017, in New Milford, Conn.

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton attended the announcement by New Milford's Pete Bass of his candidacy for mayor on Tuesday evening, July 11, 2017, in New Milford, Conn.

Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti speaks after being announced as grand marshal of the 109th Bridgeport Columbus Day Parade at Port 5 Naval Veterans Hall in Bridgeport, Conn. on Monday, June 19, 2017.

Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti speaks after being announced as grand marshal of the 109th Bridgeport Columbus Day Parade at Port 5 Naval Veterans Hall in Bridgeport, Conn. on Monday, June 19, 2017.

Prasad Srinivasan, Republican

Prasad Srinivasan, Republican

Peter Lumaj of Fairfield, Republican candidate for Connecticut Secretary of the State.

Peter Lumaj of Fairfield, Republican candidate for Connecticut Secretary of the State.

Republicans torn over publicly-funded state elections

The top Republican contenders for governor find themselves at cross-purposes with lawmakers from their own party over publicly funded elections in 2018, with millions of dollars for their campaigns at stake in upcoming budget negotiations.

They have spent months trying to qualify for public funds under Connecticuts clean-elections program, a slog that requires them to raise $250,000 from individuals in $100 increments or less. Some are more than half-way toward unlocking $1.4 million for the GOP primary and $6.5 million for the general election if they become the nominee.

But GOP budget hawks want to cut the program to help close a $5 billion deficit, saying that the potential $40 million cost of subsidizing candidates up and down the ballot is too much and that there is a shortfall for the first time in the programs history.

The schism has cast a shadow of uncertainty over the wide open race going into a the special budget session, which had been scheduled for Tuesday but has been delayed by majority Democrats to build support for their plans.

Obviously, having raised almost 60 percent of the grant and being on the back nine, I hope going through this process the program will still be in place, said Tim Herbst, Trumbulls first selectman. Now youve had people give you a quarter of a million dollars for nothing.

The cost of publicly-funded elections in Connecticut

2008: $9 million

2010: $27.3 million*

2012: $10.8 million

2014: $33.4 million*

2016: $11.5 million

2018: $40 million

* denotes governors race

denotes forecast by the Office of Fiscal Analysis

Source: Citizens Election Program

Tarnished by a pay-to-play scandal that led to the resignation and imprisonment of Gov. John G. Rowland a decade ago, the state created the program to wean candidates off special-interest money and free them from the time required for fundraising.

The programs popularity has been on the rise, with $33.4 million awarded to 287 candidates for statewide office and the Legislature in 2014. Nearly half of that total $15.8 million was spent on the governors race.

GOP leaders are warning of a $10 million shortfall for 2018, however. Until now, the program has relied on proceeds from the sale of abandoned property and unclaimed bottle deposits to cover its cost.

Were broke and its kind of tough to say, Were going to cut Medicaid and were going to cut social services programs so we can fund pencils, pens and political paraphernalia, said Senate Republican Leader Len Fasano, of North Haven. I dont think anybody has an advantage or disadvantage if the system goes away.

House GOP Leader Themis Klarides, of Derby, said its about priorities.

I dont think anybodys definition is taxpayer-funded elections, Klarides said. Im sure there are people that wouldnt be happy about it.

Longtime GOP Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti, who is coming off a record-setting quarter in which he raised $145,090, said now isnt the time to abandon the program.

Its a little late in the game to be talking about that unless they have a sunset clause that gets you past the next cycle, Lauretti said. You know 15 to 20 people have started down this path. Think of the thousands of Connecticut residents that have donated. Isnt that a little disingenuous to them?

If lawmakers want to rein in the programs expenses, Lauretti said, they should look at the grant amounts for legislative candidates and the types of expenditures allowed.

I.e. golf balls and golf tees with their name on them and tee-shirts, Lauretti said.

If it wasnt for the program, Lauretti said, he probably could not afford to run for governor.

Im not independently wealthy, number one, he said. Good, bad or indifferent, the program does demonstrate to a certain degree that a candidate has support.

As a state legislator, Republican Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton voted against publicly-funded elections. Now as a potential third-time candidate for governor, he has raised $162,000 to try to qualify for the program.

Ive never believed that the government should be funding campaigns, particularly a government thats $5 billion in the hole, Boughton said. If I were governor, I would seriously look at dismantling the program.

Boughton said he is prepared for whatever outcome, including going back to his 2,000 contributors if the program and its $100 cap are abandoned.

Right now, were operating under the rules that are put in place, Boughton said.

Westport businessman Steve Obsitnik, whose exploratory committee raised $201,567 during the second quarter, said he doesnt need public funds to be viable.

These are tough financial times for Connecticut, Obsitnik said. I defer to the Legislature.

Bridgeport Republican Dave Walker, the former U.S. comptroller general, said the program needs to be reformed, but should be preserved. He would eliminate grants for House and Senate candidates, as well as do away with separate primaries and grants for lieutenant governor.

I could probably have an advantage if it was eliminated, but I think it has intellectual merit at least for the office of governor, Walker said. You want to try to encourage people who may not be wealthy to run and try to provide a level playing field.

State Rep. Prasad Srinivasan, R-Glastonbury, who has raised $205,103, said he could accept the program being suspended, but only if it is part of a comprehensive budget fix.

Obviously, its going to impact me very personally, he said. At the end of the day youve got to do whats right. I think (the program) is an equalizer. There are parts of a budget that you like and there are parts of the budget you dont like.

Fairfield Republican immigration lawyer Peter Lumaj has raised $281,130 for his exploratory committee for governor, but only $76,000 counts toward public financing because of a high percentage of out-of-state donors.

I've never believed that taxpayers should foot this bill, but unfortunately, professional politicians have created a system in which individuals cannot be competitive in Connecticut elections unless they are self-funding millionaires or participants in (the program), Lumaj said. We need to reexamine donation and expenditure limits, within reason, to fix this problem. If we address those concerns we can create an election environment that remains competitive while removing the burden off of the backs of hardworking taxpayers.

Herbst said lawmakers should consider scaling back the grants to the levels before 2010, when Democrats overrode a veto of then-GOP Gov. M. Jodi Rell and doubled the funds available to governor candidates.

Look, they wouldnt be fiscal conservatives if they werent looking at it, and, for that, I respect them, Herbst said of GOP leaders.

http://twitter.com/gettinviggy ; nvigdor@hearstmediact.com; 203-625-4436

See the rest here:
Republicans torn over publicly-funded state elections - CT Post

Senate budget rules are giving opponents of the rollback of the 2010 health care law an easy way to attack Republicans for hypocrisy.

The Senate GOP may notreally want to immunize their own member and staff health plans from their health care policy changes, but because they are seeking to bring their bill to the floor under the expedited budget reconciliation process, they have little choice.

Sen. Ted Cruz has already unveiled a fix to nullify the exemption, but that bill would take 60 votes to overcome any filibuster attempts.

While this exemption was included in the Senate health care bill out of procedural necessity, we must still be diligent in ensuring thatMembers of Congressare treated just like other Americans under this law, the Texas Republican said in a statement. This is an issue of fundamental fairness. Lawmakers are not above the laws that they pass and I believe that it is crucial that Members of Congress abide by the same laws that their own constituents follow.

The exemption has already prompted a web ad from the group Save My Care, which has been working against efforts to repeal and replace the health care law that took effect under President Barack Obama.

Senators did make the bill better for one group of Americans ... themselves, the ad says, citing a Thursday report from Vox.

It is substantively accurate to say there is a carve-out in the Senate measure, but as with much of what happens when the Senate uses the budget reconciliation process, the reasons are complicated.

As part of the implementation of the 2010 health care law, members of Congress and many staffers both on Capitol hill and in state-based offices shifted from getting health insurance benefits through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to the small-business exchange in Washington, D.C.

Matters related to the local government in D.C. fall within the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and internal operations of the Capitol are the responsibility of the Rules and Administration Committee.

Aides previously confirmed that since neither panel received reconciliation instructions in the fiscal 2017 budget resolution that was adopted earlier this year so Republicans could pass health care legislation with just 50 votes and a tie-breaker by Vice President Mike Pence.

A bill or amendment could lose its privileged status and be subject to needing 60 votes to overcoming procedural hurdles if staff and lawmaker health benefits were not exempted.

Under a decision by the Office of Personnel Management during the Obama administration, employer contributions were allowed to be used in the D.C. SHOP.

That led to a recurring saga in the Senate involving an amendment crafted by then Sen. David Vitter. The Louisiana Republican sought to end the employer benefit. OPM under President Donald Trump has not reversed course on the availability of the benefits

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Read the original post:
Why Republicans Exempted Their Own Insurance From Obamacare Rollback - Roll Call

"There's no question but that the president's naivete with regards to Russia, and his faulty judgment about Russia's intentions and objectives, has led to a number of foreign policy challenges that we face. And unfortunately, not having anticipated Russia's intentions, the president wasn't able to shape the kinds of events that may have been able to prevent the kinds of circumstances that you're seeing in the Ukraine, as well as the things that you're seeing in Syria. ... This is not Fantasyland. This is reality where they are a geopolitical adversary."

Mitt Romney, March 23, 2014, on Barack Obama

If there has been any defining trait among modern Republicans, it's their ingrained distrust of Russia. For decades, the GOP made a habit of accusing its opponents of being weak-kneed and gullible about Moscow's intentions. If Donald Trump had been elected president as a Democrat, they would be painting him as the most craven appeaser since Neville Chamberlain.

But he was elected as a Republican, which has required some reorientation in the GOP. A lot of Republican voters have simply turned their worldview upside down. One recent poll found that only 1 in 4 thinks Russia should be treated mainly as a threat with two-thirds preferring warmer ties.

GOP officeholders, caught in the middle, are generally wary of Trump's policy toward Moscow. By a 98-2 vote, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a bill to tighten the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, which the president opposes. But the measure has stalled in the House. And most of the party's members of Congress have done their best to downplay or excuse Trump's strange fondness for Vladimir Putin.

That remained true even after the revelation that Donald Trump Jr. met last year with someone he believed was a Russian government lawyer offering "sensitive information" on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

If this was not collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, it was a conscious attempt at collusion with a hostile government on the part of the candidate's son. No wonder Donald Jr. lied about it until his emails were exposed.

That the Russian failed to produce what she promised doesn't make the meeting any less incriminating for Trump. If you give money to someone you believe is a hit man to kill your spouse, you can't claim innocence when he disappears without doing the job.

But many Republicans who should have been objecting couldn't bring themselves to speak up. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan were practically mute. When asked if the news was cause for concern, Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "No."

Only a few longtime Trump critics, notably Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, were vocally disgusted by what they had learned. Many of their colleagues are just hoping Trump and those around him are not obviously guilty of major felonies.

The standard for presidents used to be higher. In 1980, Ronald Reagan accused President Jimmy Carter of "cozying up" to the Soviet Union. In 1992, President George Bush attacked Bill Clinton for traveling to Moscow as a student in 1969. Even after communism collapsed and the pro-American Boris Yeltsin was elected president, Sen. Bob Dole ran in 1996, charging that Clinton "cherishes romantic illusions about the soul of a former adversary."

Romney flayed Obama in 2012 for telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he would have "more flexibility" on policies affecting Russia after the election. "I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses," Romney vowed.

In the past, the GOP demanded that presidents recognize the threat posed by the Russian government, understand the policies needed to counter it and have the backbone to stand up to any challenge. Trump, by their own criteria, has failed each of these tests.

Obama was vilified as a Russian patsy for actions that don't remotely approach what we know Trump and his circle have done. Today, all but a few congressional Republicans avert their eyes and swallow their tongues. Most of them, however, must be appalled to see the nation's security in the hands of someone so willing to overlook Putin's malicious behavior.

It may not be clear to them that Trump should be impeached. But by now, they have to know he can't be trusted.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

Download "Recalculating: Steve Chapman on a New Century" in the free Printers Row app at http://www.printersrowapp.com.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

The rest is here:
Republicans have lost the courage to stand up to Russia - Chicago Tribune

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said closed-door GOP conference meeting Friday morning that all 12 appropriations bills will be finished in committee by the end of next week. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

House GOP leaders will decide next week whether to brave an ugly floor fight over a massive GOP spending bill a proposal applauded by some rank-and-file Republicans but that risks embarrassment if it fails.

In a closed-door GOP conference meeting Friday morning, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said all 12 appropriations bills will be finished in committee by the end of next week. Starting Monday, leadership will begin a tentative whip count on whether lawmakers would vote for a package before the August recess that combines all of those bills into one $1 trillion government funding bill.

Story Continued Below

The idea, first proposed by Rep. Tom Graves, a senior appropriator, is to give House Republicans a chance to pass a red-meat spending bill that will lay out GOP priorities. Though the bill would never pass the Senate in the face of Democratic opposition, the process would allow House Republicans to offer potentially hundreds of amendments, an exercise that excites members who are frustrated that theyve had no input on how to fund the government.

Its actually been the consensus of the conference to get all this done before August, Graves (R-Ga.) said upon emerging from conference Friday, optimistic that his idea will take. Were here to get our job done, and Ill tell you, members are excited about the opportunity to put our priorities forward and advance it to the floor.

The strategy could open something of a Pandoras box, however. Lawmakers would be required to vote on controversial amendments that could be used against them in their districts, from provisions on the Confederate flag to gay rights proposals that put them in bind. Democratic amendments chiding the administration for the Russia controversy are almost assured.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Perhaps more worrisome: The bill might fail on the floor, which would provoke another flood of damaging headlines about the GOP's deep divisions and inability govern.

While Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), another senior Appropriations member, said the Graves strategy was the preferred approach, he acknowledged that reaching 218 votes could be a challenge for the fractious conference. Republicans have yet to unite around a broader fiscal 2018 budget, let alone a $1 trillion government funding package with hundreds and hundreds of pages, he said.

Thats why GOP leaders want the conference to commit to passing the final bill whatever it looks like before they move down this path. McCarthy asked members to read the various spending bills over the weekend and be ready to give leadership feedback next week. Leadership has reminded members that they wont get everything they want, and if their amendments or ideas fail on the floor, they should be ready to support the final version anyway.

Getting such a commitment from members, however, could be difficult since they will want to see the final product before committing to vote for it.

Former House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said hes optimistic GOP leaders will succeed in rounding up enough Republican votes to pass the omnibus spending package.

I think so, but its such an early moment here, Rogers told reporters Friday morning. The people havent seen the bills. But I think when they do, theyll find that these bills are solid, theyre complete and they give us a chance to take a shutdown off the table.

Whats different from previous intra-party clashes, Rogers said, is that appropriators have made concessions that should appease the fiscal conservatives who usually vote against spending bills.

We cut spending. We fully fund the military request. Social issues weve taken care of in the bill, he said. So I think weve taken away all the objections that most people had.

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa), a centrist Republican on the Appropriations committee, expressed concern that some of the bills called for unrealistically low spending levels, which would run into opposition in the Senate.

But he said he would support a bundled funding package, in part because it would include the bill funding military construction and veterans programs that his subcommittee wrote.

Im in the bus, he joked. Im the leadoff hitter.

Dent also lamented that many of the hard-line Republicans who back this spending package will ultimately oppose the final plan that can pass both chambers of Congress.

If this gets me to an agreement in the end, to the real numbers, I can deal with it, Dent said. But the point is my frustration is, there are people who will vote for the takeoff, for the initial launch, but theyll be nowhere to be found for the landing, for the real bill that matters.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Visit link:
House Republicans weigh massive partisan spending bill - Politico