Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans on Capitol Hill are turning their attention to repealing another signature accomplishment of President Obama: the 2010 Wall Street reform law.

Key lawmakers are eyeing a special budgetary to pass repeal legislation in the Senate on a simple majority vote, bypassing Democrats.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee, says the budgetary process known as reconciliation, which can be used to circumvent the filibuster, should be considered as a tool to roll back burdensome Obama-era regulations on the financial sector.

Some Republicans say that rolling back the Wall Street reform law should be one of their highest priorities.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin HatchOrrin HatchRepublicans eye strategy for repealing Wall Street reform Two Republicans sign on to effort demanding Trumps tax returns Senate panel approves pick for Medicaid and Medicare chief MORE (R-Utah) told Bloomberg television last month that the law is worse than ObamaCare.

I think its one of the worst bills thats ever been passed through Congress, Hatch said, adding that he did not think any of its provisions were worth saving.

Senate Democratic Leader Charles SchumerCharles SchumerConservative radio host: 'Evidence is overwhelming' of Obama spying Pelosi rips Trump tweets: 'Deflector-in-Chief is at it again' Top Obama adviser to Trump: 'No president can order a wiretap' MORE (N.Y.) in November said he had enough votes to block any Republican efforts to repeal key parts of the Wall Street reform law, known as Dodd-Frank.

But it would be considerably harder for Schumer to stand in the way if Republicans use reconciliation to repeal the parts of Dodd-Frank that affect government spending and revenues.

Democrats "don't have to agree to everything on reconciliation, Shelby noted.

Asked whether congressional committees would be given instructions to repeal parts of the Wall Street reform law in a budget resolution later this year, Shelby said, "We've been talking about a lot of stuff."

The effort has been kept largely quiet, however. It was not one of the items highlighted on the 200-day agenda that Republicans discussed at their annual retreat in Philadelphia, and President Trump did not mention Wall Street during his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellMitch McConnellRepublicans eye strategy for repealing Wall Street reform House, Senate leaders avoid holding town halls Pressure mounts on GOP leaders to back special counsel MORE (R-Ky.) has announced that the second budget resolution that Republicans plan to pass this spring will have instructions to protect tax reform from Democratic filibusters.

But its possible to include multiple instructions so that the resolution includes the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over financial industry regulations, as well as the Finance Committee, which is in charge of taxes.

Budget Committee Chairman Mike EnziMike EnziRepublicans eye strategy for repealing Wall Street reform Lawmakers fundraise amid rising town hall pressure A guide to the committees: Senate MORE (R-Wyo.) said reconciliation instructions affecting the Wall Street reform law could be included in the next budget resolution, which will cover fiscal 2018. But he declined to tip his hand about whether that was a certainty.

"I just work the problem until Ive got a solution," he said.

Trump signed an executive order early last month giving the Treasury Department authority to change key provisions of Dodd-Frank to align with several goals laid out by his administration, such as to make regulation efficient, effective and appropriately tailored.

The president said regulations created under the 2010 law have chilled economic activity.

I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses that cant borrow money, Trump said. The banks just wont let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.

Democrats say the Republican plan to gut the reform law with only 51 votes would likely run afoul of the Senates Byrd rule, named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), which limits what legislation can be passed under reconciliation.

How would they use reconciliation? Its not budgetary, said a Senate Democratic aide.

A former Democrat aide who served in the Senate during passage of the Wall Street reform law seven years ago, however, said Republicans could attempt to target spending on regulation of the financial services industry.

They could target provisions in Dodd-Frank that govern funding such as that they might have been charging or fines they were imposing on banks. That sort of thing they could go after, the Democratic source said.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2011 that the Wall Street law would increase government revenues by $13.4 billion and spending by $10.2 billion over a 10-year period. It projected the law would reduce deficits by $3.2 billion.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), a veteran member of the Banking Committee, is leading the review of the budget rules to determine what parts of the law can be undone with 51 votes.

We need to make a number of really substantial reforms to Dodd-Frank, Toomey told the Wall Street Journal in December. I am very much in favor of making sure we have all the tools to do this.

Aside from the challenge of getting the Senate parliamentarian who decides whats eligible for special budgetary protection to sign off on the plan, Shelby and Toomey may have trouble convincing some moderate Republicans to go along.

Schumer in November predicted in November that some Republicans would side with Democrats in blocking efforts to weaken the law. Yet Republicans could try to make up for lost votes by targeting red-state Democrats who are up for reelection in 2018.

Republicans from agricultural states say tighter regulations on banks has made it tougher for farmers to obtain financing now that commodity prices are slumping.

Link:
Republicans eye strategy for repealing Wall Street reform - The Hill

PORTLAND, Maine Republican leaders in Maine and Utah are asking President Donald Trump to step into uncharted territory and rescind national monument designations made by his predecessor.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 doesn't give the president power to undo a designation, and no president has ever taken such a step. But Trump isn't like other presidents.

Former President Barack Obama used his power under the act to permanently preserve more land and water using national monument designations than any other president. The land is generally off limits to timber harvesting, mining and pipelines, and commercial development.

Obama created the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument in Maine last summer on 87,500 acres of donated forestland. The expanse includes part of the Penobscot River and stunning views of Mount Katahdin, Maine's tallest mountain. In Utah, the former president created Bears Ears National Monument on 1.3 million acres of land that's sacred to Native Americans and is home to tens of thousands of archaeological sites, including ancient cliff dwellings.

Trump's staff is now reviewing those decisions by the Obama administration to determine economic impacts, whether the law was followed and whether there was appropriate consultation with local officials, the White House told The Associated Press.

Maine Republican Gov. Paul LePage is opposed to the designation, and says federal ownership could stymie industrial development; and Republican leaders in Utah contend the monument designation adds another layer of unnecessary federal control in a state where there's already heavy federal ownership.

The Utah Legislature approved a resolution signed by the governor calling on Trump to rescind the monument there. In Maine, LePage asked the president last week to intervene.

Newly sworn-in Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has said he'll fight the sale or transfer of public lands. But he also believes states should be able to weigh in. The National Parks Conservation Association has vowed to sue if Trump, the Interior Department or Congress tries to remove the special designations.

"Wherever the attack comes from, we're ready to fight, and we know the public is ready to fight if someone comes after our national parks and monuments," National Parks Conversation Association spokeswoman Kristen Brengel said.

In Maine, the prospect of undoing the designation is further complicated by deed stipulations requiring the National Park Service to control the land and a $40 million endowment to support the monument, said Lucas St. Clair, son of Burt's Bees co-founder Roxanne Quimby, who acquired the land.

Three of the four members of Maine's congressional delegation want the monument to stand to avoid reopening a divisive debate in towns surrounding the property.

"Rather than re-ignite controversy in a region that is beginning to heal and move on, I hope we can allow the monument to continue to serve as one important part of a multifaceted economic revitalization strategy which is already underway," said independent Sen. Angus King.

Utah Republicans, however, appear to be ready for a scrap. Rep. Jason Chaffetz raised the issue when he met with Trump and he asked the House Appropriations Committee to cut funding for the monument.

"Not one elected official in Utah that represents the Bear Ears region supports the designation of a national monument. With the stroke of a pen, President Obama, having never visited the area, created a monument the size of Delaware, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., combined," he said.

In the region near Maine's Mount Katahdin, both supporters and many opponents want to see the monument work. They hope it will help revitalize the economy.

Millinocket Town Council Chairman Michael Madore once described the park as a "foolish dream." Now, he says, "We have accepted it as part of our landscape. Until such time as it's overturned, we're going to work with the people who're involved with it to help the local economy."

Link:
Republicans in Maine, Utah want Trump to undo monuments - Fox News

Quora Questions are part of a partnership between NewsweekandQuora, through which we'll be posting relevant and interesting answers from Quora contributors throughout the week. Read more about the partnershiphere.

Answer from Brad Porter, political watcher, writer and occasional worker:

Who is the de facto leader of the opposition for the Trump Administration in 2017?There are sort of two ways you could take this. The first sense is the practicalwho has the authority to oversee the policies of President Trump and check or push back against them in some meaningful way? In that sense, the real answer is the judicial branch. But the de facto leaders of the opposition to the Trump administration in 2017 are not, in fact, Democrats at all. Rather, they are the congressional Republicans. They are what willor will notstand in the way of bad Trump policies, and they are from whom checks and balances will have to come, if they are to come at all.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

The two men who will largely determine the course of the Trump Administration are Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Granted, Democrats will stand in opposition, but ultimately, theyre going to be in the minority in Congress at least for the next few years. As such, they are severely handicapped in what they will be able to accomplish, in terms of meaningful opposition. Trump has made it relatively clear that he has no interest in working with them, could not care less about their dissent, and has no plans to somehow appeal to or work with them. As such, there is not much of a political or practical cost that the Dems can inflict on Trump directly. Oh they can hold some stuff up, and they can certainly complain, but they simply dont have the critical mass needed to actually get in the way of policy. Trump and the GOP can more or less restrict them to booing on the sidelines.

That is, if the Republican caucus stays in Trumps camp.

Ultimately, much of the success or failure regarding Trumps ability to execute his policies is going to come down to whether the GOP congressional leadership stays on board, or not. If the Democrats can start peeling away Republican congressmen and start cobbling together some kind of working majority that way, then meaningful opposition to Trump can begin. Alternatively, the GOP can deny them that, but to do that they will likely have to exact some kind of influence on Trump to tamp down the worst of his excessesthey can do some inside dirty boxing and horse-trading to try to piece out of Trumps platform some kind of workable policy and talking point structure that their members can take back to their voters.

President Donald Trump delivers his first address to a joint session of Congress in Washington, D.C., on February 28th. Trump cleverly used race and rhetoric to bolster his hardline nationalist policies on trade and immigration. REUTERS/Jim Lo Scalzo

Right now, Trump has all the leverage, as hes the new president, and the Republican congressional leadership appears to be taking a mostly hands-off (or rather stay out of the way) approach. But as time goes on, that pendulum is going to swing the other way, and Trump will have to rely on Ryan and McConnell to get anything substantial done (and moderate or blue state Republicans who they will need to keep in line). Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will certainly play roles in that, but as supporting players more than leads.

Likewise, in addition to an actual proactive agenda and legislation, any investigations, subpoenas, or direct blowback against executive overreach will have to be at the instigation of congressional Republicans. Again, the Democrats have some options, but at the end of the day, all roads will have to go through the congressional Republican caucus one way or another (note: this all changes if the Dems win a majority back, but the map for them in 2018 is tough as hell so realistically I dont know that that happens during Trumps first term).

The second way to take this question is more in the moral or political sensewho has the standing and platform to criticize Trump and rally support against him? Whose criticisms might go the farthest in spurring actual action?

There are a lot of good answers here already: I think, in the early days at least, Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Keith Ellison, and Senator Chuck Schumer have all sort of stood out in this regard. But, again, let me throw two out there that arent Democrats at all.

The first Id throw out there is Senator John McCain. Right now, there is not a whole lot going on in terms of meaningful Republican opposition to Trump. For the most part, Trumps win has caused most of his right-leaning critics to either openly change their tune (Cruz, Rubio) or, at best, fade muttering into the background (Romney, the Bushes, etc). One of the very few voices with any great standing in the party or ability to actually be problematic for Trump who has NOT followed that pattern has been McCain.

Hes been holding his tongue largely, but already hes been sending out a lot of either passive aggressive sniping or actual congressional pushback at Trump. McCain is a lifer and well regarded within the party (particularly to the people who matter most: donors, mediaand other Republican politicians), and he also just got elected to a six-year term, likely his last, so he really doesnt have much to lose or much incentive to put up with Trumps bullshit. Already on things like torture and Russia, hes been a strong and swift voice of opposition, and I would expect that to continue and that opposition to only deepen as time goes by. So, I would keep a close eye on McCain.

The second name I would throw out there is Evan McMullin. He has already been a thorn in Trumps side, and he has consistently served as something like the good angel on Republican shoulders - and currently, a voice of sanity and refuge for folks, like me, who identify as Republican but think Trump is the current biggest threat going to traditional conservatism. He has articulated a clear, consistent and conservative opposition to the Trump administration, and it doesnt appear like hes going away any time soon.

So, all of those guys I just named are Republican. Thats not just because Im a Republican, but because, I believe, that concrete and impactful opposition to Trump is not going to originate necessarily on the left. So long as its simply a partisan divide, Trump winsDemocrats will be able to channel a lot of anger and raise a chorus of voices, but at the end of the day, theyre going to be at the mercy of the actions of others (specifically, the judicial branch and congressional Republicans). Real checks and balances are only going to come when at least some meaningful opposition to Trump emerges on the right and in the center-right. So long as Republicans stay in lineand so long as they fear Trump more than they fear their votersTrump is going to largely have the ability to enact his agenda. Where fissures begin to develop is where true opposition might begin to take hold, and in my mind its those four, far more than any Democrat, that our republic hinges on now.

Who is the de facto leader of the opposition for the Trump Administration in 2017? originally appeared on Quorathe place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

Visit link:
Quora: Look to Republicans to Lead the Trump Opposition - Newsweek

Saturday Night Live has already effectively declared war on Donald Trump but now, it seems, the sketch comedy series has the rest of the Republican party in its crosshairs. As the Democratic Senators and members of Congress continue to voice their loud and vehement opposition to the Trump administration, the Republicans have, for the most part, gone along for the Mr. Trumps wild ride. Now, Saturday Night Live is officially calling them out.

Sure, there are a few exceptions to the lock-step Republican support network. Senator John McCain has made a show of voice Trump disapproval (though his actions dont necessarily align with his rhetoric). Senator Lindsay Graham has also voiced concern over the Trump administrationthough he was met with boos on Saturday morning after saying I agree with [Trump] mostly.

In other words, the Democrats may not want to hold their breath waiting for a Republican anti-Trump hero. Thats the joke of this cute fake movie trailer promoting a sweeping biopic of a Republican hero brave enough to oppose Trump. Lacking any options, the voice-over inserts an acerbic TBD each time their heros name is called for. Theres only one thing for certain: that biopic is definitely not about Paul Ryan.

Read this article:
Watch SNL Mercilessly Rip Republicans Who Refuse to Stand up to Donald Trump - Vanity Fair

That was then. This is now.

In 1999, Republicans snapped Democrats century-long run on legislative power by promising Virginians a General Assembly that would be fair and balanced. Except for a brief Democratic hiatus in the Virginia Senate, Republicans remain the dominant party at Mr. Jeffersons Capitol because of redistricting, a practice that is anything but fair and balanced.

To keep it that way, House Republicans are spending taxpayer money: at least $2.6 million so far for private lawyers to defend their hyperpartisan gerrymandering. That bill will balloon the longer Republicans litigate the longer they refuse to legislate a remedy to a problem the public increasingly recognizes as an obstacle to managing the peoples business.

This past week, a Richmond trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court, through important procedural and technical decisions, nudged Virginia closer to removing naked partisanship from the process of drawing legislative lines and stripping Republicans of the artificial advantage with which they retain the statehouse even as they endure a long, bitter retreat statewide.

Over the wishes of Republicans, Circuit Judge Ry Marchant cleared the way for a trial later this month on whether as alleged by a redistricting reform group, OneVirginia2021 nearly a dozen districts in the House of Delegates and state Senate violate a Virginia constitutional requirement that their boundaries be compact, creating seats that reflect a regions shared characteristics, or so-called communities of interest.

The Senate districts were actually drawn by Democrats because they controlled the chamber at the time. It is a reminder that Democrats, too, are anything but innocent when it comes to the Darwinism that drives redistricting.

In this instance, survival is a consequence of creative cartography and the slender Democratic majority that made it possible.

The fight in Marchants courtroom will likely continue in the Virginia Supreme Court, which has yet to establish standards for determining the compactness of House and Senate districts.

It is an issue largely avoided in some of the courts recent rulings on redistricting. In 1992 and 2002, when upholding Democratic and Republican plans, respectively, the court allowed that the legislature has broad latitude in crafting districts.

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered a do-over by a three-judge trial court that upheld 11 majority-black House districts that Democrats contend intentionally eroded African-American voting strength in surrounding areas, thus protecting Republicans.

The justices said the trial court must reconsider the districts, using narrower guidelines that could make it easier to prove that race illegally guided Republicans.

Perhaps forgotten in these two disputes: They focus on redistricting plans in place since 2011. Because they have perpetuated Republican legislative hegemony and hostility to depoliticized redistricting the struggle over House, Senate and congressional boundaries fully shifted to the courts.

This has kept the issue in plain view and created fresh opportunities for Republican resistance; notably, running down the clock.

The trial in state court and the reconsideration by the federal court mean that the redistricting fight will drag on for months, preserving the contested boundaries on which the Republicans 2-to-1 majority in the House rests.

Those lines, paired with the low turnout of an off-year election that magnifies the strength of the narrowing Republican base, could be a firewall against Democratic challenges fueled by anti-Trump rage in a state that tipped to Hillary Clinton. Democrats, so far, have candidates for about 30 Republican seats. But holding the House could mean little for Republicans and their long-term goal of controlling the legislature into the 2030s.

For that to happen, Republicans need one of their own elected governor this year and for their majorities in the House and Senate to survive the 2019 elections. Then, Republicans would be in 2021, as they were in 2011, in full command of redistricting, happily drawing the friendliest lines, confident that the governor would sign them into law and, no doubt, triggering another years-long tussle in the courts, again financed by taxpayers.

This should call attention to the role of Ed Gillespie, the supposed front-runner for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, in legislative gerrymandering, not just in Virginia, but across the country.

It is becoming a Democratic talking point, with Tom Perriello and Ralph Northam rivals for their partys nomination for governor signaling they would use the veto to stop a lopsidedly Republican redistricting plan.

Gillespie was chairman of the Republican State Leadership Conference, the national organization that supplied the money and minds necessary to install GOP majorities in the state legislatures, which, in turn, draw congressional seats.

Because Republicans now hold two-thirds of the nations legislative chambers, it is no surprise that they are comfortably in charge of the U.S. House of Representatives.

These days, Gov. Terry McAuliffe is practically mimicking Gillespie, a political opponent but a personal friend from their many days together lolling in the Washington swamp as chairmen of their national parties. McAuliffe is joining former President Barack Obama and top members of his administration in an effort to give Democrats an upper hand in redistricting.

So when McAuliffe brays about nonpartisan redistricting, Republicans justifiably guffaw as they did on Wednesday, when the governor responded to the U.S. Supreme Court decision by proposing they quit their pricey court fight and consent to an independent panel redrawing the 11 disputed House districts. McAuliffes offer only steeled Republican intransigence.

But as long as the redistricting issue is before the courts, Republicans face a peril. Judges could rule against them, forcing adjusted boundaries and, in the process, creating districts hostile to the GOP.

In the federal case, the ripple effect of court-ordered shifts could cause headaches in the Richmond area for Manoli Loupassi, John OBannon and Jimmie Massie. Even the mastermind of the 2011 House Republican plan, Chris Jones of Suffolk, could have problems.

Republican lawyers believe that 2019 is the earliest that House seats could be reset should the party lose in court. History suggests otherwise, perhaps auguring a special election next year.

In 1981, federal judges rejected as racially biased a Democrat-drawn House redistricting plan. In their ruling, the judges said it was too late to fix the offending districts.

But the court decreed that delegates, elected for two years, could only serve for one under the flawed plan; that they would have to stand in new districts in a special election in 1982 and, again, in 1983 for a full term. In those three consecutive elections, Republicans would pick up seats, gaining momentum toward their historic takeover in 1999.

That was then. This is now.

Contact Jeff E. Schapiro at (804) 649-6814. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Watch his video column Thursday on Richmond.com. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter, @RTDSchapiro. Listen to his analysis 8:45 a.m. Friday on WCVE (88.9 FM).

Read this article:
Schapiro: Va. Republicans on defense over redistricting - Richmond.com