Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump said he hopes House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi does not step down from her post.

In an appearance on "Fox & Friends" that aired on Friday, Trump said he would like Pelosi to stay right where she is because she has an "extraordinary record against her."

"It would be a very, very sad day for Republicans if she steps down. I would be very disappointed if she did," Trump said.

The comment came after some Democrats on Thursday called for Pelosi to step down in the wake of special election losses this year, including a high-profile race in Georgia on Tuesday.

Republican Karen Handel beat Democrat Jon Ossoff in the race for the Georgia seat vacated by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, dashing Democratic hopes to pull off an upset in the runup to the 2018 midterm elections.

The two campaigns and outside groups supporting and opposing the candidates shelled out at least $36 million, including more than $22 million from Ossoff's campaign.

Pelosi, speaking to reporters on Thursday, said she's confident she has the support in her caucus.

The Associated Press and CNBC's Jacob Pramuk contributed to this report.

View post:
'It would be a very, very sad day for Republicans' if Nancy Pelosi steps down, Trump says - CNBC

The crowd at a Trump rally on April 29 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Republican coalition is changing. First, the GOP is in danger of losing college-educated suburbanites who voted only reluctantly for Donald Trump in 2016, or who split their tickets by voting against Trump while voting for GOP congressional candidates. The close shave in Georgias 6th Congressional District demonstrates that Republicans cant take these voters for granted, especially if Democrats recruit candidates who cant be so easily caricatured as mini-Pelosis. Second, the party has gained the tentative support of working-class populists, who backed Trump despite their misgivings about the GOPs anti-government rhetoric. That support helped make up for erosion among college-educated suburbanites in 2016, and its at least possible this trend could continue in the years to come.

I wouldnt count on it, though. Republicans find themselves in an enormously difficult position. Theyre dependent on both better-off voters who are allergic to Trumps populism and hard-pressed voters who badly want Trump to live up to his populist promises yet are increasingly skeptical that hell do anything of the sort. To win back the tax-averse upper-middle class, Republicans might double down on calls to shrink government, which would risk repelling working-class populists. To consolidate their gains among working- and lower-middle-class voterswho worry far more about the strength of the safety net than they do about their federal tax billstheyd presumably need to soften their anti-government stance, which of course would risk alienating the tax-averse upper-middle class. Think of this as a not-terribly-festive game of GOP Jenga.

Democrats increasingly live in rich states while Republicans increasingly live in poor ones.

For years, it was the Democratic coalition that was ideologically divided, and Democratic politicians who had to contort themselves to please liberals on the partys left and moderates on the partys right. Now, however, despite the internecine bickering during the 2016 primary and the recriminations after the general election, Democrats seem to have achieved a broad ideological consensus thats best described as a marriage of crusading social liberalism and faith in technocracy. Republicans, meanwhile, are still learning what it means to navigate their own ideological divisions. The GOPs leadership remains dominated by small-government conservatives, yet they find themselves bewildered by the fact that many of their new voters are adamantly opposed to the deep Medicaid cuts at the heart of the partys domestic policy agenda.

Somehow Republicans will need to reconcile this new divide. But how? In the latest issue of National Affairs, political sociologist Joshua T. McCabe makes the case for a red-state federalism that could fit the bill.

Before we turn to McCabes ingenious proposal, consider that whereas the GOP has long been the party of the rich and Democrats the party of the poor, both parties are now cross-class coalitions, with large numbers of voters in both the top and bottom thirds of the income distribution. So what separates the parties now? One difference is that Democrats increasingly live in rich states while Republicans increasingly live in poor ones.

Among the 10 states with the highest per capita income, only two of themresource-rich Alaska and North Dakotabacked Trump in 2016, and only seven Trump states are in the top half of the U.S. Just because Democrats tend to live in rich states doesnt mean the Democratic Party only represents rich people. Democratic states also tend to have higher levels of income inequality. Rich states, though, are better equipped to meet the needs of their poor citizens, because they have more fiscal capacity than poor statesthat is, at the very same tax rates, a rich state will be in a position to raise more tax revenue than a poor one. To have any hope of matching a rich states per capita social spending, a poor state would have to impose much higher taxes. And what happens to poor states that impose excessively high taxes? As time goes by, they risk experiencing a brain drain as their most capable citizens leave for greener pastures.

This is where McCabes red-state federalism comes in. The basic idea is that taxpayers should be treated equally whether they live in a rich or a poor region. By way of example, McCabe notes that taxpayers in Massachusetts pay roughly the same tax rates as those in Kansas, yet the same rate of taxation yields far more revenue for social spending in Massachusetts than it does in Kansas. One could argue that Massachusetts wealth is a product of its farsighted generosity and that Kansas relative poverty is a product of its shortsighted stinginess. If Kansas had the good sense to invest in public services, perhaps the state would be just as rich as Massachusetts. Theres another possibility, however. According to McCabe, the wealth of Massachusetts has less to do with the relative wisdom of todays residents than it is a product of the states good fortune in having a rich inheritance of educational institutions and accumulated wealth thats built up over centuries. Moreover, whereas income across rich and poor states formerly tended to converge as poor people from poor states moved to rich ones in search of opportunity, exclusionary zoning policies in rich states have made it much harder for poor people from poor states to find new homes in better-off areas.

The federal government does provide poor people in poor states with some assistance. Medicaid, for example, is one of several joint state-federal programs in which the federal government matches spending at the state level, and (except for the Medicaid-expansion population) the match is more generous for poor states than for rich states. Because rich states find it much easier to raise revenue than poor ones, however, they tend to be in a much better position to sustain higher spending levels, which in turn means theyre in a better position to receive higher levels of federal support.

To level the playing field between rich regions and poor regions, other federal democraciessuch as Canada and Australiaprovide equalization grants to regions with below-average levels of fiscal capacity. McCabe proposes a similar system of fiscal equalization for the U.S. First, hed eliminate the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, a tax break that overwhelmingly benefits high-income households in rich regions. For example, McCabe notes that the SALT deduction is worth almost 11 times as much to the average beneficiary in high-fiscal-capacity Connecticut as it is in low-fiscal-capacity Tennessee. Eliminating the SALT deduction would yield enough revenue to finance an equalization grant that would bring the 27 states with below-average fiscal capacity halfway up to the average level. States could then use this new revenue to increase social spending or to lower their taxes to more competitive levels, as they see fit.

Fiscal equalization would go a long way toward making life better for poor people in poor states, as those poor states would no longer have to choose between funding basic services and imposing ruinously high tax rates. That leads us to why Republicans would be wise to embrace McCabes proposal. Whereas funding tax cuts for the rich by slashing services for the poor divides the new GOP coalition, fiscal equalization would unite the interests of upper-middle-class voters and working-class populists living in the same poor Republican states. Poor voters in poor states would get better services and rich voters in poor states would be able to keep their taxes low. Granted, not everyone would win from fiscal equalization. Rich voters in rich states like Connecticut and New Jersey would be the biggest losers. But from the perspective of the GOPs new cross-class coalition, its better that rich voters in rich (Democratic) states suffer than poor voters in poor (Republican) ones.

See the original post here:
How to Build a New Republican Coalition - Slate Magazine

A pregnant belly was almost a license to kill in the Granite State.

Natalia Deriabina/Thinkstock

Anti-abortion advocates often frame their arguments in terms of womens empowerment. But rarely do they go as far as New Hampshire Republicans recently did with a bill that would have given pregnant women impunity to commit murder.

Senate Bill 66 was intended to define a fetus past 20 weeks of gestation as a person in cases of murder or manslaughter. Proponents of such fetal homicide bills argue that they protect both pregnant women and their unborn children from violence, and provide recourse when fetuses are victims of reckless drivers, for example. But critics say they are designed to undermine abortion rights. They point out that such laws have ensnared women who experience miscarriages and who are suspected of trying to self-induce abortion. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 38 states currently have some kind of feticide laws on the books.

New Hampshire Republicans tried to reassure critics by including exemptions designed to protect from prosecution doctors and women seeking abortions. The bills original language stated that any act committed by the pregnant woman or a doctor acting in his professional capacity wouldnt apply in cases of second-degree murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Unfortunately, any act implied, well, any act. The bill allows a pregnant woman to commit homicide without consequences, Republican representative J.R. Hoell told the Concord Monitor. Although that was never the intent, that is the clear reading of the language. *blooper sound effect*

The bill cleared the state Senate and the House before anyone noticed this fully dilated loophole. To be fair, lawyers consulted by the Monitor said that if the bill actually became law, the state would likely have been protected by existing legal language including the principle that laws cannot be read literally when such a reading would yield an absurd result. Still, its probably fair to assume that New Hampshire was mere weeks away from having an army of Kill Billstyle avenging mothers-to-be roaming the state with Uzis propped on top of their bulging bellies.

As a New Hampshire resident, I am happy to report that we have been spared this fate. On Thursday morning, the House passed a technical amendment that corrected the bills language to make sure pregnant women dont go around killing people, as one Democratic representative put it on the House floor on Thursday. The bill proceeds next to the desk of Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, who has previously said he plans to sign SB66 into law.

Read more:
NH Republicans Accidentally Approved a Bill Allowing Pregnant Women to Commit Murder - Slate Magazine (blog)

I love owning a small business, but its not without its challenges. Finding affordable health care is one of those challenges.

Todd Mikkelson

My wife and I had a new baby at the same time we were starting our own business, so health care coverage was essential. If we hadnt had access to affordable coverage through Minnesota Care, one of us would have had to maintain other full-time employment with health-care benefits and our business would have never gotten off the ground.

Now President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are pushing through a plan that would take health care away from 23 million people including many of the 4 million newly insured small business owners, employees, and self-employed entrepreneurs like my wife and me. Instead of improving access and lowering costs, the GOP plan puts health care out of reach for many working families across Minnesota, and the House version jeopardizes protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The plan (details of the Senate versionhave just been released) also slashes Medicaid by $834 billion, threatening the health care of 74 million Americans who rely on Medicaid every day and creating huge deficits in state budgets.

Through these drastic cuts to Medicaid and to the tax credits that make buying coverage affordable, the repeal plan would cause premiums to skyrocket and possibly trigger the collapse of the private market. The plan would give $664 billion in tax cuts to the very wealthy and big corporations while forcing Minnesota small business owners back to a time when many of us couldnt afford coverage at all.

Whats bad for consumers and local businesses is bad for the economy. Any economist will tell you that when people have more money in their pockets, they can spend more at local businesses.

When small businesses struggle to keep their doors open, there are fewer jobs for Minnesotans. And when a single illness or medical emergency can bankrupt a family, that family wont be shopping at our small businesses or contributing to a robust economy.

The Republican repeal plan is only part of the problem. At the same time, Trump and the Republicans in Congress are actively sabotaging the ACA marketplaces, where about 200,000 Minnesotans are getting their coverage. One of the GOPs tactics is threatening to hold back payments that lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Without these payments, fewer people will be able to afford coverage. With fewer customers, insurance companies might abandon many of the markets, especially in rural areas, or hike premiums.

Does the ACA need some improvements? Of course. But we shouldnt scrap whats working for a new plan that increases costs, allows insurance companies to charge more for people with pre-existing conditions, and gives tax breaks to the wealthy and insurance and drug companies. The Republican House plan even includes an age tax that lets insurers charge older consumers five times more than younger ones!

Our leaders should be building on what works not sabotaging progress for Minnesotans to score political points. House Republicans like Erik Paulsen have the opportunity to take a stand for Minnesotans and small businesses by rejecting the health care plan that President Trump and congressional Republicans have proposed.

A thriving health care market means I have a real choice. I can afford quality insurance to keep my family healthy and my business thriving. And like millions of newly insured Americans, Im not interested in going backward.

Todd Mikkelson is the owner of SprayRack.com in Orono. He visited his congressman, Rep. Eric Paulsens office in December to urge him to not vote for repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

If you're interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below or consider writinga letteror a longer-formCommunity Voicescommentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)

See original here:
Republican health plan is a disaster for Minnesota's small businesses - MinnPost

Throughout the modernhistory of Congress, lawmakers have inexorablyexpanded progressive social policies, and whileconservatives have successfully forestalledexpansions to the social safety net, they've had very little success in reversingthem.

Right now, however, Republicanshave a chance to buck that trend, as they prepare legislation aimed at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The Senate bill released on Thursday, coupled with the House bill passed earlier this year, would beexactly the kind of cuts to the welfare state that conservativeshave consistently failed to achieve.

The repeal measure, which follows weeks of unusual secrecy in its drafting, would bring down taxes, eliminatehundreds of billions of dollarsin outlays on the social safety net and curtail the federal government's involvement in a crucial sector of the economy.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) unveiled the legislation that would reshape a big piece of the U.S. health-care system on Thursday, June 22. Here's what we know about the bill. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

The American right has had few chancesto enact such far-reaching legislation. For decades, Democrats controlled the House, and Republican presidents have often pursuedmoderate or progressive domestic agendas.Public programs established by Democrats have proven popular among beneficiaries,and it has been difficult for Republicans to dismantle them.

Conservative principles have often won out in foreign policy, in the courts and at the level of the states, but the trend in federal lawmaking has long been to the left.The Republican health-care bill would be an exception. The law would go beyond repealing parts of Obamacare to drastically restructure Medicaid, a 52-year-old program.

The more common pattern in the U.S. is that progressive social policies have been prevented, rather than rolled back, said Julia Lynch, a political scientist atthe University of Pennsylvania.

Until now, the growth of the welfare state has occasionally been slowed, but never reversed in any major way, noted H.W. Brands, a historian at the University of Texas at Austin, in an email.

Here's a timeline of some of the rare big wins for congressional conservatives.

After the Second World War, Congress dealt a blow to organized labor, removing one of the main reasons for workers to join unions in many states. Employers gained the ability to hire workers who were not members of their union but who were still paid according to the union contract, as long as their state passed what is known as a right-to-work law.

Proponents have argued that right-to-work legislation has helped workers get jobs even if they do not want to be members of a union. At the same time, these laws have allowed workers to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining without paying union dues, diluting the political clout of organized labor.

Activists and organizers often cite the Taft-Hartley Act, as the bill Congress passed in 1947 is known, as one of the reasons union membership has declined since the Second World War. There have been economic burdens on unions as well, however. Competition from industrial robots and overseas labor has put limits on their bargaining power.

The Republican health-care bill has followed a parallel trajectory to the Taft-Hartley law. Much as the GOP bill is a response to Democrats' victory on the issue a few years ago with Obamacare, the Taft-Hartley bill weakened New Deal labor legislation enacted in 1935. The law did so by devolving some authority over collective bargaining to the states, just as Republicans hope to give states the freedom to waive certain requirements in Obamacare.

There is one notable difference, though. Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act with broad bipartisan support, as conservative Democrats joined Republicans to override a veto from President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat. Republicans appear unlikely to win any Democratic votes for their health-care bill.

Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Actamida long series of defeatsforAmerican conservatism.

Beginning in 1933, Democrats had taken control of the House, and they remainedin power for decades, with only a few exceptions. Meanwhile, Republican presidents pursued centrist agendas.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower profoundly expanded the federal government's involvement in the economy with the Interstate Highway System. Richard Nixon supported a health-care overhaul that would have been substantially more progressive than Obamacare.

That changed with President Ronald Reagan, who won election in 1980 in part on a promise to bring down taxes. In his first year in office, he signed a major tax cut into law.

He brought down the marginal rate paid by the wealthiest taxpayers on their income from 70 percent to 50 percent. The law weakened the estate tax and offered businesses more favorable treatment on their investments.

Reagan's 1981 bill passed Congress with bipartisan support. The House, controlled by Democrats, voted 323 to 107 in favor of the law.

Had that law stood, it would have been the most significant reduction in taxes in modern times, reducing federal revenue by 2.9 percent of gross domestic product. Yet the law forced the federal government to borrow more to make up for the forgone revenue. During the rest of his administration, Reagan was repeatedly forced to increase taxes to deal with mounting deficits. Ultimately, he replaced about half of the original cut with tax hikes.

Arguably, the best precedent for what Republicans hope to achieve in undoing Obamacare is the welfare overhaul that President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, which eliminated a major federal entitlement and over time reduced the financial support available to poor American families.

The overhaul, a joint effort by the Clinton administration and Republicans in Congress,generally required Americans to work, volunteer, participate in vocational training or meet other requirements to receive cash assistance from the government. Like the Taft-Hartley Act, Clinton's bill left much of the actual policymaking to states, which gained new authority to impose restrictions on welfare.

And like the Republican health-care bill released Thursday, Clinton's overhaul reduced federal spending over many years through inflation. The Republican bill would limit spending on Medicaid to an index of inflation, but spending on Medicaid is increasing more rapidly than inflation as beneficiaries get older and require more expensive treatment. The result would be a cut to the program likely approaching $1 trillion, although official estimates are not yet available.

Clinton ran on a promise to overhaul the welfare system, but the retooling was in part the result of agitation from conservative lawmakerssuch as Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), then the speaker of the House. Republicans had won the Housetwo years earlier, ending generations of Democratic control, and Clinton was in the middle of a difficult campaign for his reelection at a time when public opinion had turned against the welfare system.

He vetoed two bills sent to him by Republicans, who were now in control of Congress, before signing the bill over the objections of liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill and in his own administration.Two of his top advisers on poverty policy resigned in the wake of the bill.

President George W. Bush sought to mimic Reagan's achievement by cutting taxes as well, with a series of three tax-relief bills totaling about 1.3 percent of GDP between 2001 and 2003.

The rest of Bush'sadministration might have been a disappointment to conservatives, however. Heincreased federalborrowing by expanding benefits under Medicare, and his plan for free-market overhauls to Social Securitydid not win support in Congress.

A handful of Democratic lawmakers voted in favor of the tax cuts, but the parties had long been drifting apart ideologically, and there were fewer of the kind of conservative Democrat that had supported limited-government legislation in the past.

Republicans have shifted to the right as well, and they are now are pursuing a health-care policy that will likely draw opposition from nearly all Democrats, but some moderate GOP lawmakers, too.

That fact demonstrates the enduing difficulty for conservative activists of unwinding social programs that help large numbers of people get by.

If it is enacted, it willcertainly be historic, said Norm Ornstein, a political scientist at the right-leaningAmerican Enterprise Institute.Conservatives, he said, find themselves in the unfamiliar position of being able to pass and get through a dramatic change in an important area of policy that really does take a meat-ax to government in terms of size and role.

See more here:
Republicans' Obamacare repeal would be one of the biggest cuts to the social safety net in history - Washington Post