Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee voted down a measure offered by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) to force President Donald Trump to release his tax returns to the committee.

In a party-line vote on Tuesday,24 committee Republicans voted against the measure and 16 Democrats voted for it.

This is the second time committee Republicans have voted to keep Trumps tax returns secret and the third time the House has held a vote on the subject. In February, committee Republicans sunk a prior measurefrom Pascrell, and then, on the floor of the House, Republicans beat back a resolution, also from Pascrell, to force the release of Trumps tax returns. Both votes were along party lines.

Trump has refused to voluntarily release his tax returns for public review, though every other president since Gerald Ford has released some portion of their tax returns. Trump claims he cant release his returns because theyre under a routine audit, but has provided no evidence of one. There is also no law or regulation preventing individuals from publicly disclosing their tax returns when they are under audit.

In an often-testy committee hearing, Republicans argued that Democrats were simply playing politics. Frankly, this resolution is a procedural tool being utilized, and I think abused, for obvious political purposes, committee chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said.

Pascrell shot back it was entirely proper to use the law and added that the committee had a duty to ensure the presidents business interests dont conflict with his work for the American people.

It is our responsibility under the Constitution, Mr. Chairman very clear, very clear to provide oversight of the executive branch and root out conflicts of interest, Pascrell said. That is our responsibility.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Republicans on the committee argued that Democrats were improperly using a law enacted after the Teapot Dome Scandalin the 1920s that permitted the committee to obtain the tax returns of executive branch officials under investigation at the time. The committee used the same law decades later to obtain President Richard Nixons tax returns during the Watergate scandal. Republicans, including Brady, also used the law in 2014 to investigate allegations that the IRS improperly targeted conservative nonprofits.

Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio), a former tax lawyer, argued that the presidents tax returns would not reveal any items of interest.

Youre railing off on things that you would never find on a tax return, Renacci said, addingthat Democrats were instead on a political mission, not a mission of fact.

Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) echoed that sentiment. This hearing clearly has showed me that this is just a bunch of political grandstanding, he said.

This was the common theme from Republicans on the committee. One after the other, they argued that Democrats were only interested in politics and that Trumps returns would contain nothing of interest beyond what was already revealed in the financial disclosures he had to file with the Federal Election Commission.

Republicansaccusations that the measure was only about politics irked some Democrats. After Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) declared that the whole exercise was about politics, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.)replied defensively.

To impugn the integrity of [Rep. Pascrell] is irresponsible, Crowley said. He added, Our motivation is to find the truth.

In addition to blocking the release of Trumps tax returns twice on the Ways and Means Committee and once on the House floor, Republicans alsovoted to block a measurein the House Judiciary Committee requiring the Department of Justice to inform the committee about its investigation into the Trump campaigns ties to the Russian government.

Without much power in Washington to hold hearings and call witnesses, Democrats are hoping to get Republicans on the record obstructing disclosures the public supports. The majority of Americans want Trump to release his tax returns, as every other president in the modern era has done.

Read more:
House Republicans Vote To Keep Trump's Tax Returns Secret For The Third Time - Huffington Post

By Harold Pollack By Harold Pollack March 29 at 2:20 PM

Harold Pollack is a professor at the University of Chicago.

Republicans seven-year repeal and replace effort died in a fiery legislative crash two months into the Trump administration last week. Various tactical missteps helped produce this legislative failure, but the most fundamental reason the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prevailed has nothing to with the legislative tick-tock: In its own imperfect way, the ACA has insured 20 million people who would otherwise have gone uncovered. It has helped tens of millions of others who face financial or health challenges. And in doing so, it has quietly embedded itself within the fabric of American life and has become very difficult for politicians to kill.

The GOPs failure to take down the ACA is an object lesson in what makes a politically resilient program. As Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) put things, voters dont exactly know how they got coverage under ACA, but they certainly learned who was trying to take it away. The ACA brings important financial flows to individuals, states and medical providers that Congress cannot blithely disrupt without accompanying political pain. Meanwhile, aspects of the ACA solve real problems for officials in both parties. Many of these officials opposed the law when it was originally enacted. But politics is a pragmatic enterprise, and both Democrats and Republicans across the country found ways for itto serve their purposes. Thus, politicians and their constituents acquired a stake in defending the program, making it a very durable entity.

Some aspects of the ACA are more sturdy than others. The law included two main pillars that expanded health insurance coverage. The pillar most specifically derided as Obamacare is an ideologically moderate, fiscally disciplined market model of state insurance marketplaces popularized by conservative economists, backed by an individual mandate proposed by a Heritage Foundation scholar, and first implemented by Republican Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. These marketplaces have faced intricate and daunting implementation problems, enjoy little bipartisan support, and have been openly and quietly undermined by Republicans. There is much speculation that the Trump administration may sabotage the marketplaces, for example by limiting important payments to participating insurers. Its telling that few Republican politicians have spoken out on the need to bolster these arrangements.

But the second pillar that is, the expansion of Medicaid to serve low-income individuals and families across the country has proved surprisingly resilient. The program is popular among Republican voters in most Medicaid expansion states. More than a few Republican governors speak of the Medicaid expansion with a sense of ownership and pride, and warned Congress not to repeal these components of the ACA. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been especially effusive, noting that When we expand Medicaid and treat the mentally ill, they dont live under a bridge or in a prison and when we take the drug addicted and we treat them, we stop the revolving door of people in and out of prisons.

In political and human terms, Medicaid expansion is the jewel of the ACA. Within the states that embrace it, Medicaid expansion is the most important public health advance in decades. I see that every day in my work as an urban public health researcher. Most of the people I encounter in this work people with addiction disorders, those under the supervision of the criminal justice system and homeless people receive health care through the ACAs Medicaid expansion. Most detainees leaving Cook County Jail are insured this way.One-third of Illinois residents living with HIV are apparently covered through the expansion, too. Federal monies reliably flow to support hospitals, safety-net providers and other key constituencies, bolster local economies, and address problems of concern to Democrats and Republican alike.

During the recent AHCA fight, Kasich and his counterparts from Michigan, Nevada, and Arkansas wrote a letter to Congresscritical of the Republican House approach.Their letter was remarkable, not so much for its policy positions as for its granular understanding of the operational details. These governors show real familiarity with their Medicaid expansions, and appear all-too-cognizant of what a reversal would mean for their constituents.It is better to get it right than go too fast, they concluded. Fifteen Republican governors expressed concerns about the likely consequences of cutting Medicaid. Republican governors across the country have supported more-moderate approaches than AHCA that would preserve coverage in replacing ACA.

These governors familiarity with Medicaid expansion is visible not only in their politicking, but in their on-the-ground work, too.Our research team on the National Drug Abuse Treatment Systems Survey has been interviewing Democratic and Republican officials across the country.In our conversations, we have learned thatgovernors are using Medicaid to address their states serious opioid epidemics. Governors are also using the Medicaid waiver process to tackle other challenges, too, including addressing housing needs among individuals with severe mental illness. These governors understand the partisan politics surrounding the ACA, but they also understand ways Medicaid expansion serves their own political and governing purposes. They also see that doing away with Medicaid expansion would be a disaster for the citizens they serve, and would be a political vulnerability for Republican politicians inevitably tied to that effort. Thus Medicaid expansion has earned itself bipartisan support.

Bipartisanship arises when politicians in both parties having ongoing incentives to provide support. Such incentives arise from politicians tactile sense that they can influence operations to serve their own goals. They also arise from politicians fear that they will be held accountable if things dont go well.On this point, Kasich was admirably direct: We dont want to lose coverage for 700,000 people in our state.

Thus, for the immediate future, Republican officeholders around the country will likely embrace Medicaid, even as Washington Republicans work to undermine the market-based alternative to expanded public insurance coverage. Meanwhile, Republican politicians apparently perceive few practical incentives to make private marketplace coverage really work.

Looking over the next hill, though, Republicans might want to rethink that. The more ACA marketplaces falter, the more pressure will build for their replacement, which is surely an expanded Medicare or Medicaid role. If Democrats ever succeed in enacting such a public option, Republicans will quickly feel powerful incentives to join that effort, just as they felt powerful incentives to defend Medicaid expansion. Any public option program would serve Republican voters, who probably prefer Medicare to private coverage, and who would look to politicians of both parties to address whatever challenges arise. In that case as in this one, Republicans might find it very difficult to do away with programs once they have improved peoples lives.

Go here to read the rest:
Republicans couldn't kill Obamacare. That's the genius of its design. - Washington Post

Stung by the defeat of their ObamaCare repeal plan, GOP leaders are doing what they can to avoid a messy spending fight with Democrats that would risk a government shutdown.

Senate Republican leaders signaled Tuesday they would set aside President Trumps controversial request for a military supplemental bill that would include funding to begin construction of a wall along the southern border.

Speaking at a leadership press conference at the request of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellMitch McConnellThe truth is the latest casualty of todays brand of politics McCain and Graham: We won't back short-term government funding bill Senate seen as starting point for Trumps infrastructure plan MORE (R-Ky.), Sen. Roy BluntRoy BluntMembers help package meals at Kraft Heinz charity event in DC White House signals it can live without border wall funds Interior secretary hints border wall could be on Mexican land MORE (R-Mo.) said the supplemental bill would likely move at a later time.

Speaker Paul RyanPaul RyanOvernight Healthcare: Insurers face big choice on staying in ObamaCare | HHS chief Price grilled over budget cuts Poll: Republicans blame Congress, not Trump or Ryan, for ObamaCare failure Paul Ryan sells out conservatives with healthcare surrender MORE (R-Wis.), meanwhile, sought to avoid another political landmine Tuesday by arguing that language defunding Planned Parenthood should be kept out of the spending legislation that needs to pass by April 28.

The Speaker said he wants to address defunding Planned Parenthood, long a conservative priority, through a special budgetary process that requires only 51 votes to pass the Senate.

We think reconciliation is the tool, because that gets it in law, Ryan told reporters, referring to the procedural track leaders tried to use to pass the failed healthcare bill. Reconciliation is the way to go.

The signals from the House and Senate indicate Republicans are coming to grips with the reality that they cant pass critical legislation on their own.

Some conservatives are still insisting that Republicans plow ahead with linking the border wall and Planned Parenthood to the spending bill.

But other Republicans wary after the healthcare failure assume the Freedom Caucus will do as they did in the healthcare debate and end up opposing the funding legislation no matter what concessions are made.

Keeping the government open may be one of the few areas where Republicans can expect assistance from Democrats, who are otherwise ardently opposed to their agenda.

I am confident they would do it to keep the government open and to keep us from defaulting on the debt. Those two issues, I see them working with us. And if we do, well have Republicans in the Freedom Caucus that wont like the fact were not getting much back in return, said Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), a Trump ally.

Fears of a possible government shutdown grew on Capitol Hill after conservative and centrist Republicans derailed legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare, one of Trumps top priorities.

The legislative setback raised questions over the ability of Republican leaders to move a must-pass spending package before government funding expires.

Yes, I am worried, Sen. John McCainJohn McCainOvernight Defense: Top general talks Afghanistan, civilian casualties | Defense hawks slam short-term funding McCain and Graham: We won't back short-term government funding bill GOP lawmaker calls for select committee on Russia MORE (R-Ariz.) told reporters when asked about a possible government shutdown.

Republicans fret that a shutdown only a few months into Trumps term could raise questions about their basic ability to govern, with the ramifications felt in the 2018 midterm elections.

Shutting down the government when its a Republican government and a Republican Congress is not an option, said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Even Rep. Trent FranksTrent FranksRepublicans seek to lower odds of a shutdown Nunes endures another rough day Live coverage: House pulls ObamaCare repeal bill MORE (R-Ariz.), a Freedom Caucus member and ardent foe of abortion, acknowledged attempts to defund Planned Parenthood wouldnt overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

Were going to have a very challenging situation there with the Senate rules, Franks said.

The budget proposal Trump submitted to Congress this month included a supplemental request for $30 billion in emergency defense funds and $3 billion to begin construction of the border wall and tighten homeland security.

Senate Democrats warned Republican leaders in a recent letter that they will block spending legislation that includes money for the border wall, cuts nondefense domestic programs or includes poison pill riders.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick DurbinDick DurbinRepublicans seek to lower odds of a shutdown No. 2 Senate Democrat opposes Trump's Supreme Court pick The Hills Whip List: 32 Dems are against Trumps Supreme Court nominee MORE (Ill.) predicted Republicans would get blamed for a shutdown because they control the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Weve given fair warning to the Republicans. If they want to play games and have a government shutdown, thats their decision. If they want to fund the government and avoid a shutdown, they can do it easily.

Theyre in charge; they have the majority, he said.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) predicted Tuesday that Republicans would need Democratic help to pass the spending bill, a scenario that has played out repeatedly since the GOP won the House majority in 2010.

Theyve always needed the help of Democrats, Hoyer told reporters. If the government shuts down, there is no doubt it will be because Republicans refused to come to a reasonable consensus with us.

Blunt on Tuesday said leaders in both chambers are close to negotiating a deal on the fiscal 2017 defense spending bill, which will be used as a vehicle to carry legislation funding other federal departments.

All of the committees, House and Senate leaderships, are working together to try to finalize the rest of the FY17 bill, he added. My guess is that comes together better without the supplemental.

Despite his comments, House GOP leaders havent ruled out linking funds for the wall to next months spending fight. The House Appropriations Committee has not yet decided whether to do so.

Some House conservatives are pushing for a down payment on the wall despite the risk of a showdown with Democrats.

Thats what I want. I want to get this wall up and going, said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

But Republican leaders want to score a legislative victory instead of picking a fight with Democrats likely to end in stalemate.

They want to pass an omnibus spending package that would set new funding formulas for the rest of 2017 instead of settling for a stopgap spending measure that would merely extend the allocations previously set for 2016.

Congress has so far passed only one regular spending bill for 2017, a measure funding military buildup and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Theres no desire for a CR, McConnell said, referring to a continuing resolution that would extend current funding levels.

We fully anticipate getting an outcome prior to the end of April. We have to, actually, he said.

Passing an omnibus spending package instead of a continuing resolution will also help GOP leaders avoid a fight with pro-defense members of their own party who want to increase defense funding.

The spending package now under negotiation includes some additional money for the Pentagons overseas contingency operations fund, according to a Senate aide.

Im not going to vote for a CR. A CR is a complete failure when it comes to the Defense Department, said Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey GrahamOvernight Defense: Top general talks Afghanistan, civilian casualties | Defense hawks slam short-term funding McCain and Graham: We won't back short-term government funding bill Members help package meals at Kraft Heinz charity event in DC MORE (R-S.C.), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

A CR is a cut in defense. You go back to last years level. We appropriated more money in this years 2017 appropriations bills. Its a major cut, billions of dollars, he added.

Graham said it makes sense to delay consideration of the supplemental spending bill.

I dont think wed spend $30 billion on the Defense Department between now and September, quite frankly, he said.

Visit link:
Republicans seek to lower odds of a shutdown - The Hill

Faced with the full catastrophe governing, Republicans are fixating on Elizabeth Warren to save themselves in 2018.

Republicans have been casting about for someone to blame for their rapid succession of moral, ideological andlegislative failures ever since Donald Trump settled into the Oval Office. No longer tethered together by their favorite scapegoat, Barack Obama, their ship has becomeunmoored amid a fleet ofsinkingcampaign promises. The one thing on which they seem to agree is that they have to give their base someone to latch on to lest their glaringincompetency become the focus of 2018. So beholdElizabeth Warren is the new Barack Obama, writes Pema Levy.

Republicans have decided to use Warren as a sort of boogeyman ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, when 10 Democratic senators are up for reelection in states Donald Trump won. By late February, the committee tasked with electing Republicans to the Senate launched digital ads attacking vulnerable Democrats by stating how often they had voted with Warren. [...]

Warren, a household name and an unapologetic liberal, is an easy choice. Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist in Washington, DC, says going after Warren is part of the Republican playbook for 2020, as well. "Always define your opponent before your opponent can define you," he says.

The notion that the GOP will be able to do anything whatsoever to distract voters from the governing meltdownthey are now witnessing at the hands of Republicansis laughable. "Hey voters, forget that Russia-installed marionetteoccupying the White House and our health reform catastrophe seven years in the makinglook over there at Elizabeth Warren. Now, that's one scarychick!" Gimme a break. Republicans releasingdigital ads as early as last monthis proof positivethat they have to get a jump on campaigning because theyve already hit the wall on governing.

And if they think Warren will be a disaster inred states, that's certainly not what Missouri Democrat Jason Kander found during his 2016 Senate run. After deploying Warren in emails and at fundraisers, Kander campaign manager Abe Rakov says, bring it!

"After she was here, we saw our volunteer numbers go up, we saw our fundraising go up," he recalls. Over the course the election, he says, Kander's campaign had built up "a lot of evidence that it was sort of a Republican myth that she would cause us problems."

Dream on, GOP.

Read the rest here:
Republicans have found their boogeyman for 2018 and he's a she, of course - Daily Kos

President Trump promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act "immediately" and "on Day 1" while on the campaign trail. But now, he claims he never said he'd get health care reform done quickly. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

After a smarting defeat on health care, President Trump is moving on to an ambitious bid to rewrite the U.S. tax code. But the ultra-conservative GOP lawmakers who stymied Trump on health care aren't going away, and if Trump is to avoid a second major setback in Congress, he'll need towin over far more of them this time around.

The "House Freedom Caucus,"as the few dozen members of the group callthemselves, blocked Trump and Ryan's health-care bill because it wasn't conservative enough for them, offering too much in the way of benefits and interfering too much in the insurance market. When it became clear the vast majority of thegroup's members were voting no, Trump after a consultation withHouse Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) pulled the bill.

The good news for Trump and Ryan, however, is that they and the House Freedom Caucus have, in their public statements, expressed broad areas of agreement on what to do with the tax code.There's still, however, plenty of potential for conflict as Trump, Ryan and the caucus once again come together in search of a deal.

Here's whatthe House Freedom Caucus's members have said they're looking for.

Members of the group generally endorse the same basic principles for reform: Reduce tax rates for everyone. Then, to make up for some of the revenue the government is foregoing under those new rates, eliminate special deductions, exemptions and loopholes that allow certain categories of taxpayers to avoid paying taxes on portions of their income.

This has long been the position of conservative Republicans, and itis also the approach embodied in the plans proposed by Republicans, including Trump and Ryan. For instance, the plan Ryan and his colleagues in the House put forward last year would eliminate all deductions for individual taxpayers except for the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving. Those deductions allow Americans to avoid taxes on money they pay in interest on their homes, along with any donations they make.

That plan might not go far enough for a conservative lawmaker like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). In 2013, Massie told Bloomberg he supported a single tax rate for all taxpayers, with no exceptions whatsoever. I love the flat tax, and Im not afraid of getting rid of every deduction, Massie said.

All the same, mainstream Republicans are basically in agreement with their party's conservative faction when it comes to taxes at least to a far greater degree than they were on health care.

Republicans believe health-care reform is still possible even after House leadership pulled the bill abruptly before it was scheduled for a vote. (Alice Li,Jayne Orenstein/The Washington Post)

Closing loopholes could, in theory, allow Republicans to deliver their promised rate cuts without decreasing the totalrevenue going to the government a combination that would keepthe new legislation from adding to the federal debt.

Under Ryan's plan, by contrast, reduced taxes would mean the federal government would give up at least $2.5 trillion in revenue over a decade, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The figure accounts for increased economic growth, so that is $2.5 trillion that the federal government would have to borrow unless lawmakers found other ways of limiting deductions and loopholes or federal expenditures to save money.

So far, members of the Freedom Caucus have indicated they could accept a plan that implied more borrowing. They are less concerned about closing loopholes than they are about making sure rates go down and that, in general, Americans pay less in taxes.

"I think there's been a lot of flexibility in terms of some of my contacts and conservatives in terms of not making it totally offset," Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told ABC News on Sunday on "This Week," arguing that tax cuts would provide financial relief for ordinary American families.

"Does it have to be fully offset?" Meadows asked. "My personal response is no."

To address the deficit, members of the group almost universally favor steep cuts in government spending, part of an overall mission to shrink government and limit its reach. They also generally believe that lower taxes will produce massive economic growth, so much so that the government may collect even more than it would have under the former higher-taxes, slower-growth scenario.

Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) hinted at that last month onCNN, suggested he would be willing to consider new spending on some of Trump's priorities once taxes had been reduced. "Those spending pieces, we'll debate those coming up the military, the wall, the infrastructure plan but you've got to see tax reform in place first," Brat told CNN last month. "Otherwise, we can't afford it."

If those economic benefits do not materialize, though, the government would be forced to borrow more as it went deeper in debt.

There is one element of Ryan's plan that could be cause for concern among the Freedom Caucus. The plan would effectively levy a new tax on imports, while exempting goods and services exported from the United States for sale abroad from taxation.

Ryan and his allies argue this provision, known as a border adjustment, would simplify the tax system. In essence, the border adjustment would relieve federal authorities of the responsibility of investigating taxpayers' business overseas. Proponents also say the provision would encourage manufacturers to produce domestically and to hire American workers.

Yet conservative lawmakers such as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) are opposed to any new kind of tax. The border adjustment could increase prices for American consumers buying products from abroad, although economists and legal experts debate the plan's likely practical consequences for customers, and the effects could vary for different businesses.

"My reasoning is very basic," Jordan told the Atlantic. "The idea that youre going to add an entirely new tax is a big problem."

Meadows is not eager for a border adjustment, either, Axios reported. The lack of support from conservative lawmakers could be a problem for GOP leaders.

Republicans are trying to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. To do so, they will have to write legislation that does not increase the federal borrowing over the long term and they are hoping the border adjustment will help them do so.

Because the United States currently imports more than it exports, the new tax on imports would far exceed the exemption for exports. As a result, the border adjustment would bring in billions in new revenue for the federal government, lessening the need for more borrowing.

In the long term, however, most economists expect U.S. exports to increase. Eventually, they predict, exports should exceed imports to the point where a border adjustment which gets rid of taxes on exports would cost the government money, adding to the national debt. It remains to be seen whether Congress's budgetary referees will give Republicans credit for controlling federal borrowing in the long term, given the uncertain trend in exports.

"Let's go ahead and pass one without [a] border adjustment," Meadows said.

More:
Here's what the Republicans who just stopped Trump want next - Washington Post