Mediaboss Marketing

Twenty-three years ago, President Bill Clinton and Senate Democrats canceled two weeks of the August recess to pass a major health care bill. They got nowhere.

Now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is trying the same thing with the GOP for the August break, and it may lead to the same result.

Story Continued Below

Im hoping for better this time, said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Tuesday afternoon after saying earlier he was very pessimistic the GOP would succeed. In 1994, Democrats kept us in and we didnt accomplish anything.

In fact, McConnell would like to finish health care well before August. Though he pulled a vote in June, Republicans say they are serious about completing their work in the coming days.

There will be a vote to advance the bill next week, McConnell said Tuesday. And even if it fails, he made clear to his members at a party lunch that there will be no more false starts despite an increasingly downbeat feeling in the caucus.

New text of the proposal will be made public Thursday, and a Congressional Budget Office analysis is expected on Monday.

Were in gridlock, said Sen. John McCain of Arizona. He added sarcastically: Now were going to look at a new approach. And were going to get a CBO estimate on Monday. Yay!

Sen. Ron Johnson, a conservative holdout, called it a "political blunder" that McConnell started the health care debate as a partisan, all-Republican effort.

Get the latest on the health care fight, every weekday morning in your inbox.

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

"Its just not smart politically," the Wisconsin senator said.

McConnell spoke to President Donald Trump over the weekend about health care, a source familiar with the conversation said. The White House is distracted by Donald Trump's Jr.s deepening Russia scandal but Trump "definitely wants [health care] done," the source said.

McConnell's new timetable comes as his party is mired in a tug of war among its ideological factions and clearly lacking the 50 required votes to even advance the bill.

An amendment written by Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee ofUtah is fracturing the conference, with the measure taking center stage at the partys first caucus lunch in nearly two weeks on Tuesday. Though the proposal to allow the sale of cheap, deregulated insurance plans is championed by the right, other Republicans say it would undermine their promise to keep Obamacares protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

There will be two drafts of the new bill text and two scores, senators said: One with the amendment, the other without. McConnell and his team have not decided whether the divisive measure will be included in the base bill. That decision will determine whether Cruz, Lee and other reluctant Republicans even vote to open debate on the bill.

McConnell is urging senators to use the bills open amendment process to alter the measure to suit their concerns, according to senators and aides.

"I just can't imagine not voting to proceed to the bill when you've got an open amendment process," said Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. "If you don't like what ends up happening, you can vote no, can you not?"

But many senators suspect McConnell will introduce a substitute measure at the end of the amendment blitz next week that would overwrite any alterations during the bill's "vote-a-rama." And GOP leaders believe if the debate begins, the vote would pass.

If they start the debate that will mean Im confident that we will get there before its over, said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas.

Republicans were told on Tuesday the latest draft is likely to keep some of Obamacares taxes on the wealthy and Medicare to help lower premiums for people with low incomes, provide $45 billion to fight opioid addiction and allow people to pay premiums with pre-tax money. It does not appear there is yet a solution for moderates and people from Medicaid expansion states, many of whom gathered on Tuesday to strategize.

I'm not optimistic that its going to be a bill that I can support. But obviously Ill withhold judgment until I see it. It sounds to me like it does not make a lot of major changes," said Sen. Susan Collins. The moderate senator is concerned that future spending reductions to Medicaid would cripple rural hospitals in her state.

Sen. Rand Paul, one of the GOPs most vocal opponents from the right, said he hasnt heard anything that would change his position, even if the amendment by Cruz and Lee is attached.

I promised to repeal it, the Kentucky lawmaker said of Obamacare. I didnt promise to permanently codify that the federal government will buy peoples insurance, subsidize their insurance and then throw a big pool of money at the insurance companies.

The GOP strategy to pass the bill, he said, is the kitchen sink right now theyre just throwing more money at everything.

Indeed, deal-seeking Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he was convening a group of senators to write a new bill to replace Obamacare. It's not clear how Graham's plan would align with McConnell's work, though he said he believed he could get the support of some Democrats.

That could be helpful, considering how divided the Republican conference is over the issue.

The Cruz and Lee amendment lacks support, and its future has been complicated by a game of telephone between GOP leaders and the two conservative senators. After much back and forth among McConnell, the two conservative senators and CBO, the amendment was rewritten again on Monday, two sources said.

Republicans have asked CBO to analyze two versions of their bill, according to senators: one with the Lee and Cruz amendment and one without the provision. The dual scores could set up a showdown between the Senates conservative standard-bearers and other Republicans.

It is unclear whether the CBO score for the Cruz and Lee proposal will be ready in time for next weeks vote on starting debate on the bill.

Republican senators and aides were expected to meet with the Senate parliamentarian on Tuesday about what health care reforms the Senate rules allow. But the Cruz and Lee proposal doesnt have 50 Republican votes at the moment to survive, senators said.

They have an amendment that I have no objection to, said one Republican senator, before adding, I dont think they have the votes to keep it.

Cruz and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) met for a private breakfast on Tuesday. The two started the Senates working group on health care several months ago and disagree on the effectiveness of Cruz and Lees amendment.

Critics say that bifurcating the insurance markets will result in healthy people buying deregulated insurance and sick people buying insurance under Obamacare regulations, creating a large and costly risk pool of people with pre-existing conditions.

Theres been a good deal of discussion about the amendment and potential changes to it, Alexander said. "Were still discussing it.

More moderate GOP senators are hoping the measure can be altered to win support of the conference rather than divide it. Some Republicans want to see the risk pools for healthy and sicker people linked in some way so that it prevents sick people from seeing their premiums spike.

The hope is that the amendment still lowers premiums here but doesnt create this kind of death spiral over there, said Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who said he has spoken with Cruz about the idea.

Adam Cancryn, Josh Dawsey, Austin Wright and Jake Lahut contributed to this report.

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

Read more:
Reeling Republicans take one last shot at Obamacare - Politico

58% of polled republicans say colleges have a negative effect on the United States. Aidan Kelly has more. Buzz60

A majority of polled Republicans say America's universities have a negative effect on the country, a trend driven by people without a college degree and indicative of thedivide between the right and left.

A Pew Research Center poll showed nearly 60% of Republican and conservative-leaning independents view colleges as having a negative influence on America. Meanwhile, about three-quarters of Democrats and liberal independentssay America's institutions of higher learning have a positive impact.

Experts say the disparity is guided bymedia portrayals of universitiesas well as the protestsagainst conservative speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter.

It's not a surprise Republicansare weary ofuniversities more than Democrats,explainsUniversity ofDelaware professor of communication DannaYoung.The real revelation is the dramaticshiftRepublicans' negativity has taken over the lasttwo years. InSeptember 2015, during theinfancy of thepresidential election, more thanhalf ofRepublicans (54%) saidour universitieslend a positiveeffect.

"Suddenly the vast majoritysee them as a negative," Young said, "whichis reallyshockingwhen you think aboutwhatuniversities are forand whatthey do."

Blamefor the divide,Young said, lies on both sides of the political spectrum. Most college faculty, she conceded, are liberal, whichcan create an echo chamber of ideas. Although, she charged the "machinery" of the GOP, including conservative media, with amplifying perceived liberal tendencies in academia.

It's an effort, she said, to erode faith in liberal institutions as well as their research, which produces studies about climate change and other topics that can support a liberal agenda.

Indeed, bothparties' views on the media differ greatly. The numberof Democrats who view the media favorably (44%) roughly matches the number who view it negatively (46%). Last year, just a third of Democrats viewed the media positively. Today, about 85% of Republicans say the media has a negative effect on the country. Two years ago, that number was 76%.

Matthew Woessner, a Republican associate professor at Penn State University Harrisburg, said because of politicized media, Republicans and Democrats are "living in different worlds." He blames both sides, especially when it comes to protest coverage.

Woessner said Democrats are "largely satisfied with higher education" because it promotes their values and ideas, which, in their opinion, contributeto a better country. Republicans are more skeptical, he said, especially those with less education.

The study shows Republicans without a college degree who believe universities are benefitting America dipped 20 percentage points in the last two years. It dipped 11 percentage points among those with a degree.

Woessner said the statistic is evidence that "those who've actually been to college are able to better contextualize these sensationalistic stories."

Aside from media coverage, colleges are suffering from a lack of diverse political opinion, said April Kelly-Woessner, a political science professor at Elizabethtown College. Kelly-Woessner and Woessner, wife and husband, together wrote The Still Divided Academy, which explores the politics of higher education.

She said students today are the first generation in 60 years to be less politically tolerant than their parents. Typically, it was administrators who attempt to stifle free speech, now it's the students.

The study also showed how Republicans and Democrats view other American institutions. Republicans, more than Democrats, have a favorable view of churches and religious organization as well as banks and financial institutions. Democrats over Republicans saylabor unions play a positive role in America.

Follow Sean Rossman on Twitter: @SeanRossman

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2ufl0dE

Link:
Majority of Republicans say colleges have negative impact on country, poll says - USA TODAY

For years Republicans have grumbled about the Federal Reserve vastly expanding its influence on the U.S. economy. Now theyll press Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen on when the central bank plans to sound the retreat.

For years Republicans have grumbled about the Federal Reserve vastly expanding its influence on the U.S. economy. Now theyll press Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen on when the central bank plans to sound the retreat.

Yellen will testify Wednesday before the House of Representatives and then give a repeat performance in the Senate a day later as part of the banks twice-a-year update on the economy.

Republicans in control of the House are expected to try to pin her down on when the Fed will start to wind down its massive $4.5 trillion balance sheet. So far the Fed has only said that the process will begin this year.

Read: Donald Trump Jr. releases emails saying Russian government had incriminating Clinton information.

Many conservatives believe the Fed overstepped its bounds. Starting in 2008 the Fed bought trillions of dollars in government Treasurys and bonds tied to home mortgages in a bid to drive interest rates lower and help the economy recover from the Great Recession. Before the crisis, the Fed had less than $900 billion on its balance sheet.

How the Fed goes about reducing its bond holdings will be another big deal. Jamie Dimon, the influential chief executive and chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. JPM, -0.39% , said on Tuesday hes worried about the potential fallout for the U.S. economy.

It could be a little more disruptive than people think, Dimon said at a conference in Paris. We act like we know exactly how its going to happen and we dont.

Also read: Trump Jr. emails show how Russias government communicated to presidents campaign.

To reign in the Fed, Republicans have backed regular audits and some even want to force the central bank to follow a more transparent formula a rulebook of sorts for when to raise and lower interest rates.

Yellen and other senior Fed officials have balked at the idea of adopting a formula. The banks already released report to Congress ahead of her testimony explicitly lays out reasons why it is a bad idea. Yellen is likely to press home the point, saying it would limit the Feds flexibility to respond to economic crises.

Democrats, for their part, have generally been pleased with the performance of the Fed. Yet some liberal lawmakers are likely to push Yellen to keep interest rates lower for longer to help low-income and other Americans at the margins of society.

The central bank has raised a key short-term rate twice this year and at least one more increase is on tap for 2017. The Feds benchmark rate now is now set between 1% and 1.25%.

Although the cost of borrowing is still quite cheap, most Democrats see no reason to raise rates unless inflation starts to accelerate. Instead, the rate of inflation has actually slowed since the spring.

Some Fed officials appear to agree with a less aggressive posture.

Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard on Tuesday suggested the central bank may not have to raise rates again anytime soon, especially if the Fed winds down its balance sheet. The withdrawal process could raise interest rates on its own.

She also pointed to softening price pressures. I will want to monitor inflation developments carefully, she said.

Yellen has argued the slowdown in inflation is temporary, the result of unusual factors that will fade soon. If shes right, dont look for a big change in the Feds interest-rate approach.

The Feds wind-down of its balance sheet could be the last big shift in strategy under Yellen, whos led the central bank since 2014. Her term as chairwoman ends early next year and its likely President Trump will choose another successor.

Excerpt from:
Republicans to press Yellen on Fed plans to reduce its outsized role on US economy - MarketWatch

WASHINGTON Republicans lawmakers on Tuesday started trying to kill a brand-new U.S. rule prohibiting banks and credit card companies from requiring customers who open new accounts to sign an agreement that they will not join a group lawsuit in the event of a dispute.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Monday finalized the new rule banning "mandatory arbitration clauses" requiring consumers to forego class-action suits and instead settle disputes in negotiations overseen by arbitrators frequently hired by companies.

The rule immediately ran into fierce opposition by Wall Street and Republicans who control both Congress and the White House. They have long criticized the consumer agency, which is run by a Democrat, Richard Cordray.

Senator Tom Cotton, a member of the Banking Committee, has already announced he is drafting a resolution to kill the rule. His fellow Republican Senator Pat Toomey, chair of the subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer protection, said he is considering a similar step.

Republican lawmakers plan to eliminate the rule, using a law that allows Congress to undo new regulations with simple majority votes in both chambers and a signature from the president.

Analysts and consumer advocates have said the agency's rule may survive the Congressional challenge. Still, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is contemplating a legal challenge and Trump administration officials are also looking at ways to kill the rule.

Isaac Boltansky, a policy analyst for the investment firm Compass Point Research & Trading, said the rule has a slightly better than 50 percent chance of surviving in Congress.

Joe Valenti, who tracks the issue for the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, said the House of Representatives was unified against the rule, which opponents have argued benefits class-action lawyers, not consumers.

"It comes down to the Senate," said Valenti, noting that the rule would survive if only three Republicans in that chamber switched sides.

That is possible, said Ed Mierzwinksi, the consumer program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups. He noted that Senate Republicans have struggled to gather enough votes for majorities and the calendar is swollen with pressing legislation and confirmation hearings.

In addition, Mierzwinksi said, senators may be leery of appearing to side with Wall Street against consumers. He noted that Wells Fargo & Co used clauses in its account-opening agreements to block customers from suing over its phantom account scandal.

Supporters of the rule say mandatory arbitration denies citizens their day in court and is rigged in favor of big firms. They say litigants banding together in a class-action lawsuit have a better chance of getting companies to answer publicly for illegal activities and that fears of such a suit can discourage law breaking.

The consumer protection agency wrote the rule after conducting a lengthy, multi-year study of the issue. Opponents of the rule say the study is flawed and that arbitration is cheaper and faster than class-action lawsuits and produces better awards for consumers.

OTHER CHALLENGES

The Chamber is exploring a prompt legal challenge to the rule, said Matt Webb, senior vice president for its legal reform institute.

Another possible challenge could come from the acting comptroller of the currency, Keith Noreika. He is laying groundwork to invoke an untested provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law that allows the council of the country's top financial regulators to nullify a consumer agency rule if they decide it threatens the safety and soundness of the banking system.

Rohit Chopra, senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America and former CFPB assistant director, said a lawsuit will probably fail because the law says the agency can restrict arbitration as long as it hews to its study.

He said the Dodd-Frank provision that the comptroller's office is looking at was meant to keep risks to the financial system at bay.

"To suggest that this rule would cause a financial crisis is ridiculous on its face," he said.

(Reporting by Pete Schroeder; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe and David Gregorio)

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump is increasingly unlikely to nominate Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen next year for a second term, and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn is the leading candidate to succeed her, Politico reported on Tuesday, citing four people close to the process.

A day ahead of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen's testimony to Congress on the state of the U.S. economy, two of her colleagues cited low wage growth and muted inflation as reasons for caution on further interest rate increases.

View post:
Republicans strike back at new US ban on forced arbitration - Reuters

By

July 11, 2017, 4:01 PM EDT

House Republicans rejected Donald Trumps steep budgets cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency as members of the presidents party instead offered a trim in spending for the environmental regulator.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

The White House had proposed a record 31 percent cut to the agencys roughly $8 billion budget, telling lawmakers it wanted to cut 3,200 jobs and shrink or eliminate a wide swath of programs, including those aimed cutting lead poisoning and improving the health of the Great Lakes. Instead, congressional appropriators released a bill Tuesday that would slice the agencys budget by 6.5 percent to $7.5 billion.

While the overall fate of spending bills in Congress is unclear, GOP Senators have also indicated they wont go along with Trumps plan. The House bill is scheduled to be considered by a panel of the Appropriations Committee Wednesday, the first formal step of many before it could make it to the presidents desk for signature.

"Trumps proposed budget was a fantasy. It is hard to imagine that many sane lawmakers could support it," said Frank ODonnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "Trump is so weakened politically that he has no political capital to use on this issue."

The $31.4 billion bill also includes more modest reductions in spending for the Interior Department, which runs the national parks, protects endangered species and plays a primary role in permitting oil, gas and coal development on federal lands and waters.

House Republicans are drafting a set of spending bills that largely rejects Trumps overall call for $54 billion in domestic agency cuts, while they propose giving nearly $20 billion more to the military than Trump requested. Lawmakers of both parties had already warned EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that the administrations plans for the agency werent going to stick.

Read More: Trump Spurs Bipartisanship as Lawmakers Vow to Stop His EPA Cuts

"These are all proposals we are unlikely to retain," Representative Ken Calvert, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee in charge of the agencys budget, told Pruitt at an earlier budget hearing.

The bill would still provide funds to help the administration offer buyouts to EPA employees and reflects the administrations goal to rein in outdated, unnecessary and potentially harmful regulations at the EPA, the committee said in a statement.

Separately, an appropriations bill funding the Energy Department acquiesces to Trumps call the kill off the agencys experimental research arm known as ARPA-E, and takes steps to eliminate the agencys loan guarantee program. The bill, slated for a key committee vote Wednesday, also slashes funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency by almost $1 billion, though thats still nearly $500 million more than what Trump proposed.

Read the original here:
House Republicans Reject Trump's Bid to Slash EPA's Funding - Bloomberg