Mediaboss Marketing

When Majority Leader Mitch McConnell deployed the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees Thursday morning, his rhetoric may have sounded a little familiar.

Republicans changed Senate rules to break a Democratic filibuster and confirm Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, and blamed Democrats for necessitating the change along the way.

Democrats, as you might imagine, saw it differently.

In a post-mortem on the Senate showdown, Fox News Sundays Chris Wallace asked Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., whether the Democrats made a strategic mistake deciding to filibuster Gorsuchs nomination. Cardin said both parties are to blame, noting that Republicans engaged in the same type of action during President Barack Obamas first term, when Republicans held up Obamas judicial nominees.

"Weve seen more filibusters on judicial nominees by the Republicans under President Obama than we saw in the whole history of the United States Senate," Cardin said April 9. "Both sides have blame here."

We heard a similar claim on ABCs This Week. Former DNC pollster Cornell Belcher said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell "who blocked more of President Obama's nominees than have been blocked in history."

Is that so?

Defining, counting filibusters

Cardin used the term "filibuster," but measuring filibusters is troublesome, experts say, because it has an overly broad meaning. Senators tend to consider any type of obstruction to scheduling a nomination or measure as a filibuster, said Steven Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis.

"The whole use of the term filibuster is problematic, given its evolution over the years," added University of Kansas political scientist Burdett Loomis. "It ends up being a regular event, used all the more frequently in more partisan Congresses."

As a result, experts say a way to approximate but not entirely count filibusters is to count the number of times the Senate attempts to break a filibuster by forcing an up-or-down vote through a process called cloture.

In recent years, a cloture motion required the approval of 60 senators. But in 2013, Democrats changed the rules so that a simple majority could invoke cloture for presidential appointments and lower court nominees. The 60-vote threshold stood for legislation and the Supreme Court.

To confirm Gorsuch, Republicans eliminated the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees. It remains in place for legislation.

What the research shows

Cardins claim stems from a 2013 report by the Congressional Research Service, the independent research arm of Congress. The document, along with a subsequent memorandum on the report, lists every instance in which a presidential nominee was blocked and cloture was filed through Nov. 20, 2013, when Democrats changed Senate rules.

According to the Congressional Research Service, senators sought attempted cloture action on judicial nominations approximately86 times between 1967 and the end of 2013. (Pre-1967, the Congressional Research Service lists no cloture attempts -- so "history" as Cardin put it, is relatively short.)

Of those, 50 were made before President Barack Obama took office in 2009, and 36 were made between 2009 and when the Senate changed its rules in 2013.Miguel A. Estrada, a judge nominated in 2001 to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, saw seven cloture attempts to break a logjam by Senate Democrats before withdrawing his nomination in 2003.

So through that prism, Cardin is off.

Cardin is closer if you look at individual judicial nominees who were subject to a cloture filing (because nominees like Estrada were subject to a cloture filing multiple times). Pre-Obama, 36 judicial nominees were subject to a cloture filing, we found. From 2009-2013, it was the same -- 36 judicial nominees.

To put that in perspective, and to see Cardin's point, look at it this way: Less than one nominee per year was subject to a cloture filing inthe 40 years before Obama took office. From 2009-13, the number of nominees subject to a cloture filing jumped to over seven per year.

In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was much closer to being correct when he said, "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents." His figure included non-judicial nominees.

As part of that fact-check we noted that "By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obamas term, for a total of 147."

Senate Democratsmade that same point in a tweet April 6. (Cardin's team said Sen. Chuck Schumer's inquiry on the Senate floor was the basis of Cardin's claim.)

Our ruling

Cardin said, "Weve seen more filibusters on judicial nominees by the Republicans under President Obama than we saw in the whole history of the United States Senate."

Cardin used an imprecise term, "filibuster," to describe a precise Senate parliamentary procedure, "cloture." Asfar as cloture data kept by the Congressional Research Service,Cardin would be on safer ground if he avoided focusing on "judicial" nominees. By our count, cloture was filed on 36 judicial nominations during the first five years of Obama's presidency, the same totalas the previous 40 years combined.

On balance, we rate this claim Half True.

Share the Facts

3

7

Half True

"Weve seen more filibusters on judicial nominees by the Republicans under President Obama than we saw in the whole history of the United States Senate."

in comments on "Fox News Sunday"

Sunday, April 9, 2017

04/09/2017

See the original post:
Did Senate Republicans filibuster Obama court nominees more than all others combined? - PolitiFact

Republicans control Washington but have no real legislative victories to show folks back home during their two-week Easter recess. They miss former President Barack Obama, whom they blamed in the past for not getting anything accomplished.

Clearly, President Obama gave us a common focus. Now that hes gone, we have to govern, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) told Politico.

GOP Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho told Politico and the partys constituents will be angry and could try to boot them from office. He added that the burden of controlling government is that you cant blame anyone else.

According to the outlet, Speaker Paul Ryan thought he had it all figured out after President Donald Trumps surprising victory in November.

Ryans agenda included passing an Obamacare replacement, funding the government (including finding money for the U.S.-Mexico wall), and passing tax reform by the recess.

They accomplished none of that, even though the GOP controls both houses of Congress and the executive branch.

Sharp divisions among House Republicans surfaced in the absence of the ex-president to unite them. Trump and Ryan have so far been unable to control the far-right wing of their party.

In a feeble effort, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) tried to convince Politico that Republicans are unified, pointing to several congressional resolutions that Trump signed.

However, a truly unified party that knows how to govern would have accomplished more.

SOURCE: Politico

SEE ALSO:

Trump Threats Continue As Demand Issued To Vote On Repealing Obamacare

Trump Pulls Ailing Health Care Bill To Save Face

Read the original:
Divided Republicans With Failed Agenda Miss Obama - News One

NEW YORK US President Donald Trumps first major legislative goal to repeal and replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has already imploded, owing to Trump and congressional Republicans naivet about the complexities of health-care reform. Their attempt to replace an imperfect but popular law with a pseudo-reform that would deprive more than 24 million Americans of basic health care was bound to fail or sink Republican members of Congress in the 2018 mid-term elections if it had passed.

Now, Trump and congressional Republicans are pursuing tax reform starting with corporate taxes and then moving on to personal income taxes as if this will be any easier. It wont be, not least because the Republicans initial proposals would add trillions of dollars to budget deficits, and funnel over 99% of the benefits to the top 1% of the income distribution.

A plan offered by Republicans in the US House of Representatives to reduce the corporate-tax rate from 35% to 15%, and to make up for the lost revenues with a border adjustment tax, is dead on arrival. The BAT does not have enough support even among Republicans, and it would violate World Trade Organization rules. The Republicans proposed tax cuts would create a $2 trillion revenue shortfall over the next decade, and they cannot plug that hole with revenue savings from their health-care reform plan or with the $1.2 trillion that could have been expected from a BAT.

The Republicans must now choose between passing their tax cuts (and adding $2 trillion to the public debt) and pursuing a much more modest reform. The first scenario is unlikely for three reasons. First, fiscally conservative congressional Republicans will object to a reckless increase in the public debt. Second, congressional budget rules require any tax cut that is not fully financed by other revenues or spending cuts to expire within ten years, so the Republicans plan would have only a limited positive impact on the economy.

And, third, if tax cuts and increased military and infrastructure spending push up deficits and the public debt, interest rates will have to rise. This would hinder interest-sensitive spending, such as on housing, and lead to a surge in the US dollar, which could destroy millions of jobs, hitting Trumps key constituency white working-class voters the hardest.

Moreover, if Republicans blow up the debt, markets response could crash the US economy. Owing to this risk, Republicans will have to finance any tax cuts with new revenues, rather than with debt. As a result, their roaring tax-reform lion will most likely be reduced to a squeaking mouse.

Even cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 30% would be difficult. Republicans would have to broaden the tax base by forcing entire sectors such as pharmaceuticals and technology that currently pay little in taxes to start paying more. And to get the corporate-tax rate below 30%, Republicans would have to impose a large minimum tax on these firms foreign profits. This would mark a departure from the current system, in which trillions of dollars in foreign profits remain untaxed unless they are repatriated.

During the presidential campaign, Trump proposed a one-time 10% repatriation-tax holiday to encourage American companies to bring their foreign profits back to the United States. But this would deliver only $150-200 billion in new revenues less than 10% of the $2 trillion fiscal shortfall implied by the Republicans plan. In any case, revenues from a repatriation tax should be used to finance infrastructure spending or the creation of an infrastructure bank.

Some congressional Republicans who already know that the BAT is a non-starter are now proposing that the corporate income tax be replaced with a value-added tax that is legal under WTO rules. But this option isnt likely to go anywhere, either. Republicans themselves have always strongly opposed a VAT, and there is even an anti-VAT Republican caucus in Congress.

The traditional Republican view holds that such an efficient tax would be too easy to increase over time, making it harder to starve the beast of wasteful government spending. Republicans point to Europe and other parts of the world where a VAT rate started low and gradually increased to double-digit levels, exceeding 20% in many countries.

Democrats, too, have historically opposed a VAT, because it is a highly regressive form of taxation. And while it could be made less regressive by excluding or discounting food and other basic goods, that would only make it less appealing to Republicans. Given this bipartisan opposition, the VAT like the BAT is already dead in the water.

It will be even harder to reform personal income taxes. Initial proposals by Trump and the Republican leadership would have cost $5-9 trillion over the next decade, and 75% of the benefits would have gone to the top 1% a politically suicidal idea. Now, after abandoning their initial plan, Republicans claim they want a revenue-neutral tax cut that includes no reductions for the top 1% of earners.

But that, too, looks like mission impossible. Implementing revenue-neutral tax cuts for almost all income brackets means that Republicans would have to phase out many exemptions and broaden the tax base in ways that are politically untenable. For example, if Republicans eliminated the mortgage-interest deduction for homeowners, the US housing market would crash.

Ultimately, the only sensible way to provide tax relief to middle- and lower-income workers is to raise taxes on the rich. This is a socially progressive populist idea that a pseudo-populist plutocrat like Trump will never accept. So, it looks like Republicans will continue to delude themselves that supply-side, trickle-down tax policies work, in spite of the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary.

Get to grips with President Trump; Project Syndicate has published more than 100 articles exploring the implications of his presidency for politics, the economy, and world peace and security. They are all here:

Continue reading here:
A Fiscal Reality Test for US Republicans - Project Syndicate

Congress limped into its spring break with little to demonstrate that much has changed from its previous dysfunctional gridlock despite Republicans control of both Capitol Hill and the White House.

There were vows at the start of the year of a rapid-fire offense, but Republican leaders ended the first three months of 2017 with only one major accomplishment: the confirmation of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Even that came with a high price changing the Senate rules in such a way as to permanently decrease the influence of the minority.

Every big GOP initiative has hit a dead end or remains stuck at the starting line: Plans to rapidly repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act have stalled amid House Republican infighting. Senate Republicans have largely rejected the centerpiece of an emerging overhaul of the tax code that is backed by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.). And an infrastructure package, often touted by President Trump, has been relegated to the back of the line. Some Republicans are wondering whether they should move that up to try for a much-needed bipartisan win.

But grand ambitions for big changes with Trump in the White House and a GOP majority on Capitol Hill have quickly slammed into political reality: Republicans just cant seem to get along, especially in the House. And Trump is a political neophyte who is unfamiliar with the legislative wrangling and compromises needed to score a big win in Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was being realistic when he said this week that the bulk of the legislative agenda for the rest of this year would require Democratic support, given the tight margins in the Senate and GOP infighting in the House. Now out of session until late April, McConnell says he hopes cooler heads will soon prevail.

Im hoping that, after this two-week break, people are going to be in a more friendly mood, he said in an interview Friday, noting that Democrats used fewer delay tactics on Gorsuch than some Cabinet selections early this year. Most of the things that well be doing the rest of the year, theyll have to play a major role.

Some Democrats are willing to cross the aisle, particularly several up for reelection that hail from states where Trump won by wide margins.

Wed like to find a pathway forward, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) said after Fridays Gorsuch confirmation vote. Yet Manchin found McConnells move to end 60-vote filibusters on Supreme Court nominees to be un-American and said hes still waiting for real outreach on more legislation to bring together a bipartisan coalition.

Well, we had the opportunity this time, he said of the Supreme Court fight, and it didnt work too well.

[Immediate impact: Gorsuch could begin playing pivotal role on Supreme Court starting next week]

That effort didnt get any easier late Thursday when Trump ordered a Tomahawk missile strike on Syrian airfield in response to a chemical weapon attack against Syrian rebels a move that won bipartisan support but also renewed calls from both parties for Congress to debate and approve a new war resolution.

Earlier this decade, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) made a basic calculation: A Congress that struggled to pay its debts and to keep the government lights on was never going to craft a bipartisan deal governing the prosecution of Americas wars.

So the Democratic Senate majority leader and the Republican House speaker, both of whom are now retired, stymied attempts at drawing up a new measure to guide the military in carrying out its expanding operations fighting terrorists.

McConnell adopted that same attitude after the strike in Syria, suggesting Trump had the constitutional latitude to act and that Republicans and Democrats were too far apart to agree on a new authorization for the use of military force.

I cant envision us agreeing on what an AUMF ought to be, he said.

[Congress greets Syria strike with mix of applause and anger]

And lawmakers face more immediate problems. Within 72 hours of lawmakers return later this month is the April 28 deadline for funding the federal agencies to avert a government shutdown. McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) had a long meeting this week about that funding plan and not once did they discuss the bitter taste of the Gorsuch confirmation fight.

Left to their own devices, the two leaders appear ready to craft a deal. Thats because McConnell knows that, the more things change in the era of Trump, the more some things stay very much the same on Capitol Hill.

In the House, that means that theres a bloc of several dozen conservatives who hate spending deals and will almost certainly vote against whatever Ryan puts before them, while in the Senate they will need at least eight Democrats to clear the 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster.

[Republicans try to revive health-care effort as leaders seek to temper expectations]

While Trump advisers and some House Republicans spent the past week haggling over an effort to revive the health-care overhaul, McConnell never once mentioned that legislation as a focus for the remainder of this year.

He noted that the only achievements in the first quarter of 2017 Gorsuch, confirming Trumps Cabinet and overturning more than a dozen agency regulations happened because they faced 51-vote thresholds in the Senate. The only simple-majority arrow left in their quiver is the tax overhaul if Republicans can agree on a new, massive budget resolution.

But that decision is up in the air amid House-Senate battles over a proposed tax on goods coming across the U.S. border.

Now we pivot into a period where, with the exception of whatever were going to do on tax reform, Democrats will be full partners, McConnell said.

The window for finding Democratic collaborators is not permanently open. If Republicans keep pushing legislation with parliamentary rules allowing votes from just their side of the aisle, it requires them to resolve long-standing GOP feuds.

If Republicans keep running into dead ends, with no success, the impetus for Democrats to want to work with an unpopular Congress and unpopular president will fade.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) gave a one-word answer to what Trump should do next: Infrastructure.

Im disappointed they didnt go with that first, she added.

Back in January, at the Republican issues retreat in Philadelphia, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said an infrastructure package is something that might happen later, behind the health and tax packages. On Friday, Thune moved it higher on the priority list, given how the health legislation exposed lingering feuds within the GOP.

The key lesson on health care, he said, applies to the upcoming legislative battles as well. Republicans can no longer expect to barnstorm Washington with a speedy legislative assault.

Better to do it right, Thune said, than to do it fast.

Read more from Paul Kanes archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Read the rest here:
Republicans on Capitol Hill leave town with most of their agenda stuck in limbo - Washington Post

Top Republicans on Friday said that President Trump's decision to punish Syria was a reassuring sign that he had abandoned isolationism and was through playing footsie with Russia.

Republicans have hoped that Trump's foreign policy might evolve from the "America first" approach that suggested he wasn't interested in being a global leader. And, they have strongly urged the president to stop coddling Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.

Trump's decision to hit Syria with missile strikes in retaliation for using chemical weapons, and his administration's stern warning to Damascus' key ally, Russia, that such behavior wouldn't be tolerated, left senior Republicans optimistic that the president is finally changing course.

"This action reminded me of [former President] George W. Bush," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. "It was well-planned, well-executed sent multiple messages."

McConnell said the strike put Syrian dictator Bashar Assad on notice that murdering civilians is unacceptable. The majority leader said it also signaled to U.S. adversaries and allies alike that "America is back, and playing a leadership role."

Republicans chafed under the foreign policy of former President Barack Obama. They criticized the Democrat for diminishing U.S. influence, charging that he appeased adversaries and neglected allies.

Yet, that's the same approach to international relations Trump telegraphed he might take while campaigning for president. The president questioned the value of crucial western alliances, and stubbornly refused to criticize Putin, whom he praised as a strong leader.

Similar to Obama, Trump argued that the U.S. was over-extended abroad and needed to refocus inward. The Republican appeared to go further, however.

Trump indicated that he was prepared to discard decades of bipartisan foreign policy consensus, formulated in the aftermath of World War II, and in particular embraced by the GOP since Ronald Reagan's presidency, that America had a unique role to play.

Also from the Washington Examiner

President Obama's former deputy national security adviser indicated Saturday that he isn't very happy with President Trump's decision to hit a Syrian air base with missiles.

Trump's missile strike, which was retaliation for Syria's use of chemical weapons, drew instant comparisons to Obama, who warned the U.S. would act if Syria used chemical weapons.

Obama did nothing after Syria crossed that "red line" of Obama's, and many said Trump was the one to finally enforce Obama's ultimatum years later.

But in an early Saturday morning tweet, Rhodes suggested that Trump's strike was only aimed at boosting his press coverage, and seemed to warn reporters against helping him achieve this.

04/08/17 4:04 PM

That's why Trump's action against Syria was so reassuring to Republicans. It symbolized to them that Trump was rejecting his isolationist tendencies, and embracing the hawkish foreign policy that has dominated his party for nearly four decades.

"I was proud of him," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a hawk who has been sharply critical of Trump's foreign policy. "He called me last night, and he said: 'Well, I bet you're happy.' I said: 'No, I'm proud. I'm proud that you did something that needed to be done.'"

Even a few Democrats praised Trump, however sparingly. While making clear that they wanted the president to communicate, more specifically, his military and diplomatic strategy for Syria, they were generally pleased to see him embrace a traditional foreign policy.

"I support this action by President Trump," said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. "Assad's murderous campaign against his own people has gone on far too long."

Trump's flirtation with Putin has rankled Democrats and Republicans. But the matter has been particularly distressing for a GOP proud of its foreign policy heritage as the party that won the Cold War and presided over the demise of the Soviet Union.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Trump defended the strike as a way to defend the "vital national security and foreign policy."

04/08/17 2:55 PM

So despite their acceptance of the president's various political eccentricities, they have resisted him on Russia. Republicans have begged Trump to treat Moscow as an adversary and recognize its bad behavior, from repressing democracy at home to invading neighbors, not to mention undermining U.S. interests.

Syria is an example. Russia has propped up Assad and has a significant military presence in Syria, in an effort to challenge Washington's influence in the Middle East. The U.S. struck anyway, without coordinating or seeking Putin's advance of approval (Moscow was warned, but only to avoid an unintended military confrontation.)

The Trump administration additionally delivered a stern message to Russia that complicity with Assad's use of chemical weapons was unacceptable. All of that has deepened the Republicans' confidence that the president's infatuation with Putin might be over.

"For a lot of people, it will probably put to rest all this discussion about, oh, he and Putin are holding hands together," said Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, a pointed Russia hawk who serves on the intelligence committee. "If that was the case on Wednesday, it wasn't the case by midnight on Thursday."

See the rest here:
With Syria strike, Trump reassures Republicans on Russia - Washington Examiner