Mediaboss Marketing

Updated on July 26 at 4:35 p.m.

One by one, the Senates options for overhauling the nations health-care system are dwindlingbut they still have a few left.

Republicans on Wednesday rejected a straight repeal of much of the Affordable Care Act, leaving them far short of a consensus one day into debate on health-care legislation passed by the House in May. The amendment was virtually identical to legislation Republicans passed on a party-line vote in 2015 and would have scrapped the law on a two-year delay. Then-President Barack Obama vetoed the measure. Conservatives led by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky have tried to revive the clean repeal option in recent days to break the impasse within the GOP, but moderates arefor nowobjecting to proposals that only repeal but do not replace the current law. The vote was 55-45 against.

Seven Republicans voted against the proposal, including Senator Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I agree with President Trump that we should repeal and replace major parts of the Affordable Care Act at the same time, Alexander said in a statement after the vote. I dont think Tennesseans would be comfortable canceling insurance for 22 million Americans, and trusting Congress to find a replacement in two years. Pilots like to know where theyre going to land when they take off, and we should too. GOP opposition also came from Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Dean Heller of Nevada, Rob Portman of Ohio, and John McCain of Arizona.

The defeat is the second consecutive setback for Republican leaders. Hours after narrowly agreeing to begin debate on health care legislation, Republicans voted down the latest version of Majority Leader Mitch McConnells Better Care Reconciliation Act, the most expansive replacement measure the Senate has considered. Nine out of 52 Republicans opposed the plan, leaving it far short of the majority it would eventually need to pass. Opposition came from across the GOP conference, including from Paul and Senator Mike Lee on the right, as well as Collins, Murkowski, and Heller closer to the center. Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Bob Corker of Tennessee, and Tom Cotton of Arkansas all cast surprising no votes against the leadership plan.

Senate Republicans Clear Key Health-Care Hurdle

Yet none of the votes in opposition were as surprising as McCains vote in favor of the McConnell bill. In a floor speech just hours earlier, the Arizona senator who returned from a brain-cancer diagnosis for the health-care debate denounced the same bill and vowed he would not vote for this bill as it stands today. McCain spokeswoman Julie Tarallo said Wednesday said McCains vote was procedural.

It was not a vote in support of, or in opposition to, the substance of the amendment that was pending at the time, Tarallo said. In his speech yesterday, Senator McCain said he would not vote for the health care bill in its current formand he will not. Later on Wednesday, McCain unveiled three proposed amendments to the GOP replacement plan, two of which would draw out the end of Obamacares Medicaid expansion to 10 yearsmuch longer than conservatives wantand raise the programs growth rate.

It is true the BCRA vote was procedural in nature. Democrats had raised a point of order against the amendment because it contained provisions that had not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office; therefore, it could not be known whether it complied with the Senates budget rules requiring legislation to reduce the deficit by a certain amount in order to pass with a simple majority of 51 votes. What the senators were voting on was to waive the point of order, and the motion needed 60 votes to succeed. So while there was no doubt that the amendment would fail, it was clear that senators were taking a proxy vote on McConnells proposal, and the breadth of opposition to it among Republicans suggests it would need major changes in order to come back later in the health-care debate.

The repeal-only amendment senators considered on Wednesday fell despite needing just a 51-vote threshold to pass, and the failure of the two measures, though not surprising, leaves a gaping question for the party: What happens next?

The Senate will take potentially dozens more amendment votes over the next two days, many of them coming in an all-night vote-a-rama tentatively set for Thursday evening. Many of them will be political in nature, offered by Democrats to throw off Republicans. Others will, like the first two proposals, be subject to procedural challenges. Partisanship held on the first Democratic amendment, a proposal from Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana that would have sent the bill back to committee with instructions to remove its Medicaid. Both Collins and Murkowski voted with every other Republican to defeat the amendment, in a sign that they would not buck McConnell altogether. The biggest votes likely will come at the end of the process, when McConnell takes stock of where Republicans are and offers a final amendment representing what he thinks 50 of them might be able to agree to.

Well consider many different proposals throughout this process from senators on both sides of the aisle, the majority leader said Wednesday morning. Ultimately, we want to get legislation to finally end the failed Obamacare status quo through Congress and to the presidents desk for his signature. This certainly wont be easy. Hardly anything in this process has been.

Increasingly, what McConnell is eyeing for a final product appears to be a bare minimum of changes to Obamacarethe so-called skinny repeal option in which Republicans would simply scrap the laws insurance mandates for individuals and employers as well as its medical device tax. Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, all but confirmed the new strategy in an appearance on CNBC Wednesday morning. What we need to do in the Senate is figure out what the lowest common denominator is, what gets us to 50 votes so that we can move forward on health-care reform, he said.

The goal of passing a skinny repeal through the Senate would be to set up a conference committee in the House. And some Republicans, including Heller, appear to be warming to the idea. But others, like Graham, have called it for what it isa political punt. The upside of the plan would be to keep the health-care plan alive and allow senators to say they voted to repeal at least some of Obamacare. But it would not bring Republicans much closer to a workable policy, and because of the complex rules for budget reconciliation, a conference committee with the House would have no guarantee of producing a compromise that could pass both chambers without Democratic votes.

The Congressional Budget Office has not analyzed a skinny repeal plan, but health policy experts believe it would result in about 15 million fewer people having insurance over a decade as well as higher premiums for those who do. That would make it another difficult vote for Republican senators, particularly those like Senators Rob Portman of Ohio and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia who have said they dont want to leave their constituents in the lurch without an immediate replacement plan.

The Senate might also vote on two compromise plans offered over the past few months by Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisianaone with Collins and another with Graham. Both are premised on the idea of giving states the option of keeping parts of Obamacare or ditching them as they see fit. Conservatives have opposed the idea as leaving too much of the law in place, but as the options for consensus continue to dwindle, the Cassidy plans could see a revival.

McConnells best hope for getting a bill through is that 50 of his 52 members set aside their grand hopes and decide that passing somethinganythingis better than nothing. In the end, it might be all they can agree on.

View post:
Republicans Reject Another Obamacare Repeal Plan - The Atlantic

July 26, 2017, 1:02 p.m.

After already voting down one of their leaders' plans to replace the Affordable Care Act, Senate Republicans on Wednesday rejected another one, this time aproposal to simply repeal most ofObamacare.

That left GOP senators withfew remaining options to fulfilltheir campaign promise to gut the 2010 law.

The amendment from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) mirrored an earlier 2015 bill from conservatives to repealthe Affordable Care Act by 2020.

President Trump at various times has pushed the repeal-onlyidea, which was seen as the most straightforward approach to take amid disagreementwithin the party over how to reform the law.

But Paul's proposal failed to reach the 50 votes needed for passage, despite the Republican 52-seat Senate majority and the fact that a similar measure passed in 2015. Seven Republicans joined all Democrats in the 45-55 vote.

The Senate reached a pivotal moment this week when Vice President Mike Pence cast a tie-breaking vote to open debate on a House-passed healthcare overhaul.

But after that victory, the next steps are proving much more difficult for the GOP.

Late Tuesday, nine Republican senators broke with the party to reject their most comprehensive proposal, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, even after sweeteners were added to attract support from conservatives who want full repeal and centrists who worry about cuts to Medicaid.

The chamber is engaged in a prolonged process over the next two days to vote on various amendments and proposals, but few, if any, are expected to gain traction.

Leaders best hope may come later in the week with the so-called "skinny repeal" that would simply end the Affordable Care Act's mandate that all Americans carry insurance and that employers of bigger companies provide coverage to their workers. That plan would also repeal some of the taxes imposed by Obamacare on medical firms to pay for expanded coverage.

The rest is here:
Senate Republicans reject a straight repeal of Obamacare, leaving few options for overhaul - Los Angeles Times

That was Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry trying, unsuccessfully, to explain his vote(s) on federal funding for the American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan during the 2004 presidential campaign. President George W. Bush took that comment and turned it into this devastating TV ad.

Kerry's argument -- and the reason he said the whole voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it thing -- was that he had voted for a bill to fund the troops via the repeal of a series of Bush-era tax cuts before he had voted against the Republican-favored plan. The Senate votes a lot, Kerry's case went, and Republicans were cherry-picking what was one in a series of votes.

Sound familiar?

Republican after Republican who got off the fence to support the "motion to proceed" on Tuesday was careful to note that they were not yet supportive of the broader GOP health care bill but rather were expressing their support to allow debate on the measure to begin.

"I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered," John McCain said on the Senate floor. "I will not vote for the bill as it is today."

What that logic presumes is that the average voter distinguishes between a procedural vote to start debate on health care and a vote on some sort of actual health care measure.

Here's some breaking news: They don't!

Just ask John Kerry. Trying to explain the arcane and complicated ways in which the Senate cast votes -- motion to proceed, motion to recommit, final passage etc. -- is a total political loser. Peoples' eyes fog over and it reminds them of all the things they don't like about Washington. It sounds like gobbledy-gook and double speak to them even if, technically speaking, Kerry DID vote for $87 billion for the war and reconstruction efforts before he voted against it.

(Sidebar: The number of votes that senators take -- and the complex ways in which these votes play out -- is the leading reason why senators rarely make good presidential candidates. Too many votes to defend.)

Democrats, stung by Kerry's experience, are already preparing to give Republicans a taste of their own medicine.

The one silver lining, politically speaking, for Republicans is they have very little vulnerability in 2018. Only Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, who voted for the motion to proceed, is up for re-election in a state Hillary Clinton won in 2016. And, in total, only 10 Republican seats are up for re-election.

Still, health care -- as President Obama and Democrats found out in the 2010 and 2014 elections -- is an issue where voters have a long memory. And the "he voted for the heath care bill before he voted against it" attack is a very, very potent one. Just ask John Kerry.

Read the original post:
The health care problem Republicans didn't anticipate - CNN International

WASHINGTON White House officials argued Wednesday that President Donald Trumps seemingly sudden decision to ban transgender people from serving in the militarycould hurt the political prospects of Democrats, ignoring the bipartisan opposition to Trumps announcement.

Soon after Trump announced his decision in a series of tweets, a White House official told Axios reporter Jonathan Swan that itforces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to take complete ownership of this issue, citing the re-election chances of potentially vulnerable Democratic senators in 2018.

Another White House official clarified to The Washington Post that politics was never an impetus for Trumps decision but said that it will be fun to watch some of them [Democrats] have to defend this.

As expected, many Democrats swiftly condemned Trumps announcement Wednesday morning. Yet several Republican lawmakers, including those with military experience, quickly expressed their opposition as well, demonstrating bipartisan interest in the issue.

Trumps decision seemed to be a move to appeal to the GOPs conservative base. Yet, many of the Republicans who swiftly spoke out against it have tended to support socially conservative policies.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, was one of the last to support overturning Dont Ask Dont Tell, which previously banned openly LGBTQ people from serving in the military. But in a statement Wednesday, he argued against Trumps ban, saying that anyone who is qualified to serve should be allowed to do so.

Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military regardless of their gender identity, McCain said. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so and should be treated as the patriots they are.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), an Iraq War veteran, expressed similar opposition.

Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity, she said in a statement.

Given both McCain and Ernsts military service, their statements appeared to push back on Trumps claim that allowing transgender people to serve would create disruption in the military, highlighting the opposition of prominent conservative veterans.The presidents assertion is one that many conservatives have used to argueagainst allowing all sorts of groups to serve, from women, to people of color, to LGBTQ people.

Im all about training standards. High, high standards for whoever joins the military,Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who served in the Marines, told HuffPost. But my initial reaction is, if you can can meet those standards, we shouldnt care who you are. So, meet the standards, and you should be able to join the military.

Upon hearing of Trumps tweets Wednesday morning, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said that current policy allows for a big tent for people who want to serve, adding that military service is voluntary.

You ought to treat everybody fairly, and you ought to give everybody a chance to serve, he told CNN.

In a statement, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said: I dont think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them.

Igor Bobic contributed reporting.

Continue reading here:
Republicans Break With Trump On Banning Transgender Soldiers - HuffPost

In testimony this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, BillPriestap, the assistant director of the FBIs counterintelligence division, issued a dire warning. The United States, Priestap told lawmakers, is under relentless assault by hostile state actors and their proxies and our economy, our national security and our way of life are being actively threatened by state actors and their proxies today and every day.

Todays hearing was about enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a federal statute thatrequiresagents of foreign actors to disclose, via public filings, their relationship with the foreign actor and the financial relationship between them. Its like a lobbying disclosure form for people who are advocating on behalf of foreign individuals or entities. Although Priestap has previously warned the Senate Intelligence Committeeabout Russias capabilities for interfering in future elections, todays testimony was about far more extensive efforts by foreign actors to undermine every facet of public life including upcoming elections.

The danger isnt limited to spies cloak-and-dagger activities. Foreign powers, Priestap said, use people from across their governments and from all walks of life in pursuit of their desire to gain strategic advantage over the United States in whatever ways they can, he said. Too few people, he went on, understand the scope and scale of the counterintelligence threat, which is growing, both in volume and complexity.

Despite the urgency of Priestaps admonition about foreign adversaries, Republican members of the Judiciary Committeehad another enemy they wanted to discuss: Hillary Clinton.

In their statements and questioningof Priestap and two other witnesses,Michael Horowitz, the Justice Departments inspector general, and Adam Hickey, the deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Departments National Security Division, Republicans showed just how much theywant to continue litigating whether Clinton posed a more dangerous national security risk than Donald Trump. Rather than address the ongoing threat to our democracy and how to combat it, Republicans dwelled on whether Democrats and the dreaded media are engaging in overblown charges related to the investigations of possible collusion by the Trump campaign with Russian actors.

Utah Republican Orrin G. Hatch used his time to deliver a soliloquyon this topic. Hatch first insisted that there are few things I take more seriously than the allegations of foreign interference in the 2016 election. But he then went on to charge thatmany of these allegations have been truly outrageous and politically motivated.

If we are going to get to the bottom of this, Hatch said, we need to investigate the whole story. That means looking at more than just foreign influence over the Trump campaign. It includes looking at serious allegations of foreign influence over the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee as well.

This effort to claim well, both sides did it so we must investigate both is not based in fact or evidence. It is a ludicrous deflection from the seriousnessof the threat facing the country, including clear evidence Russia intends to sabotageour next election and the fact that the president, and the party as a whole, has shown littleinterest in addressing it.

As the January 2017 declassified assessment of the CIA, FBI and NSA concluded, Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump and aspired to help President-elect Trumps election chances when possible. In that report, the agencies concluded that Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. Similarly,former FBI director James Comey has describedRussia as the greatest threat of any nation on Earth to our democratic process right now, and in the future.

Yet Hatch didnt have much to say about this threat, maintainingthat there are still questions over whether foreign actors wanted to help Clinton, not Trump. We must ensure that these investigations serve as an opportunity to protect our institutions, not merely as an excuse to attack our political opponents, he said. Yet he was using the very occasion to realize the partisan goal of deflecting attention from the Republican president. Indeed, in so doing, Hatch undermined his own claim to be taking the investigations seriously.

With these deflections, these GOP lawmakers subverted the entire purpose of the hearing. The hearing was intended to shed light on how FARA disclosures can help the governmentcombat the threat going forward.For example, had former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort timely filed his FARA disclosure that he was acting on behalf of a pro-Russia Ukrainian political party, rather than retroactively filing it just last month, the counterintelligence community and the public might have known more about that relationship. That was not a topic any of the Republican lawmakers pursued with the witnesses.

Meanwhile, two Republicans seemed intent on making Clinton the focus of the FARA issue. Both Committee chair Charles Grassley of Iowa and John Kennedy of Louisiana dredged up communications from Clinton friend Sidney Blumenthal to Clinton while she was Secretary of State which, they suggested, would have required a FARA disclosure on Blumenthals part.

The Blumenthaldistraction, though, is a tiny drop in the larger bucket of the crucial need for FARA disclosures. When foreign agents evade FARAs disclosure requirements, Priestap told lawmakers, we are more susceptible to being unduly influenced by foreign actors pursuing hostile governments goals on economic, technological, military, diplomatic, and intelligence fronts. This is not about Clinton, or even just about Trump. This is about a critical transparency mechanism whose enforcement is one key to combating foreign interference in our democracy.

As Priestap acknowledged during questioning, there is no doubt that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The issue at hand was how to prevent such nefarious intrusions in the future.Its incumbent upon Congress, in its oversight role, to ensure that FARA is enforced, as just one tool in the battle against foreign interference. At this hearing, however, the Republican Party seemed more intent on continuing itsquest to defeat Hillary Clinton, again and again.

See the article here:
Will Republicans ever get serious about Russian sabotage of the next election? - Washington Post