Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans withdrew the American Health Care Act moments before a scheduled vote on March 24, after failing to woo enough lawmakers to support it. Here are the key turning points in their fight to pass the bill. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

With the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act in tatters and President Trumps approval ratings in the 30s, Democrats are feeling pretty good about their ability to limit the damage Republicans are able to do. But another unfolding story demonstrates that the dangers of unified GOP rule come from many different directions, and dramatic change can happen almost before you realize it.

If you dont closely follow issues around technology and communication policy, you probably didnt see this one coming, but Republicans in Congress just passed a bill allowing your Internet service provider to sell your browsing history without your consent:

In a party-line vote, House Republicans freed Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast of protections approved just last year that had sought to limit what companies could do with information such as customer browsing habits, app usage history, location data and Social Security numbers. The rules also had required providers to strengthen safeguards for customer data against hackers and thieves.

The Senate has voted to nullify those measures, which were set to take effect at the end of this year. If Trump signs the legislation as expected, providers will be able to monitor their customers behavior online and, without their permission, use their personal and financial information to sell highly targeted ads making them rivals to Google and Facebook in the $83 billion online advertising market.

Welcome to the world the Republicans envision, where even after you turn on incognito mode and do some private Internet exploration about an embarrassing problem, before you know it there are fliers turning up in your mailbox saying HELP FOR YOUR GENITAL WARTS IS HERE!!!

The bill passed the Senate, 50-48, with every Democrat voting against it and every Republican present voting for it (two Republicans did not vote). The result in the House was almost as divided: All 190 Democrats present voted against it along with just 15 Republican defectors, while the other 215 Republicans voted in favor.

Ive been unable to find any polling data on this question, but if you could get 5 percent of Americans to say they want their ISPs to sell their browsing history without their consent, Id be shocked. So how does something like this happen?

The simple answer is lobbying. A set of powerful corporations would love to be able to sell your information, so they invested heavily in lobbying Congress to get it done. But its not just about the Washington swamp; its also about the philosophical differences between the two parties.

Democrats put a premium on protecting consumers, and Republicans are much more interested in maintaining and expanding the prerogatives of corporations. Indeed, if youre looking for the Republicans public-spirited argument in favor of this bill, youll find it hard to discern. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is quoted in that article saying that privacy will be enhanced by removing the uncertainty and confusion these rules will create, which makes no sense at all, while the ISPs themselves tout all the benefits targeted ads will have for their customers.

Making this all worse, the bill was passed using a heretofore obscure law called the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to not only nullify recently written regulations but also forbid the agency in question (in this case, the Federal Communications Commission) from ever writing similar rules again. Since the rule guaranteeing your privacy was written at the end of the Obama administration, Republicans are taking the opportunity to undo it. In the 20 years after the CRA itself was passed, it had been used to undo a regulation exactly once. But this year, congressional Republicans have already passed 11 CRA bills to nullify Obama regulations on things such as guns, the environment and worker protections, and there are more on the way.

If youre like most people, you think the bill allowing your ISP to sell your information without your consent is outrageous, but it may not be enough in and of itself to get you to call your member of Congress. Not only that, the bill has already passed. And by the time the next election rolls around, you may have forgotten about it.

Have no doubt: Thats the whole idea. All the Republicans who voted for this had no illusions that it would be a popular thing to do. But they figured that with everything else going on, most people wouldnt notice. And theyre probably right.

Were going to be seeing this a lot in the next four years. Youll come across an article telling you about some appalling bill that just passed Congress, and youll say, Wait they did what? Itll be the first youve heard of it, and maybe the last as well. Republicans may suffer more high-profile losses on sweeping legislation that gets debated for weeks or months, but meanwhile theyll be racking up one victory after another on smaller items, many of them giveaways to corporate interests, such as the Internet privacy bill.

Is there anything you can do about this? Sure. Even though the bill has passed, it isnt too late to tell your member of Congress how you feel about it (and if that member is a Republican, you might ask them whether theyd like to share their own browsing history with their constituents, since they think your private information ought to be bought and sold). Even if that doesnt stop this bill from becoming law, it would show your representative that theyre being watched, and perhaps make them a little less willing to do the same sort of thing in the future.

Raising a stink about this bill might also make it possible that President Trump could veto it, even though the White House has already issue a statement in support of it. Trumps opinions are always subject to change, and if he became convinced that this was incredibly unpopular, you never know what he might do.

Even if that doesnt happen, this is a valuable lesson: Republicans in Congress may have suffered a huge defeat on ACA repeal, but theyre still going to be working like busy little bees, and we cant take our eyes off them for a moment.

Originally posted here:
Democrats won big on health care. But Republicans are still doing terrible things. - Washington Post (blog)

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

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

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