Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump wants to rebuild the nations roads and bridges, boost military spending, slash taxes and build a great wall. But Republicans on Capitol Hill have one question for him: How the heck will we pay for all of this?

GOP lawmakers are fretting that Trumps spending requests, due out in a month or so, will blow a gaping hole in the federal budget ballooning the debt and undermining the partys doctrine of fiscal discipline.

Story Continued Below

Trump has signaled hes serious about a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, as he promised on the campaign trail. He also wants Republicans to approve extra spending this spring to build a wall along the U.S. southern border and beef up the military the combined price tag of which could reach $50 billion, insiders say. And thats to say nothing of tax cuts, which the presidents team has suggested need not necessarily be paid for.

Trump, meanwhile, has made clear he has little interest in tackling the biggest drivers of the national debt: entitlements. Republicans have been yearning to overhaul Medicare and Social Security for decades.

Even without Trumps pricey wish list, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the $19.9 trillion debt will grow by a further $9.4 trillion over the next decade if nothing changes.

I dont think you can do infrastructure, raise defense spending, do a tax cut, keep Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security just as they are, and balance the budget. Its just not possible, said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior member of the House Budget Committee. Sooner or later, theyre going to come to grips with it because the numbers force you to.

Trumps staunchest allies in Congress counter that the president deserves some leeway to get something tangible done on jobs.

If there is a temporary increase in the deficit to get our economy growing, I think my fellow Republican members are willing to look at the long game, said Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), a Trump loyalist. A growing economy and growing our way to success and financial stability is what we want to see.

The contrasting views foreshadow a clash between adherents to Trumps big-spending populism and classic small-government conservatives. Republican lawmakers have to choose between embracing Trumps expensive agenda or pushing back and risking his wrath.

Hill GOP insiders on both sides of the Capitol told Politico the fiscal 2018 budget will easily be one of the toughest votes Congress takes this year. Thats especially true in the House, where the conference for years has rallied around budgets that balance in 10 years the gold standard for whether a fiscal blueprint is conservative enough. Now, many Republicans worry they wont get there because of Trumps unorthodox views on spending.

It was already going to be a herculean task in making the numbers work over a 10-year time frame; when you begin to add in transportation, walls, tax cuts, it becomes an impossible task, said Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.). Were at the cusp of moving in the wrong direction. Its a problem.

Meanwhile, some Republicans on the House Budget Committee are floating the idea of changing the standard of success for a budget. Budget vice chairman Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has been speaking to members about ditching the 10-year-balance metric for one that focuses on a debt-to-GDP ratio. Supporters of the idea say it would paint a more accurate measure of the nations long-term fiscal situation anyway, as savings from entitlement reforms arent often realized until the second decade and beyond not in the 10-year budget window.

The challenge to balance is going to be more difficult than ever. Thats all I have to say, Rokita said outside the House floor last week when asked about his proposed standard.

Spokesman William Allison said in a statement that Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) is committed to working towards a balanced budget.

The White House in the next two months will send Congress two major requests for money: a military spending bill that would take effect immediately upon passage, and a budget for next fiscal year. The latter will be a particularly tough lift because it traditionally includes a projection of government spending and debt over the next few decades.

Republicans are crossing their fingers that any requests for new spending will be offset with cuts. If not, the House Budget Committee will have to craft legislation to raise spending caps that have been in place for years. That could face stiff opposition from conservatives.

We would have several people opposed to lifting the caps, said Freedom Caucus Member Ral Labrador (R-Idaho). I am a fiscal conservative, and the biggest issue were facing in America right now is our debt. As Republicans, we better be consistent on this or were going to lose our base.

Outside conservative groups would also revolt if Republicans did away with the spending limits. Tim Phillips, who leads the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity, said discretionary spending has grown far too rapidly. We have to put a hard cap on growth, and if Republicans are going to be true to their rhetoric, they will agree to a hard cap on spending.

Trump also wants to slash taxes, which could reduce the amount of annual cash flowing to the Treasury. Republicans are concerned because they have few specifics on what kind of tax plan Trump wants and some administration officials have floated the idea of not paying for tax reductions. House Speaker Paul Ryans tax plan would be revenue-neutral, or not add to the deficit, but no one knows for sure what the final deal negotiated by Trump and congressional Republicans will look like.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a lobbyist who worked closely with Trumps transition team, said many of his corporate clients are lining up to oppose one of the biggest pay-fors put forward by Ryan: a new tax on imports, which the speaker estimates would generate $1 trillion.

The border adjustment tax is giving my clients serious heartburn. A lot of American companies, the poultry industry, the automobile industry, many others are worried about that, Lott said.

Republicans expect their leaders to argue that any spending, whether through appropriations or tax cuts, would ultimately pay for themselves by growing the economy by record amounts. Still, theyre not sure if that will get them to a balanced budget.

Rep. Charlie Dent: I certainly hope that we dont try to reconcile these increase expenditures on the backs of the discretionary programs." | AP Photo

Its possible some Republicans will seek to offset new spending with cuts to discretionary spending programs like the National Endowment for the Arts or agriculture programs something that worries many House Appropriations members like Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) .

I certainly hope that we dont try to reconcile these increase expenditures on the backs of the discretionary programs, he said.

Appropriators generally believe there is not enough fat to cut from discretionary programs to finance the level of new spending Trump is talking about. Most Republicans would rather turn to entitlement programs to find savings, but Trump has made clear he has no interest in going there.

Republicans are banking on outgoing Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a fiscal hard-liner tapped by Trump to lead the Office of Management and Budget, to sell the president on the merits of entitlement reform.

I do know Mick Mulvaney knows the reality behind the numbers, Cole said. But Mick doesnt get to make the final call, thats the president. Its going to be fascinating.

Read the original here:
Hill Republicans quake at Trump's budget-busting wish list - Politico

Republicans would make it easier to steal an election by killing the Election Assistance Commission.

Early voters use electronic ballot-casting machines at the Franklin County Board of Elections, Monday, on November 7, 2016, in Columbus, Ohio. (AP Photo / John Minchillo)

In a little-noticed 6-3 vote today, the House Administration Committee voted along party lines to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, which helps states run elections and is the only federal agency charged with making sure voting machines cant be hacked. The EAC was created after the disastrous 2000 election in Florida as part of the Help America Vote Act to rectify problems like butterfly ballots and hanging chads. (Republicans have tried to kill the agency for years.)The Committee also voted to eliminate the public-financing system for presidential elections dating back to the 1970s.

It is my firm belief that the EAC has outlived its usefulness and purpose, said Committee chair Gregg Harper (R-MS), explaining why his bill transfersthe EACs authority to the Federal Election Commission.

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

Thirty-eight pro-democracy groups, including the NAACP and Common Cause, denounced the vote. The EAC is the only federal agency which has as its central mission the improvement of election administration, and it undertakes essential activities that no other institution is equipped to address, says the Brennan Center for Justice.

This move is particularly worrisome given reports that suspected Russian hackers attempted to access voter-registration systems in more than 20 states during the 2016 election. Moreover, the Presidential Commission on Election Administration set up by President Obama in 2014 outlined an impending crisis in voting technology and the Brennan Center found that 42 states used voting machines in 2016 that were at least a decade-old and at risk of failing. The EAC was the agency tasked with making sure these voting systems were both modernized and secure.

The EAC is not a perfect agency. It lacked a quorum of members from 2010 to 2014 and was paralyzed by inaction. Then, last year, its executive director unilaterally approved controversial proof-of-citizenship laws in Kansas, Georgia, and Alabama, which the federal courts subsequently blocked.

But given the threats to American democracy at this moment, the EAC needs to be strengthened, not replaced.

Its particularly ironic that the Trump administration is preparing to launch a massive investigation into nonexistent voter fraud based on the lie that millions voted illegally while House Republicans are shutting down the agency that is supposed to make sure Americas elections are secure.Its more proof of how the GOPs real agenda is to make it harder to vote.

See the rest here:
House Republicans Just Voted to Eliminate the Only Federal Agency That Makes Sure Voting Machines Can't Be Hacked - The Nation.

Wisconsins Assembly and Senate Republicans are in trouble. They drew legislative district maps that favored themselves so overwhelmingly that the federal courts objected. While initial concerns were raised over Republican discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities, a broader examination revealed that those maps discriminate against voters of all backgrounds and in regions across the state.

The Republican maps are an anti-democratic travesty. In fact, they are such a voter-unfriendly and competition-averse mess that a panel of three federal judges determined in November that the Republican lines were unconstitutional.

We find that the discriminatory effect is not explained by the political geography of Wisconsin nor is it justified by a legitimate state interest, the judges explained in their decision. Consequently, Act 43 (the Republican gerrymandering scheme) constitutes an unconstitutional political gerrymander.

Gov. Scott Walker, Attorney General Brad Schimel and legislative leaders were terrified by the ruling, and rightly so. They know that Republican majorities in the Assembly and Senate have not been secured by following sound policies or running credible candidates. Those majorities have been secured by gaming the system through gerrymandering. So Walker and his allies appealed and objected and stalled in hopes of delaying democracy.

But the federal jurists were not having it. They ordered legislators to redraw the lines in order to create Assembly and Senate districts where contests between Democrats and Republicans might be more generally competitive and where the results of the November 2018 election might represent the will of the voters rather than the gerrymandering of the process by partisan hacks.

So now Republican leaders in the Assembly and Senate are desperate. And in their desperation they are robbing the taxpayers of Wisconsin to fund schemes to preserve the political power and paychecks they might lose in fair elections. The unconstitutional maps that have caused so much controversy were drawn six years ago in a secretive process that saw legislative Republicans work with friendly lawyers to gerrymander the state. Now legislative Republicans are responding to the court order with more secrecy and more abuse of taxpayer funds.

The office of state Rep. Dianne Hesselbein, the Middleton Democrat who serves as the assistant Assembly Democratic leader, noted before Republican legislators voted for the costly and entirely unnecessary arrangement: With Wisconsin taxpayers having already been taken for a $2 million ride by Republicans in their crusade to defend unconstitutional legislative maps drawn in 2011, the self-proclaimed fiscal hawks of the state Legislature are set to (approve) the creation of a slush fund to pay additional legal fees as they continue to fight the federal judicial branch that has found them in violation of the United States Constitution.

This slush fund that is (being) created by Republicans in the Legislature is a complete waste of taxpayer money, added Hesselbein. Looking back at previous legal fees charged to the hardworking taxpayers of Wisconsin, there is little doubt in my mind that this new slush fund will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Think about what we could do with that money it could be used as part of a middle class tax cut, we could pay for more students to have access to laptops in our public schools, or we could use it to support state programs that assist our veterans. Instead, Republicans will use your money to pay deep-pocketed lawyers to defend their unconstitutional legislative maps. Wisconsin taxpayers work too hard to see their tax dollars spent in this manner.

Hesselbeins point is well taken.

So, too, is the point made by Jay Heck, the head of Common Cause in Wisconsin, who said last week: The revelation (Wednesday) that Wisconsin Republican legislative leaders intend to hire at taxpayer expense two law firms through a secret vote, and without naming the firms, is richly ironic and insulting to every Wisconsin voter. Their 2011 state legislative voter maps were deemed unconstitutional last November by a panel of federal judges, in part, because of the lack of transparency and extreme secrecy utilized by these same leaders during the 2011 redistricting process. (Later reports indicated that the firms are Chicago-based Kirkland and Ellis and Madison-based Bell Giftos St. John.)

Decrying the choices being made by Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, Heck explained: All Wisconsin taxpayers, who will be forced to bear the cost for the defense of the unconstitutional maps by outside law firms, and all Wisconsin voters, who were robbed of input into the process and of real choices in general elections, should demand an end to this top-down arrogance and insist on complete transparency in all matters relating to complying with the federal court order to redraw voter maps this year and thereafter.

What legislative Republicans are doing is wrong. Whether the outside lawyers are being hired to fight the court decision or to draw new maps or both there is no need for taxpayers to shell out exorbitant sums for outside lawyers to do Republicans bidding.

The Republicans are abusing their positions, and the states resources, for partisan purposes. They are diverting taxpayer funds to advance their personal power and to deny democracy.

Fitzgerald and Vos have already shamed themselves and their offices.

They have been called out by the courts. Yet, instead of trying to get things right, they are engaging in more shameful activity. And they are demanding that taxpayers fund their wrongdoing.

They are forfeiting the public trust.

Link:
Editorial: Wisconsin Republicans are robbing taxpayers to fund partisan schemes - Madison.com

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos during her confirmation hearing. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

By Ese Olumhense

One Line, One Page Bill Would Terminate Education Department

Representative Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would abolish the federal Department of Education. The bill, just one sentence long, reads The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.

Neither Congress nor the president, through his appointees, has the constitutional authority to dictate how and what our children must learn, Massie said in a statement about the bill, which was significantly longer than the legislation itself.

States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students, he added.

The bill, co-sponsored by seven other GOP members of the House, outlines no specific plan for the departments abolition, but came at a strange moment. On Tuesday, Betsy DeVos, a top GOP donor from Michigan, was confirmed as the departments secretary by the Senate with Vice President Mike Pence casting a tie-breaking vote.

Since 1989, DeVos and her family have given more than $20 million to Republican candidates, committees, PACs and super PACs, one analysis shows.

DeVoss confirmation process was the most contentious yet of any of President Donald Trumps cabinet nominees, and hers was the only cabinet vote in history to come down to a 50-50 split.

I appreciate the Senates diligence and am honored to serve as [U.S. Department of Education] Secretary, DeVos tweeted after the vote. Lets improve options and outcomes for all U.S. students.

End Federal Meddling in Our Schools

Massie and his co-sponsors are not the first to call for an end to the Education Department. During his 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan recommended that the department then about a year old be abolished, but by the beginning of his second term, he abandoned the plan because of heated resistance fromCongress.

Other Republican leaders, including Trump, have spearheaded campaigns and pushed platforms which angled on eliminating or slashing funding to the Education Department. During his unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign, Former Texas governor and current Energy Secretary Rick Perry also said hed eliminate the Education Department.

Perhaps the most coordinated of such pushes was packaged in the 1996 Republican party platform. Our formula is as simple as it is sweeping: the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the workplace, the platform read. That is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning.

Republicans lost that presidential race and, though since they controlled Congress, none of the education-related legislation it passed abolished the department.

How Hard Would it Be to Eliminate the Department of Education?

Given how difficult it would be to dissolve the Education Department (let alone to eliminate the jobs of its more-than-4,000 employees), introducing the bill might be more of a way for Massie, first elected in 2012, to make a clear statement of his ideological leanings than have a substantive impact on policy.

Legal scholars say that, because the department was created through the Department of Education Organization Actand passed by Congress, the only way to repeal it would be through doing so with a replacement act, rather than by executive order, for instance.

It would of course require another Act of Congress to eliminate the United States Department of Education, Laurence Tribe, Harvard legal scholar, told Business Insider.

Any attempts to kill the Education Department by a Republican-controlled Congress will likely encounter serious pushback from Democrats, who also fought hard against DeVoss confirmation.

Still, the new secretary is likely to make major changes, given that she is a staunch supporter of charter schools and school choice vouchers. The presidents education platform had pushed for a $20 billion voucher program for low-income families, which would allow parents to use taxpayer money for tuition and fees at private, parochial, or for-profit schools.

Its not exactly known where that money would come from Trumps plan only urges a reprioritizing of existing federal dollars but experts suggest that DeVos, who has no experience with the public school system or in higher education, could cut the departments Office of Civil Rights or overturn Obama-era policy on college sexual assault.

See the article here:
Republican introduces one-sentence bill to end education department - fox6now.com

Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., fields questions from an audience at the Tower Theatre in Roseville, Calif. on Feb. 4. He faced a rowdy crowd and had to be escorted out by police. | AP Photo

At a closed-door meeting, House lawmakers discuss strategies to counter potential violence.

By Rachael Bade

02/07/17 11:49 AM EST

Updated 02/07/17 07:45 PM EST

House Republicans during a closed-door meeting Tuesday discussed how to protect themselves and their staffs from protesters storming town halls and offices in opposition to repealing Obamacare, sources in the room told Politico.

House GOP Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers invited Rep. David Reichert, a former county sheriff, to present lawmakers with protective measures they should have in place. Among the suggestions: having a physical exit strategy at town halls, or a backdoor in congressional offices to slip out of, in case demonstrations turn violent; having local police monitor town halls; replacing any glass office-door entrances with heavy doors and deadbolts; and setting up intercoms to ensure those entering congressional offices are there for appointments, not to cause chaos.

Story Continued Below

The message was: One, be careful for security purposes. Watch your back. And two, be receptive. Honor the First Amendment, engage, be friendly, be nice, said Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.). Because it is toxic out there right now. Even some of the guys who have been around here a lot longer than I have, have never seen it to this level.

He later added: For those of us who have children in grade school and that kind of thing, theres a factor in all of this, saying: How far will the progressive movement go to try to intimidate us?

The conference discussion comes as Democratic activists around the nation ramp up protests against Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare. Protesters have disrupted town halls and other public events, jeering and yelling at Republicans just as conservatives did to Democrats when they were writing the law eight years ago. Conservative protesters in 2009 and 2010 were accused of spitting on and hurling racial epithets at Democratic lawmakers ahead of their votes to pass Obamacare. Republicans denied the accusations at the time.

Last weekend, conservative Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) similarly had to be escorted out of a town hall meeting by a half-dozen police officers after the crowd turned angry. And just as Republicans were leaving their conference meeting Tuesday, more than 100 protesters showed up at one of Rep. Martha McSally's Arizona congressional offices, according to the Arizona Daily Star.

Also discussed at the closed-door conference meeting was how to engage Democratic constituents to ensure they feel theyre being heard. After Reichert (R-Wash.) spoke about the security side, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) stood up to talk about how to engage constituents in a congenial manner.

Asked about the intensity of the protests during a news conference after the meeting, Ryan said he hopes the demonstrations remain nonviolent.

Peaceful protests are something we honor in this country, he said. I just hope people keep it peaceful.

Democrats, meanwhile, dismissed Republicans security ramp-up as an attempt to shield themselves from criticism.

I think what youre seeing is Republicans trying to use security to try to hide themselves from their constituents because they have no plan for a replacement and very little support from Donald Trump, said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.). Theyre going to use so-called security to keep people away.

But the potential for violence is serious enough that the House sergeant-at-arms has asked congressional offices to notify the office of any potential threat, sources told Politico. The office will also be passing out manuals of best practices to keep staffers safe.

McMorris Rodgers last week pulled together a group of lawmakers, including Reichert, to strategize on how to best manage and respond to the spreading protests. The Washington Republican who during an early January speech was drowned out by protesters shouting Save our care! asked Reichert to present some pointers to the full conference.

Reichert, in a brief interview after the conference meeting, said lawmakers are dealing with more than just unruly town hall meetings. He said organizers are coming into their offices unannounced, showing up with signs and flooding offices with phone calls. Reichert said he told lawmakers they should make sure you have a back door in your office if there is some sort of danger.

Its not that you run from protesters, but if someone presents some sort of physical threat or are espousing a verbal threat that could lead to a physical threat, if you feel that youre in danger and your staff is in danger, call 911 and leave and go out the back door, he said.

Reichert also encouraged them to make sure you have a hard door, not a glass door that can shatter, and install an intercom system with a camera at the front so you can see who is there.

The world is sometimes not a friendly place, he said, specifically noting what happened to Gabby Giffords, the former Democratic congresswoman who was shot in the head at a constituent event in 2011. There is a mission out there right now amongst some people to disrupt the offices of certain members to make us look inaccessible, unresponsive and like were not doing anything. There is a list of things you can do to make sure your people are safe.

Reichert also recounted how several angry constituents bum-rushed into his office several years ago, blowing past a staffer. Afterward, his office reached out to the organizers of the local group and asked them to come back in groups of eight to 10 to hear their concerns. He suggested lawmakers take a similar diplomatic tack in their own districts.

The biggest thing we can do is reach out to these people, Reichert said. When you have 40 to 50 people show[ing] up with protest signs, there is no way were going to have an opportunity to exchange ideas and thoughts. So youve got to build a relationship so you dont get to the level where they feel they need to threaten or antagonize you or try to get you upset and get a YouTube moment.

At one point, GOP leaders showed a video of what happened to McClintock (R-Calif.) this weekend during his town hall meeting. Lawmakers teased McClintock What did you do to get arrested? one asked. But then the conversation turned back to safety precautions.

One member who asked not to be named said the meeting also touched on threats against lawmakers.

The presentation was particularly important, those in attendance said, because its not just the most politically vulnerable, moderate members being targeted by protesters. Conservatives have also seen Democratic activists show up at events, including one recently hosted by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), who ousted former Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Many of these lawmakers in safe districts have never dealt with such severe blowback.

Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) said it was important to address the matter.

If you look at what the left is doing, he said, they can endanger your constituents or your staff who are just trying to do their jobs.

This story has been updated to reflect that the alleged misbehavior at the 2009 and 2010 protests was disputed.

Visit link:
Republicans fear for their safety as Obamacare protests grow - Politico - Politico