Mediaboss Marketing

As Republicans study an amendment to the American Health Care Act to see if it would revive the moribund effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, theyre wrestling over language that appears to benefit members of Congress and their staff and looking for a way to change it before any votes are called.

The language, first spotted by Vox health-care reporter Sarah Kliff, leaves a loophole in the McArthur-Meadows amendments waiversallowing insurers in states to cut back on theessential health benefits mandated by the ACA. Members of Congress or their staffers from a state that offers a skimpier set of standards would be able stay on the District of Columbias plan, which follows the ACA mandate.

Voxs story ran late Tuesday night, and by Wednesday morning, Republicans werereviewingthe loophole. One member who brought it up during the partys weekly conference meeting was told that the language might not stay in the bill.

[Conservative pressure groups throw weight behind GOP health-care deal]

In a scrum with reporters before the conference meeting, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said that the language was murky because the District is not a state. Later, leaving a meeting of the House Freedom Caucus, Meadows wasclearer about the need to strip the language.

If you look at the text, it actually penalizes members of Congress and people in D.C.,said Meadows, who did not explain howCongress and D.C. residents would be penalized. But we understand the optics, and were working on that to make sure that it gets fixed.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced a digital ad buy in the districts of 30 Republicans who either represented swing seats or had said theyd oppose the AHCA. The ad, stamped with the name of each targeted Republican, shows a Band-Aid under the word denied and an image of the Capitol under the word approved, accusing Republicans of twisting the rules to avoid personal pain.

Removing protections for people with preexisting conditions will go down in infamy as one of the most heartless acts of this Republican Congress, said DCCC spokesman Tyler Law. As proof of the repeal bills devastating impact, Republican members of Congress are exempting themselves from the punishment they are willing to inflict on their constituents.

Continue reading here:
Republicans look to undo health-care loophole that appears to benefit members of Congress and staff - Washington Post

WASHINGTON Republicans, facing the refusal of Democrats to fund President Donald Trumps border wall in an upcoming spending bill, seem to have abandoned their wall construction demands as lawmakers work to avert a government shutdown.

No wall money in latest offer from Republicans, a congressional aide confirmed.

Although Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declined to detail the talks, he and other members of the Democratic leadership team seemed convinced wall funding was now off the table. With that issue settled, Democrats suggested they were making real progress toward passing an omnibus spending bill by Friday, when government funding runs out.

The presidents 11th-hour demand [for wall money] threatened to upend the progress. Were pleased hes backing off, Schumer said.

Schumer added that there remain a number of outstanding issue. First and foremost, Democrats remain committed to making sure there are no poison-pill riders in this agreement, Schumer said, referring to amendments that are intended to be politically divisive.

The fact that the wall is now off the table, Americans should breathe a huge sigh of relief, Schumer said. The negotiations can resume and move forward.

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images

Trump and other administration officials had previously indicated they would demand wall funding in the omnibus spending bill, with Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney raising the possibility that Republicans would offer dollar-for-dollar funding between a wall and Obamacare subsidies for low-income people.

But Democrats have been resolute that they wont accept money for a physical border wall in any spending bill. That leaves Republicans with an obvious choice: Either abandon their demand for wall funding, or insist on the money, try to make Democrats cave, and risk a potential government shutdown.

With Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, Democrats were willing to bet that voters would blame the GOP for a shutdown and that a lapse in government funding would show that Trump and congressional Republicans cant govern. In short, Republicans had hardly any leverage, and Democrats knew it.

Republicans dont have the votes to pass an omnibus bill on their own. They need at least eight Democrats in the Senate to get 60 votes, and potentially many more Democrats in the House. Democrats, lacking the votes to pass a bill themselves, have taken a hard line on the spending bill, denying Trump and Republicans a number of policy priorities, including defunding Planned Parenthood, restricting money for immigration sanctuary cities, and blowing up the subsidy program for the Affordable Care Act.

Without those GOP wins, more and more Republicans have appeared apt to vote against the legislation, tilting further momentum toward Democrats. That has put Democrats in a position to fund their own priorities, like the Obamacare subsidies, and simultaneously troll Trump.

President Trump laid out his demands for this spending bill, and thankfully, Democrats and many Republicans in Congress have so far stood together to say absolutely not. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said Tuesday.

Murray continued that Trump had dropped all demands to defund Planned Parenthood, and hasnt said a word about the $18 billion in extreme [domestic spending] cuts that his fellow Republicans have simply ignored.

Allow Democrats and Republicans to work together, Murray added, and dont shut down the government to try to distract people from your failed 100 days in office.

There are still a number of issues for Democrats and Republicans to work out before they can reach a deal. Lawmakers have yet to settle on miners health provisions, Puerto Rico funding, or how much money the spending bill will deliver for Obamacare subsidies. Those unresolved issues could lead Republicans and Democrats toward another short-term funding bill for, say, a week or so.

But either way, its clear that Trumps most significant demand, perhaps his signature campaign promise the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border isnt going to happen soon.

That hasnt exactly deterred Trump or his administration. Department of Homeland Security spokesman David Lapan said recently that DHS could reprogram existing funding to cover the cost of wall prototypes.

None of this is going to happen in one fiscal year, Lapan said.

Elise Foley contributed reporting.

Continue reading here:
Republicans Abandon Wall Funding Demand - Huffington Post

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed the idea of Congress funding extra Obamacare subsidies, called cost-sharing reductions, on April 25. "Obviously, CSRs, we're not doing that," Ryan said. "That's something separate that the administration does." (The Washington Post)

Now that House Republicans are officially refusing to fund extra Obamacare subsidies, theyre looking to the Trump administration to make the payments despite having sued the Obama administration for doing just that.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) confirmed Wednesday morning that funding for the subsidies, which insurers say are necessary to tamp marketplace premiums down, wont be included in a government funding bill that lawmakers are trying to pass this week.

Obviously, were not doing that, Ryan said. Thats not in an appropriation bill. Thats something separate that the administration does.

[Republicans offer spending plan without border wall]

House Republicans, however, spent the previous few years suing the Obama administration for giving insurers the subsidies without consent from Congress, as part of their long-standing barrage against the Affordable Care Act. Their lawsuit, which has been upheld by a federal-district court, argues that the administration was overstepping its authority in making the payments, as they didnt have a permanent appropriation within the health-care law.

That lawsuit now puts them in an awkward position. Republicans control both Congress and the White House, but they have so far failed to replace Obamacareas promised. The public is likely to blame them for problems with the law going forward, including its premium hikes, addingpressure to ensure insurers get the payments.

The subsidies, called cost-sharing reductions, are an obscure but important part of the Affordable Care Act that emerged as a sticking point as Congress negotiates a bill to fund the government past Friday. Last week, President Trump threatened that Republicans wouldnt fund them if Democrats blocked funding for a border wall.

They are available to the lowest-income enrollees in the laws insurance marketplaces those earning 100 to 250 percent of the federal poverty level to help them afford extra costs beyond their monthly premium, like co-payments and deductibles.

Health-care experts say the Affordable Care Act is stable, but President Trump and congressional Republicans could push it over the cliff into a "death spiral." (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

Insurers must offer the discounts, regardless of whether they get reimbursed by the federal government. Theyre arguing that without those reimbursements, theyll be forced to dramatically pump up premiums for everyone to cover the costs. The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated premiums for mid-level silver plans would rise by 19 percent on average without the payments.

Now that Congress has refused to fund the payments, the only way for insurers to get them next year is if the Trump administration pays them out anyway. The administration hasnt said whether it will do so, or whether it will appeal a district-court ruling upholding the House lawsuit, reflecting the high political stakes at play.

If insurers dont get the payments and hike premiums as a result, resulting in Americans dropping their health coverage, it could create a backlash against Republicans. Moderates who are vulnerable in 2018 are particularly worried about this outcome. And leading Republicans in Congress, including Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden, have said the payments must be made.

But should his administration award the subsidies, Trump would appear to be propping up the health-care law that he had sharply criticized on the campaign trail.

[Trump must decide whether to support or undermine Obamacare]

Were Republicans moving forward on a sure path toward repealing and replacing big parts of the Affordable Care Act, Trump could argue he was protecting consumers in the interim. But that measure is currently in a holding pattern as Republicans have clashed over its aspects.

And if the Trump administration awards the subsidies and House Republicans dont criticize the move they risk looking hypocritical, since thats what they blasted President Barack Obama for doing.

Originally posted here:
House Republicans look to Trump to fund Obamacare subsidies. They used to sue Obama over this. - Washington Post

New York Times

Republicans Agree on No Shutdown, but Not on How to Avoid One New York Times Senator Steve Daines, Republican of Montana, and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, this month. Allowing the federal government to go dark on their watch might be hard to explain for Republicans. Credit Al Drago/The ... Trump's latest threat is a big problem for Republicans, not DemocratsWashington Post (blog) Trump Shutdown Threat Creates No-Win Situation for RepublicansNewsweek Will Republicans Expand ObamaCare?Cato Institute (blog) WSAU (blog) -Daily Kos -TPM -The Hill all 638 news articles »

See the article here:
Republicans Agree on No Shutdown, but Not on How to Avoid One - New York Times

Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press

Republicans in position to reshape federal bench

WASHINGTON (AP) Republicans have put President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee on the bench, and they're now in a position to fill dozens more federal judgeships and reshape some of the nation's highest courts.

Democrats have few ways to stop them.

The Republican opportunity comes with the GOP in control of Congress and the White House, about 120 vacancies in federal district and appeals courts to be filled and after years of partisan fights over judicial nominations.

Frustrated by Republican obstruction in 2013, then-majority Democrats changed Senate rules so judicial nominations for those trial and appeals courts are filibuster-proof, meaning it takes only 51 votes, a simple majority in the 100-member Senate, for confirmation.

LATEST TRENDING VIDEOS: Story continues below

Today, Senate Republicans hold 52 seats.

The Democratic rules change did not apply to Supreme Court nominations. But Senate Republicans are now in the majority, and they changed the rules in similar fashion this month to confirm federal Judge Neil Gorsuch to the high court over Democratic opposition. As a result, the GOP can almost guarantee confirmation of future Supreme Court justices, as well, if there are more openings with Trump in office and Republicans are in the majority.

"The Trump administration does have an opportunity to really put its mark on the future of the federal judiciary," says Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the conservative Federalist Society and an adviser to Trump on the Gorsuch nomination.

Reflecting a conservative judicial philosophy, Leo says the unusual number of vacancies that Trump is inheriting could reorient the courts of appeals, in particular, "in a way that better reflects the traditional judicial role, which is interpreting the law according to its text and placing a premium on the Constitution's limits on government power."

That philosophy was a priority for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom Gorsuch replaced, and Trump has said he wants the federal judiciary to reflect those values.

There are currently 20 vacancies in the federal appeals courts, which are one step below the Supreme Court, and roughly 100 more in district courts, where cases are originally tried. Former President Barack Obama had around half that number of vacancies when he took office in 2009. Of the current vacancies, 49 are considered judicial emergencies, a designation based on how many court filings are in the district and how long the seat has been open.

As the White House has focused on the Gorsuch nomination, Trump has so far only nominated one lower-court judge, Amul R. Thapar, a friend of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, for the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Republican senators say they hope to see more nominations soon from the White House.

"We've heard from them and we're talking to them," says Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the No. 2 Republican leader.

The number of vacancies is a monumental opportunity for conservatives looking to exert more influence on a judiciary that they see as too liberal and activist. But it also could work to Republicans' disadvantage. Democrats can't stop the process, but they can delay it, and they still can call for procedural votes that will delay other Senate business when Republicans are trying to confirm each individual judge.

If they do that, says Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, "we'll have more vacancies than we have now."

Democrats haven't signaled a strategy for lower court judges, but partisan tension over the judiciary is at a peak after McConnell blocked Obama's nominee for Scalia's seat, federal Judge Merrick Garland, then changed the Senate rules to avert a Democratic filibuster of Gorsuch this month. They're also frustrated that Senate Republicans confirmed very few of Obama's picks once the GOP regained control of the Senate in 2015.

Also unclear is whether the traditional practice will persist in which both senators from a state, regardless of party, consult with the White House on a nominee and then have to approve of the nominee for the Senate Judiciary Committee to move forward. Grassley said this month he is committed to honoring the practice, but said "there are always some exceptions."

Of Democratic senators working with the White House, Grassley says "it ought to be pretty easy" in states that have at least one Republican senator. But there are multiple vacancies in states with two Democrats, including eight district court openings in New York and six in California.

In Texas, which has two Republican senators, there are two appeals court vacancies and 11 district court vacancies. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz are continuing their practice of creating and consulting with a bipartisan panel of leading state attorneys to help identify the most qualified candidates for those jobs.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., a committee member, says he thinks the future of the bipartisan process is "the real fight" going forward. He says he hopes it doesn't change.

"I think there's a lot of desire to keep that power within the Senate," he said.

Continue reading here:
Republicans in position to reshape federal bench - SFGate