Mediaboss Marketing

A police officer votes at Belmont High School on Feb. 9, 2016, in Belmont, N.H., during the New Hampshire presidential primary. The state's lawmakers are now debating bills that would tighten residency requirements for new voters. Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

A police officer votes at Belmont High School on Feb. 9, 2016, in Belmont, N.H., during the New Hampshire presidential primary. The state's lawmakers are now debating bills that would tighten residency requirements for new voters.

Vice President Pence has yet to begin a promised investigation into allegations by President Trump that millions of people voted illegally in November. But that hasn't stopped state lawmakers from taking action they say would limit voter fraud, even though the president's claims have been widely discredited.

Legislation to tighten voter ID and other requirements has already been introduced in about half the states this year. And in statehouse after statehouse, the debate has had a familiar ring.

"We do not have a voter fraud problem in North Dakota," Democratic Rep. Mary Schneider argued last month during a state House floor debate of a measure that would tighten that state's voter ID requirements and increase penalties for voter fraud.

"To say that there's not a voter fraud problem in North Dakota, I think that's another inaccurate statement. Maybe there have been no convicted cases but it doesn't mean that we don't have an issue," countered Republican Christopher Olson, shortly before the measure was approved by a vote of 74-16.

Proof of citizenship

In late January, Virginia Republican Bob Marshall argued in favor of a bill that would require voters in that state to provide proof of citizenship before casting ballots in state and local races.

"I've identified individuals who tell me they're not citizens, but they're on the voter database," he argued.

But Democrat Rip Sullivan said such measures will hurt legitimate voters who don't have the required documents.

"We know it to be true, that there will be Virginians disenfranchised by this piece of legislation all because of some concern about voter fraud for which there is no proof," he said. That bill passed the Republican-controlled House, but has stalled in the state Senate, also controlled by Republicans.

Around the country, the issue has split legislators along party lines. Democrats say tighter voting rules are unnecessary and discourage legitimate voters from casting ballots. Republicans say they're trying to assure voters that the system is secure, even if voter fraud isn't as widespread as Trump claims.

"I don't know if there's a lot of cheating. I just know that because of our loose laws, people feel that way," says New Hampshire Republican Sen. Regina Birdsell.

She has sponsored legislation to tighten residency requirements for voters in her state, where Trump recently claimed thousands of Massachusetts voters were bused in to cast illegal ballots. That claim has been widely discredited including by state Republicans but Birdsell says her constituents still worry people from out of state can game the system.

"I call it trust but verify," she says.

Her voting bill is one of hundreds now before state legislatures. Most are unlikely to become law, and many would actually expand voter access with things like online voter registration.

Voter ID rules

But many other bills under consideration would make it harder to vote. Just this week, Arkansas lawmakers agreed to put a constitutional amendment on next year's ballot to require a photo ID at the polls and for those casting absentee ballots. West Virginia lawmakers also considered tightening voter ID rules, and Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate pushed a sweeping measure that would require voters in his state to show a card with a bar code to verify their identity.

Pate doesn't think fraud is rampant in Iowa but says all the talk of fraud has people worried.

"The public is now taking that perception as a reality," he says. "And my job, and other election officials, is we now have to work extra hard to try to show people all the things we are doing to protect the integrity so they can re-establish the confidence in our voting system. Because when they don't believe their vote counts, then they tend not to go vote. They go, 'Well,why should I vote?' "

Pate insists no voters will be disenfranchised by his proposal. But opponents disagree. They argue that such measures are politically motivated to suppress the votes of those who tend to vote Democratic, such as minorities who often have more difficulty meeting the proposed requirements. And they say it's being done under the guise of fighting voter fraud, which study after study shows is rare.

"Nobody says it never ever happens," says Myrna Perez with the Brennan Center for Justice, which has fought a number of state voting restrictions in court. "The question is not whether or not there's a way we can get the number down to zero. The question is are the efforts that these states are taking to try and prevent this worth who is being disenfranchised in the process."

She believes that it could be hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters. It's a debate being waged with new vigor this year in a number of states.

Excerpt from:
State Republicans Push For More Restrictive Voting Laws : NPR - NPR

House Republicans Repeat an Obama Error Wall Street Journal (subscription) It is challenging for important Republicans on Capitol Hill now. They are leading their party at a time when it is changing and the country has changed. There are fissures in terms of what they believe and what they want. There is no shared ...

Link:
House Republicans Repeat an Obama Error - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is among the signatories of the letter sent to Trump, dated Tuesday, making a case for continued support for AmeriCorps and other such programs.

A group of Republican donors and former elected officials is urging President Donald Trump not to cut funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which administers AmeriCorps, the public service work program for young people.

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is among the signatories of the letter sent to Trump, dated Tuesday, making a case for continued support for AmeriCorps and other such programs.

Story Continued Below

Noting media reports that the administration is considering cutting them from the budget, the letter argues that the programs save taxpayers money through their use of public-private partnerships. They also provide key services like disaster relief and support for veterans and military families, the signatories noted, while breed[ing] strong citizens and a strong homeland.

As Republicans, we support the critical goal of eliminating government waste, the authors wrote. But as conservatives who believe in the unifying, patriotic values of national service, we urge you to support the Corporation for National and Community Service.

The other signatories of the letter, signed on Voices for National Service letterhead, include Ron Kaufman, a former White House political director under George H.W. Bush and an adviser to Mitt Romneys 2012 presidential campaign, and former Rep. Chris Gibson of New York.

View original post here:
Republicans sign letter urging Trump not to cut AmeriCorps funding - Politico

Heres the latest indication Wall Street regulations wont be gutted anytime soon: Republicans who write financial laws are starting to focus on other things.

The Senate Banking Committee, led by Mike Crapo, on Thursday is scheduled to consider a measure about publishing research on exchange-traded funds, and a collection of other narrow bills with bipartisan support.

In the House, the Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing about flood insurance, further stalling the rollout of Chairman Jeb Hensarlings plan to eliminate laws enacted in response to the financial crisis of 2008.

Reality is setting in on Capitol Hill that rolling back the Dodd-Frank banking law wont be quick or easy -- even though its a priority for Republican President Donald Trump, who says the measure is hurting the economy. Bank stocks have rallied partly because investors expect change.

Congress is bogged down by high-profile fights over replacing Obamacare and rewriting tax laws, leaving little capacity for a battle over Wall Street. Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, dont have a plan for rewriting financial rules that would be likely to attract support from Democrats, something thats needed to advance most major bills in the Senate. Democrats say the existing laws are needed to prevent another financial meltdown and protect investors.

I do not think they will get any substantial legislative change through the Congress," saidBarney Frank, a former Democratic lawmaker who served as chairman of the Financial Services Committee, in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Except areas where there might be some agreement -- give a little relief to mid-size banks and smaller banks in ways that dont in any way undermine the regulatory framework."

Read more: A Q&A on Trumps efforts to defang Dodd-Frank

Thats not good news for big U.S. banks like JPMorgan Chase & Co., whose executives have called for legislation easing the Volcker Rules ban on proprietary trading. Crapo, a key power broker in the Senate who will be crucial to advancing any banking measures, has said there are limits to changes hell be able to negotiate with Democrats.

Crapos need to generate goodwill with Democrats could help explain why hes moving forward with a handful of bipartisan, noncontroversial bills that could give a political boost to a handful of lawmakers on the panel, including Democrats, who are facing tough re-elections next year.

I do want to have the committee to start working and be effective," Crapo, of Idaho, said in an interview. I want the committee to start finding those areas of common ground."

One of the bills that Crapos panel will debate on Thursday allows broker-dealers to publish research on exchange traded funds, securities that track an index or basket of assets. Another bill would allow more investors to qualify to buy into funds that finance start-ups and other private companies.

Also on the agenda: a measure encouraging businesses to give employees bigger stakes in their private companies by reducing paperwork disclosure requirements. And another telling the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it must repay excess fees it charges to stock exchanges, in the event the agency overcharges.

Republican Dean Heller, who sponsored several of the bills, is up for re-election next year in Nevada, a state that Hillary Clinton won in November. Other co-sponsors include moderate Democrats such as Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, who are also under pressure to demonstrate achievements in Washington as they gear up for tough re-elections next year in states that voted for Trump.

Hensarlings committee is also debating companion legislation on issues which have received bipartisan support in the past, a rarity in the Republican-controlled House.

Trump, who has called Dodd-Frank a "disaster," signed an executive order last month instructing regulators to examine financial rules and file a report on their findings. The administrations efforts to attack financial rules will take shape as Trump fills vacancies at key federal agencies,like the Federal Reserve, said Mark Calabria, Vice President Mike Pences chief economist, at a conference in Washington on Tuesday.

Hensarling introduced his Financial Choice Act last year, which takes a red pen to most of the post-crisis rules, including eliminating the Volcker Rules ban on certain investments, the Financial Stability Oversight Councils ability to label firms that pose risks to the wider financial system, and regulators ability to intervene when banks fail.

Hensarling has promised that overhauling Dodd-Frank is a "this year priority" for the White House and Congress. But he hasnt introduced an updated version of his plan, even though other lawmakers on the committee have said they expected it would be released last month. Crapo has not unveiled a plan either, but has said that his top priorities include easing rules for community banks and freeing regional banks from some of the most stringent requirements applied to lenders with more than $50 billion in assets.

Your cheat sheet on life, in one weekly email.

Get our weekly Game Plan newsletter.

Anticipating opposition by Democrats, some Republicans are already talking about going it alone when it comes to major Dodd-Frank changes, and trying to shoehorn them into a budget reconciliation bill that would require a simple majority to pass. Theres not much room on the Senate calendar for debate about Wall Street given other priorities, including the confirmation of Trumps nominees for government positions.

Changes to the Dodd-Frank Act are second-tier agenda items and are unlikely to pass Congress in the near term," said Brian Gardner, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette and Woods, who expects more activity to happen at the banking agencies. Improvement in the regulatory regime is likely to be subtle and not seen by the public."

See the original post:
Gutting Dodd-Frank Is Hard, So Republicans Turn to Easier Things - Bloomberg

House Republican leaders on Monday night unveiled a bill to repeal and replace parts of the Affordable Care Act. By Tuesday night, despite President Trumps support, critics on the leftandright, on and off Capitol Hill, had skewered the bill. Even if House GOP leaderseventually pull together a majority to pass a measure, the sledding could be even tougher in the Senate.

Analysts have amply examined keypolicy and political fault lines triggered by the GOP bill asRepublicans try to make goodon their promiseto repeal the ACA.

[GOP health care plan: Influential hospitals, doctor groups come out against House proposal]

But Republicans control both Congress and the White House, and theyve deployedreconciliation a special type of budget billthatallows GOP legislators to move swiftly and protect the bill from a Senate filibuster.

Republicans are now floundering, suggesting that reconciliation is a double-edged sword. Divided majorities coupled withintricatebudget rules are ironically enough impeding, not facilitating, swift action.

Live by the calendar, die by the calendar

Given the opposition to the House bill, some Senate Republicans have advised Trump and the House GOP toslow the reconciliation train, rather than rushing to complete action before the April recess. Republicans, however, do not have the luxury of time.

Republicans put on a legislative straitjacket by committing themselves tousing reconciliation, not once but twice this calendar year. After their party unexpectedly won the White House in November, Hill Republicans hatched a plan to adopta pared-down budget resolution that would cover the fiscal year that began in October. Adopting a budget in January (after failingto agree to one last year) allowed the GOP to pursue an ACA-related reconciliation bill by majority vote, precludingthe need for Democrats support.

But Republicans also intend to adopt a budget resolution this spring for the coming fiscal year. Doing so would allow them to writea second reconciliation bill, this time to carrytax reform.

Whats the catch? There is only one track leaving the station, and only one reconciliation train fits on it at a time. Most of those who watch the Senate closely think the health-care reconciliation bill would lose its procedural protections from a filibuster once Congress adopted itssecond budget resolution.

Delaying health-care reconciliation thus puts tax reform at risk.ButRepublicans have been banking onrepealing Obamacare taxes to help pay for theirtax bill. The two bills are intricately connected, and the health-care bills clumsy rollout complicates that relationship. The slow-moving Senate will also have other must-pass businesson its spring plate, including filling the Supreme Court vacancy and funding the government when money dries up this spring.

Far from speeding up legislative action, reconciliation might derail it.

Divided majorities are hard to reconcile

So whats been clumsy about the rollout? All the opposition, for one. First to declare their hostility were members of the House Freedom Caucus, buoyed by three conservative senators happy to join.Because there is no need to seek Democratic votes in either chamber under reconciliation rules, factions in both chambers have been emboldened, particularly on the far right. And with slim margins in both chambers barely two dozen in the House and just three in the Senate leaders cannot afford to lose many votes.

The ideological map of the current House lets us see the barriers to passage.

The Freedom Caucus is an ideologically coherent faction (as measured by UCLA Voteviews 2017 data). Its stance insistingon a more conservative bill that repeals the existing ACA, and nothing else is unlikely to be accommodated without the loss of moderate colleagues who might not want to maketheir constituents worse off by repealing or further weakening the ACA.

Granted, Republicans in districtswon by Hillary Clinton (some of whom may be especially reluctant to vote for the bill) are ideologically diverse, but any defectionsspell trouble in a world of slim majorities. Moreover, as shown in the figure below, these cross-pressured Republicanswill bedecidedly weaker than their GOP colleagues in2018. On average, GOP members from districts that went for Clinton won with only 56 percent of the 2016 vote some 10 points worse than their fellow partisans.

The graph also plots 2016 enrollment in ACA marketplaces by congressionaldistricts. Marginal GOP House members do not represent areas that disproportionately rely on insurance secured through the ACA although the data do not count individuals whose insurance is secured through the ACAs Medicaid expansion. But these Republican House members do represent some of the most highly ACA-dependent (Florida) districts.

To be sure, Democrats wouldnt support the Ryan bill even if it were considered in the normal process, outside of reconciliation. But the expectation that Republicans will provide all of the votes has heightened media attention on House factions, a spotlight the Freedom Caucus and supportive organized interests have been pleased to fill.

The Byrd Rule

Reconciliation is even more complicated in the Senate. Although the procedure empowers the majority party in an otherwise super-majoritarian Senate, such power is costly.

First, reconciliation bills are subject to the Byrd Rule, which blocks provisions that raise the deficit beyond the life of the bill orthat do not directly change governmentrevenue or outlays. It takes 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule. The Senateparliamentarian calls balls and strikes on the Byrd Rule in the form of advice to the Senate, advice that can be challenged only if 60 senators want to overlook the rule (votes Democrats are unlikely to provide).

By limiting what can be included in the GOP bill, the Byrd Rule exacerbates already toughtrade-offs necessaryin crafting legislation. For example, the bill cannot eliminate the mandate that individuals buy health insurance, because the mandate does not directly raise government revenue or reduce spending. The bill can, however, eliminate various ACA taxes, so long as the revenue lost to the government by eliminating the taxes is made up by other provisions in the bill. Otherwise, the bill could increase the deficit triggering a Byrd Rule challenge.

Second, by requiring only a simple majority for passage, reconciliation makes every Republican senators vote potentially pivotal. Rather than seeking and failing to secure 60 votes for passage and then blaming Democrats forthe loss reconciliation focuses attention on GOP divisions, just as in the House. Had Republicans needed 60 votes, they wouldhave beenback on the more familiar terrain of a partisan and polarized Senate, with the parties pointing fingers at each other. Instead, GOP civil war is brewing in several dimensions, with conservatives pursuing repeal only,moderates trying to protect Medicaid, andsenators in between keeping a wary eye on the rising popularity of the ACA.

Be careful what you wishfor

The decision to use reconciliation is not the only reason Republicans are struggling to find a way to repeal and replace Obamacare as promised. Other complications include shifting public attitudes, a lack of health-policy expertise among Republicans, and Democrats historic ownership of health issues.But the downsides of reconciliation interacting with a divided majority party have made the road ahead for Republicans particularly rocky.

Go here to see the original:
This is why the Republicans struggle over Obamacare - Washington Post