Mediaboss Marketing

(CNN)As Republicans try to find agreement within their ranks to repeal and replace Obamacare once and for all, there is one Obamacare-era issue that needs Congress' attention sooner rather than later.

On Monday, the Trump administration requested another three-month delay in a case over Obamacare subsidies known as cost sharing reduction payments -- government payments aimed to reduce deductibles and co-pays of low-income participants.

The payments, a pillar of the Affordable Care Act, have been controversial since they started, so much so that the House of Representatives sued the White House, arguing that the Obama administration couldn't lawfully make the payments to insurers because they weren't appropriated by Congress.

Now, however, congressional Republicans find themselves in a precarious political position. While the Trump administration has been making the payments, and will continue to do so, mixed messages from the White House -- including a Politico report last week that Trump personally told aides he wanted to stop the payments -- have insurers spooked that the subsidies' days may be numbered.

If the subsidies end, some insurers will likely try to pull out of Obamacare immediately. But just the uncertainty over the payments' future is a main reason why some carriers have already decided to exit the Obamacare market for 2018 and others have filed for big premium increases. Without the payments, Republicans could be blamed for a mass exodus of insurers from the Obamacare marketplace next year, potentially leaving many of their constituents without any options.

So Republicans, having put in the effort to fight Obamacare, now ironically say its time for Congress to step in and spend the money. Some Republicans say they are talking behind closed doors and publicly about how they can pass something in the short-term to stabilize the market.

"I've stated in the meetings and publicly, I'd be in support of doing something very quickly, short term to stabilize the insurance markets for 2018," said Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin. "This process dragged on longer than I would have liked it and in fairness to the insurance companies and even more importantly the American people, they need some certainty in terms of what's going to happen in 2018."

Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, said that she thinks there needs to be some kind of certainty for people who rely on the cost-sharing reduction payments.

"It's my understanding that the administration's asked for another stay of the court's decision," She said. "I'm not sure what that portends. I don't know whether that means that the administration is considering allowing those cost sharing subsidies to go forward in an attempt to stabilize the market and help low income people or what. I just don't know."

Collins added "It's my understanding that the House has not be interested in appropriating the funds. The problem is that if you don't have cost-sharing for people who are below 250 percent of the poverty level, then the insurance becomes far less useful to them because they can't afford the deductible or the co-pays."

Since the subsidies began, House Republicans have railed against the payments, and some Republicans fear allocating the money now could make the GOP look like they are trying to prop up Obamacare, a law they are actively trying to dismantle.

Making CSR payments in a separate bill could get in the way of repealing Obamacare all together.

"It's controversial," said Florida Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart.

Many Republicans asked about the payments rebuffed questions entirely.

"I'm still looking at it," Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican said. "There are negotiations going on over the whole health care fix and I'll leave that to those that are involved."

"I have no thoughts," Rep. John Shimkus, a member of the House's Energy and Commerce Committee, told CNN when asked about whether Congress needs to appropriate the money now for the Obamacare subsidies.

But after not making the payments during the Obama administration, making them now could make Republicans look disingenuous.

Rep. Mark Meadows, a North Carolina conservative and leader of the House Freedom Caucus said he would support Congress making the payments in the short term "as long as we're looking at Obamacare from a historical perspective."

"Then a smooth transition with CSR payments seems to be the most practical way to make sure we don't create a crisis for people on Main Street," Meadows said.

But he acknowledged the political risks of the situation.

"Part of it is that if you just put forth those payments and continue those payments without actually repealing Obamacare, you're reinforcing the very thing that you're campaigning against and so I think you want to make sure it doesn't send the narrative that you're supportive of Obamacare as much as you're trying to create a smooth transition," Meadows said.

CNN's Tami Luhby contributed to this report.

See more here:
Why some Republicans want to consider -- gasp -- funding Obamacare - CNN

Another day, another piece of news about the Republican Party's continued problems with young voters. Generally, bad news for Republicans with this group isn't shocking. But a new study shows that the slow bleeding that has occurred for more than a decade has seemingly accelerated, with half of the young Republicans who remain having wandered away from the party in the last 14 months.

A few weeks ago, I debunked the notion that younger voters would one day naturally drift back toward the GOP through the natural aging process that as time passed, young people would become more and more Republican.

Now, an incredible new study by the Pew Research Center shows that Republicans are not only failing to make gains with young people as time passes but are also shedding them at a rapid clip.

To gain this data, Pew conducted a panel study where the same set of voters were interviewed multiple times over the course of 14 months. In doing so, the Pew team was able to ask people what their party affiliation was and to see how often people changed their answer when reinterviewed months later. In general, Pew finds that most party identification is "sticky" and voters rarely budge from their party affiliation.

Except young Republicans.

It's been reported often and for many years that Republicans are losing younger people, but what is most shocking about the Pew study is the narrow window in which this wave of defections occurred. In the relatively short time frame of December 2015 to March 2017, nearly half of all young Republicans left their party at some point, with roughly a quarter bidding the GOP adieu for good.

No other group, by age or party, wavered so much or defected in such substantial numbers.

Let's think about where things stood in December 2015. By that time, Republicans had already had such epic and long-standing struggles with young people that I'd written a whole book about it. Additionally, Republicans had already had a bruising start to their primary season. Donald Trump was the top story in America, the center of every debate stage. At least four presidential primary debates had occurred on the GOP side.

The half of young Republicans who left the party were not ones who left in 2008 because of former President Barack Obama, or ones who left over Republican obstruction in Congress, or even ones who left over the emergence of President Trump as a front-runner in the GOP. By December 2015, those folks were long gone.

No, the half of young Republicans who wobbled or left the party altogether were die-hard enough to be on board with the GOP all the way through the moment that Trump sat well atop the primary polls.

What makes these figures even more striking is the stability of nearly every other age group within both parties. On the Democratic side, roughly three-quarters of their voters stuck with the Democratic Party through and through including those younger voters who supposedly felt so disillusioned with the Democratic Party over the treatment of Bernie Sanders.

The only other age group that shows anything close to the young Republican level of switching are Democrats on the younger end of the Baby Boomers, among whom a quarter shifted their views and 14 percent of whom left the party for good. These voters no doubt played a large role in the success of Trump in states and counties with many "Reagan Democrats" who were drawn to the GOP with Trump's message. In the short run, the tradeoff seems to have been worth it, at least for Trump, and the higher turnout levels among the Boomer generation made his victory possible.

But the new Pew data makes clear that Republicans' problems with young voters are not just about young independents breaking for Democrats at the ballot box or the increased energy and excitement among young Democrats who are enthusiastically signing up for #TheResistance. Even the Republican Party's own remaining young people show signs of unease, with their increased propensity to wobble or jump ship altogether.

Kristen Soltis Anderson is a columnist for The Washington Examiner and author of "The Selfie Vote."

The rest is here:
Time to panic? Young Republicans ditching GOP like never before - Washington Examiner

Forty Republican representatives who voted for the American Health Care Act held shares in health care companies valued at $23 million and earned more than $2 million off those investments, a Daily Beast review of the most-recent financial records found.

The investments may be worth as much as $39 million and grossed as much as $6 million in profits, according to the disclosure reports that require members of Congress to report investments and income within a price range.

Several Republicans with key roles in passing the bill held more than $500,000 in medical stock.

The majority of the companies in which lawmakers own stock represent the giants of the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries. Republicans owned between $1.3 million and $4.9 million worth of stock in Abbott Labs, Johnson and Johnson, and 3M, three of the countrys largest medical-device manufacturers. They also owned between $2.7 million and $5.5 million in pharmaceutical giants Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Shire.

The AHCA would benefit these companies by eliminating billions of dollars in taxes and fees on pharmaceutical and medical-device manufacturersa provision of the bill that doesnt reflect a violation of ethics rules because it will have a broad effect across health care industries, according to ethics experts.

The remaining 174 representatives who voted for the AHCA did not own any health care stock, The Daily Beasts review found. The most recent data is from 2015. Disclosure reports for 2016 were due last week and are not yet fully available.

As an objective matter, it seems like an awful lot of money in one industry that has a lot of regulation and that these members are directly dealing with legislation on, said Larry Noble, a former Federal Elections Commission lawyer who now works for the Campaign Legal Center.

The tens of millions in investments are far from illegal, said Richard Painter, the lead ethics lawyer in George W. Bushs White House, but raise conflict of interest concerns.

Knowing that health care is so sensitive, and that one of the core issues in the debate is how much money is going to the companies and how much is going to patient care, I think this shows lack of sensitivity by members of Congress to be going and investing heavily into these companies, Painter told The Daily Beast. I think theyre arrogant and they dont understand that the public is sick and tired of this problem.

Among the influential members with significant investments is Rep. Thomas MacArthur of New Jersey, who held between $834,000 and $2.3 million in health care investments in 2015. MacArthur made between $142,000 and $472,000 in capital gains and dividends on those investments, according to his disclosure forms.

MacArthur authored an amendment to the AHCA that allows insurance companies to deny coverage to some people with pre-existing conditions. The amendment won over critical support from the right-wing Freedom Caucus, allowing the bill to narrowly pass the House. MacArthur ranks seventh among the 40 AHCA supporters who owned health care stock.

Rep. Chris Collins of New York holds the most investments, with $6.5 million in stock in two medical-device companies, ZeptoMetrix and Audubon Machinery Corporation. Collins serves as a director at ZeptoMetrix and is one of the founders of Audubon Machinery Corporation. (The Office of Government Ethics is investigating Collins investments in an Australian pharmaceutical company.) The New York congressman was responsible for an amendment in the AHCA that requires states to pay more into Medicaid at the expense of counties, saving rural areas like his native Buffalo millions.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

Collins amendment flipped at least one no vote to a yes when Rep. Claudia Tenney of New York announced her support in March.

Another influential Republican with significant investments is Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, who holds between $400,000 and $700,000 in health care stock. Upton wrote an amendment providing up to $8 billion for states to fund high-risk pools for patients with pre-existing conditions. Uptons amendment eased fears that MacArthurs amendment would make it impossible for such patients to buy insurance. The $8 billion Upton proposed wont be nearly enough to pay for all the necessary care, industry analysts say, but it was enough to push the AHCA over the finish line.

Besides MacArthur, Collins, and Upton, the other lawmakers with at least $500,000 in health care stock are: Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas (at least $6 million); Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey (at least $2.2 million); Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin (at least $2.1 million); Rep. Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania (at least $1.2 million); Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas (at least $922,000); Rep. James Renacci of Pennsylvania (at least $663,000); and Rep. Rod Blum of Iowa (at least $531,000).

Eighteen pro-AHCA representatives held at least $10,000 in health care investments in 2015; the remaining 12 held at least a single dollars worth of investments.

Staff of several of the representatives did not reply to questions for this story. Camille Gallo, spokesperson for Rep. MacArthur, provided the following statement:

Congressman MacArthur has divested from all holdings in companies that are affected by his committee appointments. This is not required, nor was he asked to do so. Anyone who is alleging that Tom entered public service to make money is embarrassing themselves and needs to find a new witch to hunt.

Gallo did not say whether MacArthur has consulted ethics officials regarding his significant health care investments and large role in the AHCA, something both Noble and Painter say should occur for all members of Congress who are doing more than simply voting on legislation.

A spokesperson for McCaul said that the congressman has zero participation or knowledge of the transactions made as part of his millions of dollars in health care investments, which are held mostly in family trusts controlled by McCauls wife, who is the daughter of the billionaire head of Clear Channel Communications.

He is legally precluded from having any involvement or knowledge of the specific investment decisions made with regard to securities listed as his wifes separate property which are disclosed in his annual personal financial disclosure, spokesperson Lizzie Litzow said of McCaul.

Spokespersons for Renacci and Upton said their investments are similarly controlled as part of family trusts or managed portfolios. A spokesperson for Sensenbrenner said his investments are irrelevant to his vote to repeal and replace Obamacare, a disastrous law that he has opposed since it was signed into lawlong before specific details of its replacement were released. A spokesperson for Rothfus said his vote on the AHCA and other bills are wholly compliant with the requirements of House ethics rules.

Michael Kracker, a spokesperson for Collins, blamed partisan attacks for scrutiny of his investments.

Congressman Collins has followed all Congressional ethical guidelines related to his personal finances during his time in the House and will continue to do so, Kracker said in a statement.

Spokespersons for Frelinghuysen, Blum, and Marchant did not respond to requests for comment.

Members of Congress arent expressly prohibited from owning stocks in individual companies, Painter said, unlike employees of federal agencies and members of the executive branch. As a White House ethics lawyer, Painter said he routinely advised aides and other employees of the executive branch to either completely divest from investments in individual companies or shift their assets to diversified mutual funds in order to comply with ethics rules.

I dont understand why members of Congress dont do that, Painter said. The bottom line is that these folks are supposed to be in Congress to represent their constituents, not maximize their wealth. Its fine if you want to be a stock picker, but go be a stock picker, not a member of Congress.

with additional reporting by Sarah Bertness

Continue reading here:
Pro-Trumpcare Republicans Owned Millions in Health Care Stock - Daily Beast

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

President Trumps proposal to cut federal spending by more than $3.6 trillion over the next decade including deep reductions for programs that help the poor faced harsh criticism in Congress on Tuesday, where even many Republicans said the White House had gone too far.

While some fiscally conservative lawmakers, particularly in the House, found a lot to praise in Trumps plan to balance the budget within 10 years, most Republicans flatly rejected the White House proposal. The divide sets up a clash between House conservatives and a growing number of Senate Republicans who would rather work with Democrats on a spending deal than entertain Trumps deep cuts.

This is kind of the game, said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.). We know that the presidents budget wont pass as proposed.

Instead, Cornyn said he believes conversations are already underway about how Republicans can negotiate with Democrats to avoid across-the-board spending cuts that are scheduled to go into effect in October. Those talks could include broad spending increases for domestic and military programs that break from Trumps plan for deep cuts in education, housing, research and health care.

I think thats the only way, Cornyn said of working with Democrats on spending. It would be good to get that done so we can get the Appropriations Committee to get to work.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said such spending talks would be inevitable.

Well have to negotiate the top line with Senate Democrats, we know that, McConnell told reporters Tuesday. They will not be irrelevant in the process, and at some point, here in the near future, those discussions will begin.

As Senate Republicans were discussing a bipartisan spending agreement, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney stood across town pitching Trumps proposal to dramatically alter the role of government in society, shrinking the federal workforce, scaling back anti-poverty programs and cutting spending on things like disease research and job training. The $4.094 trillion proposal for fiscal 2018 includes $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years to anti-poverty programs including Medicaid, food assistance and health insurance for low-income children.

It would slightly increase spending on the military, immigration control and border security and provide an additional $200 billion for infrastructure projects over 10 years. It would also allocate $1.6 billion for the creation of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Budget experts questioned many of the economic assumptions that the White House put into its plan, saying it was preposterous to claim that massive tax cuts and spending reductions will lead to a surge in economic growth. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, for example, said that using normal economic projections, the White Houses proposal would not eliminate the deficit and would allow U.S. debt to continue growing into the next decade.

Rather than making unrealistic assumptions, the president must make the hard tax and spending choices needed to truly bring the national debt under control, it said.

The White House proposals represent a defiant blueprint for a government realignment that closely follows proposals made in recent years by some of the most conservative members of the House, a group that once included Mulvaney himself. Trump has alleged that safety net programs create a welfare state that pull people out of the workforce, and his budget would cull these programs back.

Mulvaney pointed specifically to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the modern version of food stamps. The White House plans to propose forcing states to pay a portion of the benefits in the program, which reached more than 44 million beneficiaries in 2016.

We are not kicking anybody off of any program who really needs it, Mulvaney said. We have plenty of money in this country to take care of the people who need help. ... We dont have enough money to take care of ... everybody who doesnt need help.

Mulvaney, who served in the House from 2011 until earlier this year, is a co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus. Many of the provisions in Trumps first budget reflect long-standing priorities of the Republican Partys far right in cutting back federal spending to get the nations long-term fiscal picture under control largely by cutting entitlement programs that mainly benefit the poor.

Republicans are keenly interested in passing a budget this year because they hope to use that legislation to lay the groundwork for a GOP-friendly rewrite of the tax code. Many GOP members hope to attach the tax reform to the budget process in order to advantage of special Senate rules that would allow both the budget and tax rewrite to pass with 51 votes, rather than the 60 that are needed to pass most other legislation. That special treatment could be critical to the success of the GOP tax effort in the Senate, where Republicans control a slim 52-to-48 majority.

White House officials knew their budget proposal would be jarring and launch a political fight, but they think it is a necessary debate given a wing of the Republican Party that wants the government to shrink.

But the cuts were met with intense criticism even among the majority of GOP members who hailed Trumps desire to pare back spending, including many who worried about the size of some of the proposed cuts.

Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), chairman of the hard-line Freedom Caucus, said he was encouraged by early reports of new curbs on food stamps, family welfare and other spending. But he said he draws the line on cuts to Meals on Wheels, a charity that Mulvaney earlier this year suggested was ineffective.

Ive delivered meals to a lot of people that perhaps its their only hot meal of the day, Meadows said. And so Im sure theres going to be some give and take, but to throw out the entire budget just because you disagree with some of the principles would be inappropriate.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he backs Trumps proposal for a temporary burst of new defense spending, which White House officials say would allow them to add 56,400 service members in 2018. But he worries that Trump would finance those increases by cutting critical programs like the National Institutes of Health.

My number one goal is to have a more balanced budget, said Graham, who also endorsed the idea of entering into spending talks with Democrats. NIH is a national treasure, and it would be hurt, too.

Graham is part of a long-standing alliance between defense hawks who want increased military spending and Democrats who are willing to back military programs in exchange for more spending on domestic priorities. The two sides have forged several past agreements, including a two-year plan for increased spending that is set to expire at the end of September.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that formal spending discussions have not yet begun but that he is prepared to work with GOP leaders when the time is right.

The idea that well work on a bipartisan budget independent from the presidents is ripe in the air, Schumer said.

But such a deal is sure to anger conservatives in the House, where many of the most hard-line members staunchly defended aspects of Trumps proposal.

Although Meadows said Meals on Wheels cuts might be a bridge too far, he praised much of the rest of the Trump budget. It probably is the most conservative budget that weve had under Republican or Democrat administrations in decades, he said.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.), a Freedom Caucus member, rejected the argument that Trumps budget represented a betrayal of some of his populist campaign promises, notably to protect Medicaid spending.

If we dont do something to protect the program for the people who really need it, then theyre not going to have access to that, so I think we cant continue to ignore these big-ticket items, he said. If were ever going to get our budget to balance and pay down our debt, were going to have to make these tough choices and have these tough votes.

Read more at PowerPost

Continue reading here:
Even some Republicans balk at Trump's plan for steep budget cuts - Washington Post

Sen. John McCain called President Trumps proposed defense budget totally inadequate.

President Donald Trumps defense budget request seeks billions in extra funds for the military but falls well short of what some Republican lawmakers have sought.

CNN reports the sought-after funds represent only a roughly 3% increase over what former President Barack Obama said his administration would seek for fiscal year 2018, causing Trumps request to be met with fierce criticism from defense hawks on Capitol Hill. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain said the budget was totally inadequate, and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry said it was basically the Obama approach with a little bit more, but not much.

Also read: What Trumps budget would cut and boost

Girding for the CBO report: Republicans in Congress are bracing for a report Wednesday expected to say their Obamacare repeal plan would leave millions of Americans without health insurance, further complicating their efforts to pass legislation quickly. As Politico writes, the Congressional Budget Offices score comes three weeks after House Republicans rushed to vote on the legislation without an update on its cost. The original House bill would have meant that 24 million more Americans would be uninsured over a decade. The new version may not show a much better figure.

Also read: What to watch in the CBOs score of the Republican health-care bill.

Senate pressured on health vote: Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are under increasing pressure to pass an Obamacare repeal-and-replace measure before the congressional recess in August. The Hill writes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is wary of committing to a specific deadline after the House struggled to pass a bill. But the White House wants the upper chamber to hit the gas, the Hill says.

Infrastructure plan criticized: Trumps $1 trillion infrastructure plan isnt getting the immediate bipartisan support he may have been hoping for, Bloomberg writes. Democrats blasted the plan, contained in Trumps budget, to spend $200 billion over 10 years to spur at least $800 billion in state, local and private infrastructure investment. They said the federal spending would be offset by cuts to existing programs already funding transportation projects. The fuzzy math and sleight of hand cant hide the fact that the presidents $200 billion plan is more than wiped out by other cuts to key infrastructure programs, said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.

Read the original post:
Defense budget request falls short for some Republicans | Democrats rip Trump infrastructure plan as 'sleight of hand' - MarketWatch