Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans are scrambling to avoid stepping on the political landmine of proposed cuts to Medicare and other popular safety-net programs after President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump declares war on hardworking Americans with new budget request Avenatti found guilty in Nike extortion trial First, we'll neuter all the judges MORE in a recent interview said they could one day be on the chopping block.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellTrump declares war on hardworking Americans with new budget request The Hill's Morning Report AG Barr, GOP senators try to rein Trump in Overnight Health Care: Nevada union won't endorse before caucuses after 'Medicaid for All' scrap | McConnell tees up votes on two abortion bills | CDC confirms 15th US coronavirus case MORE (R-Ky.) announced Tuesday that he does not plan to put a budget resolution on the Senate floor, which could subject vulnerable GOP colleagues up for reelection this year to tough votes on Medicare and other issues.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike EnziMichael (Mike) Bradley EnziLawmakers trade insults over Trump budget cuts Republicans scramble to avoid Medicare land mine McConnell will not bring budget resolution to the floor MORE (R-Wyo.) announced Monday that he doesnt plan to hold hearings on Trumps budget, which proposed new cuts to Medicaid and other domestic spending programs.

The upshot is that the Republican Party, which once prided itself as the party of fiscal discipline and regularly blasted Democrats when they controlled the Senate for not passing budget resolutions, is looking for other issues to talk about.

McConnell on Tuesday highlighted confirmation votes this week on five federal judicial nominees, including the 51st judge Trump has appointed to a federal appellate court.

Instead of putting a Republican budget blueprint on the Senate floor, McConnell said he will simply stick to the annual spending cap set by the bipartisan budget deal that Trump signed last year, which suspended the federal deficit limit through July 2021 and raised military and domestic spending by $320 billion over two years.

I cant imagine that we can reach an agreement on a budget with this particular House of Representatives, McConnell told reporters, referring to the ideological gulf between him and Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiChris Wallace: 'Just insane' Swalwell is talking impeaching Trump again The Hill's Morning Report AG Barr, GOP senators try to rein Trump in Trump extends emergency declaration at border MORE (D-Calif.).

Weve got the caps deal in place. We negotiated it last year. Its good for the second year, and well comply with that, he said.

House Democratic budgetary leaders earlier this year signaled they didnt expect to produce a budget either.

Still, the decision by McConnell underscores the sensitivity to the GOP of opening itself up to proposals to reduce the costs of Medicare or Social Security.

Trump told CNBC in an interview last month that cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid could be considered in the future to bring down the federal deficit, which is projected to exceed $1 trillion per year over the next decade.

The president vowed to cut the deficit in his presidential campaign but has seen annual deficits soar during his presidency. His new budget anticipates balancing in 15 years, but it leans on optimistic economic projections to get there.

Trump tried to walk back his statement about possible cuts to Medicare, but Democrats have seized on the issue signaling their intention to speak to voters about the threat of cuts if Republicans are in power in Washington.

McConnell said 2020 would be the third year in a row that the Senate has not passed a budget resolution just a day after Enzi said he would put together a budget resolution.

When Democrats controlled the chamber, McConnell vowed that Republicans would pass budget plans once they took over the majority.

The law requires us to pass a budget, he told reporters in 2012, calling it stunning that Democrats had gone 1,000 days in power without passing a budget.

Some members of McConnells conference are interested in having a discussion over how to curb the growth of entitlement programs. The deficit is now projected to hit $1.7 trillion in 2030.

This is a problem. Both Republicans and Democrats have a spending addiction. Nobody knows what to do. Democrats, remember, they werent doing budgets when they were in charge. Now Republicans arent either, said Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulThe Hill's Morning Report AG Barr, GOP senators try to rein Trump in Overnight Defense: Senate votes to rein in Trump war powers on Iran | Pentagon shifting .8B to border wall | US, Taliban negotiate seven-day 'reduction in violence' The 8 Republicans who voted to curb Trump's Iran war powers MORE (R-Ky.), an outspoken fiscal conservative.

Really the meat of spending is entitlements. You got to have some guts to look at it, Paul added.

A fight over entitlements is a non-starter for most Republicans in an election year, however.

Senate Democratic Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerBarr to testify before House Judiciary panel Graham won't call Barr to testify over Roger Stone sentencing recommendation Roger Stone witness alleges Trump targeted prosecutors in 'vile smear job' MORE (N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) held a press conference Tuesday to attack Trumps budget plan, with both Democrats seizing on what they said were cuts to Medicare in the Trump budget.

The administration has proposed spending reductions to Medicare as part of the budget but says this would be done in a way that would not reduce benefits.

Pelosi said Trumps heartless budget proposes slashing a half a trillion from Medicare and from Medicaid $900 billion.

After he stood in front of the House and said Im protecting Medicare and Social Security, Pelosi added, referring to last weeks State of the Union address.

Trump declared before a joint session of Congress last week: We will always protect your Medicare and Social Security.

White House officials say Democrats are taking the proposed reforms to both Medicare and Medicaid out of context.

Despite what you hear from the other side, Medicare will grow at 6 percent under this budget, acting Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought told reporters Monday.

Reducing the cost of health care is not a cut, Vought said.

He argued that Medicaid will continue to grow at more than 3 percent per year on average, higher than the cost of inflation.

Republicans traditionally have lost fights with Democrats over government funding cuts.

At the Tuesday press conference, Pelosi highlighted the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicares statement that Trumps budget would leave seniors and other vulnerable citizens hungrier, sicker and poorer.

Read the rest here:
Republicans scramble to avoid Medicare land mine | TheHill - The Hill

Republicans in the House and the Senate are introducing legislation that would block federal funds from states that allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses -- the latest move in an escalating fight over sanctuary laws.

The Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal Immigrants Act would block funds to sanctuary states -- which limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities -- and those that give licenses to illegal immigrants. Specifically, it would halt Justice Department (DOJ) grants, in particular those awarded under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant,which is a top source of federal criminal justice funding for states.

NEW YORK SHERIFFS CALL OUT 'UNWISE' GREEN LIGHT LAW AS CUOMO MEETS TRUMP

The legislation is being introduced in the Senate by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. It is being co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.;Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.;Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga.;Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Mike Rounds, R-S.D. Meanwhile, in the House, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., is introducing companion legislation. That bill is co-sponsored by 21 other members.

Tennesseans know all too well what can happen when illegal immigrants are granted driver licenses, Blackburn said in a statement. While Tennessee and many other states prohibit driver licenses for illegal aliens, a growing number of states are moving in the opposite direction and unleashing dangerous open borders policies. Immigrants must follow the proper federal process and obtain citizenship or lawful status before obtaining a state driver license.

In America, no one is above the law, she added.

ICE SUBPOENAS NY FOR INFO ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ACCUSED OF MURDER, AS SANCTUARY CITY FIGHT ESCALATES

Her office estimates that states that issued licenses to illegal immigrants received nearly $53 million from the program in fiscal year 2019.

The bicameral legislation comes amid a growing fight over sanctuary legislation. The Trump administration has been attempting to highlight attention to the dangers of the policy and has been shining light on cases whereby illegal immigrants have killed Americans.

The United States of America should be a sanctuary for law-abiding Americans, not criminal aliens, Trump said at his State of the Union address last week.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The administration has also been caught up in a fight with New York over its Green Light Law that both gives drivers licenses to illegal immigrants and bans state Department of Motor Vehicles agencies from sharing information with federal immigration authorities.

The latter move led the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) last week to announce that it is suspending Global Entry and other Trusted Traveler Programs for New York residents, saying that the law makes DHS agencies unable to run the necessary security checks and risk assessments.

Read more:
Republicans introduce bill to pull funds from states that give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants - Fox News

Democrats late Wednesday released another set of revisions to their legislation to control greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon that would delay impacts for rural Oregon and require state government to study its own impact on emissions.

SALEM Lawmakers revealed on Wednesday changes to the plan to cut back on the states greenhouse gas emissions that would ease the impact on rural Oregon and adopt elements proposed by Timber Unity.

The revisions are part of the continuing effort of Democratic sponsors to drive a policy that has greater statewide acceptance.

The proposed revisions to Senate Bill 1530 incorporate requests from Republicans and Timber Unity, a grassroots organization that has been agitating against a cap and trade system. Republicans in the Senate fled the state over last years version of the bill.

The bill is slated for a work session in the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources at 3 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 13.

The cap and trade program would set a limit on statewide carbon emissions and aims to reduce emissions over time.

Limits on emissions would apply to certain industries and major fuel importers. The policy would carve up the emissions limit into allowances that emitters can buy and sell on a market. The idea is that as emissions targets get lower, fewer allowances are available, and industry would improve pollution controls.

Opponents have criticized the plan for its potential impact on consumers and small businesses, particularly through higher fuel costs.

The amendments could change how fuel would be regulated under the program. It delays the impact on Curry and Coos counties, as well as the Bend and Klamath Falls metro areas, until 2028, six years later than for the Portland area.

And rather than 20 counties triggering a statewide adoption of limits on fuel importers, this amendment sets the trigger at 23 counties.

Under the amendment, a greater share of the revenue from transportation - 90% - would go to counties or metro areas that engaged in the program to use on emissions reduction and climate adaptation projects. The rest would go to the state Transportation Department for projects around the state.

The amendments would incorporate policy ideas from Sen. Alan Olsen, R-Canby, and Sen. Lynn Findley, R-Vale, who sit on the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.

Olsens idea would make it easier for state agencies receiving money raised by the program to buy electric vehicles, and Findleys would streamline a state energy efficiency audit process for manufacturers that use a lot of energy but who face competition from areas that arent subject to emissions limits.

The amendment also includes policy ideas borrowed from Timber Unity. For example, it would direct the states parks department to conduct an annual tree planting day for local governments to sponsor planting trees in public spaces and it would direct the states main operations agency to study ways to account for the greenhouse gas emissions associated with transporting goods and services that state government buys.

The amendment aims to narrow the information about the program that is exempt from public disclosure just to trade secrets, which is already defined in the state public records law.

Reporter Claire Withycombe: [emailprotected] or 971-304-4148.

See the original post:
New amendments to cap and trade bill borrow from Republicans, Timber Unity - Salem Reporter

Top Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee threatened to fracture a bipartisan investigation into Big Tech.

In a letter Monday, Reps. Doug Collins, R-Ga., the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking member on the Antitrust Subcommittee, told Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., they "will not participate in an investigation with pre-conceived conclusions that America's large tech companies are inherently bad, cannot be allowed to exist in society, and must be broken up."

The letter followed comments Nadler made at a fundraising event Sunday. In a video from the event posted by Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute and advocate for stronger antitrust enforcement, Nadler can be heard talking about "changing the distribution of power" and "breaking up all the large companies."

Politico reported that Nadler did not call specifically to break up the tech companies, but instead was speaking broadly about changes necessary to tackle the issue of concentrated market power.

Nadler retweeted the video on his Twitter account, saying, "Concentrated economic power is a threat to both our democracy and our free and open markets," adding that it's important Congress "act where appropriate to address this concern."

Nadler's statements raised alarms for Collins and Sensenbrenner, who said in the letter they "have warned from the start of the Subcommittee's work that this investigation must avoid pre-conceived conclusions. The conclusions you articulated this past weekend have only aggravated our concerns."

"America's leaders should not punish tech companies simply because those companies have succeeded that will hurt consumers and stifle innovation. Our online ecosystem is thriving and breaking up large tech companies simply because of their size isn't the answer," they wrote.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee, who is leading the investigation of Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, has said he hopes the effort will remain bipartisan as it enters the legislative phase. Unlike the investigations by the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department, the House panel's probe will result in legislative proposals to reform the digital marketplace broadly, rather than impose an enforcement action.

See the article here:
Top Republicans on House Judiciary Committee threaten to fracture investigation into Big Tech - CNBC

Its the type of move that might have prompted a backlash from within his own party not too long ago, and several senators said they would not have done it. But after three weeks of the impeachment trial and with Trumps firm grip over the party, there was little blowback from his colleagues on Tuesday.

I was glad we didnt put the chief justice in a bad situation, said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of the GOP leadership. I have some sympathy for [Pauls] view on this. The whistleblower law should protect the whistleblowers job and future opportunity and not necessarily hide who the whistleblower is.

Its fine, said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). Had there been a vote on it, I probably would have voted to override the chief justice.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who has long touted his reputation protecting whistleblowers, said simply: If its the same name everybody else used, then its kind of out there.

Trump has repeatedly attacked the whistleblower on social media and in recent remarks. And in using the person's name on the Senate floor, Paul went further than any other House or Senate Republican. When Paul sought to have Roberts read his question during a two-day round of inquiries during the trial Roberts refused, saying, "The presiding officer declines to read the question."

Under the Constitution, Pauls own speech is protected on the Senate floor. That means he can do whatever he wants on the floor, said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

But some Republicans did seek to gently put distance between themselves and Paul, a longtime troublemaker within the Senate GOP who has single handedly caused brief shutdowns of the government and the Patriot Act in his two terms in the Senate.

I still believe in whistleblower protection. I think the fact that the chief justice wouldnt read it is an indicator of the sensitivity of it, said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). So I probably wouldnt have done that.

I wouldnt have done it, agreed Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who said he would have voted down Paul if he had contested Roberts on the Senate floor. I would have said that weve asked the chief justice by constitutional directive to oversee this and Im going to respect his wishes.

Paul said Tuesday that he supports protections against reprisal for whistleblowers but not necessarily anonymity.

"In the first month of [Trump's] office, in January of 2017, they were already plotting the impeachment," he alleged. "And you say 'Well, we should protect the whistleblower, and the whistleblower deserves anonymity.' The law does not preserve anonymity. His boss is not supposed to say anything about him, he's not supposed to be fired. I'm for that."

The whistleblower filed a complaint in August with an intelligence community watchdog, Inspector General Michael Atkinson. The complaint, which cited widespread concerns inside the Trump administration, alleged that Trump appeared to pressure Ukraine's president to launch politically motivated investigations of his Democratic rivals.

Atkinson indicated that the whistleblower showed "some indicia of an arguable political bias" but after reviewing the complaint and deemed it "urgent" and credible, triggering a requirement to transmit the complaint to Congress. The director of national intelligence, though, instead forwarded the complaint to the Justice Department, which overruled Atkinson's judgment and blocked the complaint from reaching the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

More here:
Rand Paul reads alleged whistleblower's name and Republicans 'fine' with it - POLITICO