Mediaboss Marketing

With the new clout they acquired in the November election, Republicans at the state capital have taken aim at what they call judicial activism and incivility and, in a highly unusual move, held up the re-appointment of one of the state's best-known and longest-tenured jurists.

The target is Richard N. Palmer, senior associate justice of the state Supreme Court. He has joined - and in many cases written the volatile opinions for narrow court majorities that, among other things, abolished the death penalty, legalized gay marriage and permitted government to use eminent domain to seize private property for commercial development.

Republicans on the joint Judiciary Committee departed last week from the custom of routine reconfirmation of long-sitting judges and grilled Palmer for four hours. His legal conclusions on red meat, conservative issues made him an easy target. But there were times when he looked like a whipping boy for dissatisfaction with the broader court - for its claimed over-reaching and for acerbic sniping among justices that some fear threatens the court's collegiality.

With Republicans and Democrats now evenly matched with 18 members each in the Senate, the Republicans used their new muscle to delay a vote on Palmer. Several observers predicted he will face further Republican opposition, but will be returned to the court before his third, 8-year term expires on March 17. A vote could take place Friday.

"I think there are a lot of my caucus members who are not happy with Justice Palmer," Republican Senate leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, said. "We are talking about a justice of the Supreme Court and I think that a lot of our members had a lot of questions and issues. So I think that the people on the committee wanted a little more time to vet through the information and see where they stood. And there is no real time pressure boiling."

If nothing else, the back and forth between legislators and Palmer was revealing. It demonstrated Republican disagreement with the court on big issues. And it gave a senior jurist an opportunity to defend those decisions to the public.

Palmer was pressed repeatedly about so-called judicial activism, in particular whether he substituted his judgment for that of the legislature when, in a 4-3 opinion he wrote, the court declared the legislature's most recent iteration of the death penalty unconstitutional. The 2015 case is known as Santiago.

The death statute at issue in Santiago was written by the legislature to replace an earlier law that withstood constitutional review. The Santiago law was written to be "prospective," meaning it banned executions in crimes committed after the effective date of the law. Sentences imposed on those previously convicted were to remain in effect.

Legal experts, including the state's chief prosecutor, warned the legislature that the bifurcated, or prospective nature of the Santiago law made it unconstitutional because it treated people charged with the same crime differently. In that sense, Palmer's majority opinion was predictable.

But Palmer and the majority went farther. He wrote that "in light of the governing constitutional principles and Connecticut's unique historical and legal landscape, we are persuaded that, following its prospective abolition, this state's death penalty no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose."

Some death penalty proponents feared the decision abolished capital punishment in Connecticut forever. Palmer told the committee he believes it did not.

Committee Republicans lectured Palmer that elected legislators are in closer to voters than judges and in better positions to measure "contemporary standards of decency." One lawmaker asked whether the Supreme Court commissioned a poll to chart shifting standards of decency. They accused Palmer of usurping their authority by substituting his judgment for theirs.

Palmer was relaxed and looked comfortable with the pointed questions that implied criticism of his judicial philosophy. He said he recognizes that "the legislature, along with the executive, is the policy-making branch of our government" and that his views on capital punishment had no bearing on the Santiago decision.

"I did not think it was the prerogative of the court to substitute our judgment for that of the legislature," he said

Since his appointment to the court by Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in 1993, Palmer said he has twice voted with court majorities to uphold the constitutionality of state death penalty statutes. He was the swing vote in the 4-3 majority opinion upholding execution in the court's 1996 Webb decision. He voted with the majority again in upholding the death penalty in the 2014 Rizzo decision.

"What changed between Rizzo and Santiago?" asked Sen. Michael A. McLachlan, a Danbury Republican

"The statute changed," said Palmer, who was at various times before joining the court Connecticut's chief federal and state prosecutor. "I have not changed by mind on the death penalty. It was only with the passage of a bifurcated statute that I ultimately concluded it was unconstitutional."

He said it was Santiago who, in his appeal, raised the issue of shifting standards of decency - not the court. Palmer told the committee that the state strengthened Santiago's evolving standards argument by carrying out only two executions in more than 60 years. And he said the legislature added more weight by trying to ban future executions.

The loudest complaints from Republican committee members were directed at what they characterized as a disturbing decline in collegiality among the court's justices. In some cases, the critics claimed, justices are not longer speaking to one another.

It was implied in some of the questions that sharp language used to dismiss dissenters in Palmer's majority opinions is responsible for ill will on the court. In subsequent interviews, Fasano and other Republicans said Palmer isn't the only judge with a sharp pen, but is on the firing line because his term is up.

McLachlan referred to a now infamous footnote in a 4-2 majority opinion by Palmer in 2015 that affirmed the reversal of a murder conviction against Richard LaPointe, a mentally handicapped man who a lower court said had been wrongly imprisoned for most of his life.

The footnote was sharply critical of Justice Carmen E. Espinosa, who, in the same case, blasted Palmer and the majority in a dissent.

Palmer's footnote said, in part: "Rather than support her opinion with legal analysis and authority, however, she chooses, for reasons we cannot fathom, to dress her argument in language so derisive that it is unbefitting an opinion of this state's highest court. Perhaps worse, her interest lies only in launching groundless ad hominem attacks and in claiming to be able to divine the (allegedly improper) personal motivations of the majority."

The footnote concluded by saying Espinosa "dishonors this court."

Espinosa had signed one LaPointe dissent with former Justice Peter Zarella that analyzed the law. She wrote a second by herself that attacked the motives of the majority, accusing it of operating outside the bounds of judicial propriety. She said the majority was guilty of "unfettered judicial activism" and "a complete misunderstanding of the proper role that this court should play within the rule of law."

"And justice is most certainly not attained by doffing one's judicial robe and donning an advocate's suit" Espinosa wrote.

McLachlan told Palmer, "You threw a grenade. Why did you do that?"

"We just felt the dissent in LaPointe was unfair and really accused us of engaging in conduct that is improper for judges," Palmer said.

Palmer said the footnote was meant to defend the court from what the majority believed to be a scurrilous attack. But he said sharp language is something of a tradition in appellate decisions and is far more pronounced at the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices who attack one another in writing have been close friends.

Palmer denied that there is hostility among Connecticut justices. He said he circulates his opinions among colleagues prior to publication with a standing offer to remove offensive language. Although he did not say so explicitly, his answer implies that the language in Espinosa's dissent and the responsive footnote were agreed upon in advance.

Sen. John A. Kissel, an Enfield Republican, complained that the sniping erodes public confidence in the court.

"I have heard on good authority from very good sources that it is a chilly atmosphere across the street, that people don't talk to one another," Kissel said, referring to Supreme Court chambers across Capitol Avenue from the Legislature.

"Knock it off," Kissel told Palmer. "Two wrongs don't make a right. If someone slaps you on the face, turn. Give them the other cheek. Gandhi. Kill them with kindness."

Palmer said he would carry the message across the street to his colleagues.

View post:
With New Clout At State Capitol, Republicans Hold Up Re-Appointment Of Supreme Court Justice - Hartford Courant

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownbacks ambitious tax overhaul which slashedtaxes for businesses and affluent households, leading to years of budget shortfalls narrowly survived a mutiny Wednesday afternoonwhen abouthalf ofRepublican lawmakers joined Democrats in an effort to overturn it.

Brownback, a Republican whoonce called his tax policy a real-live experiment with conservative principles, had vetoed a bill that would haverepealed the most important provisions of his overhaul. While the state House voted tooverride the veto earlier in the day,proponents of the billcame up three votesshyof the two-thirds majority neededin theSenate.Fifteen Republican senators voted to override the veto, while 16 voted to sustain it.

In the House, 45 GOP legislators voted in favor of the increase, while 40 voted to uphold the governors veto.

The stateis facing a $350 million budget shortfall.Brownbacks critics say the states persistent deficits are evidence that the economic benefits from reduced taxes are not always adequate to make up for reductions in revenue, as advocates of supply-side changes have sometimes claimed.

I'm disappointed in the actions of our Senate today, said state Rep. Melissa Rooker, a Republican from Fairway, Kansas, whosupported the bill. This was a balanced compromise that provided the revenue necessary to fund the basic needs of our budget and restore some semblance of solvency and sustainability.

For both Brownback and hiscritics, the changes are a model for thepolicies that Republicans in Washington, D.C., might pursue on a national level now that they are in control of the federal government.One ofPresident Trumps advisers on economic policy during the campaign, Stephen Moore, also helped Brownback develop the changes he enacted beginning in 2012. Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the speaker of the House, served as Brownbacks legislative director when Brownback was in Congress.

Gov. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) spoke at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 23, and pushed for less government regulations. "When have we added more government anywhere that's taken more taxes and you end up with a product that's more efficient that costs you less?" he asked. "What's your example?" (The Washington Post)

Ryans and Trumps proposals for tax reform have important features in common with Brownbacks policies. Bothreduce the number of income-taxbrackets. Brownbacks policies and Ryans proposal treat income from legal entities typically used by small businesses more favorably than ordinary income. Likewise, the plan Trump advanced as a candidate appeared to reduce the tax rate on such earnings, known as pass-through income, but hisproposal was ambiguous on this point.

In the case of Brownbacks overhaul, pass-through income has been completely exempt from taxation. In 2012, the state had projected that about 200,000 pass-through entities would take advantage of the exemption. In fact, about 330,000 ostensible small businesses profited from the rule. Thatdata suggests the reform encouraged tens of thousands of Kansans to claim their wages and salaries as income from a business rather than from employment.

That avoidance has contributed to repeated budget deficits, forcing state policymakers to take emergency measures, exhausting the states reserves and diverting money dedicated to maintaining highways to keep the states government operating.

The bill in Kansas would have eliminated the exemption for pass-through income and increased income taxes (although not to the rates that prevailed before Brownback took office), while eliminating tax reductions planned for the future. The state projected that the legislation would have increased revenue by $590 million in 2018.

Moore, the former adviser to Brownback and Trump, acknowledged that avoidance by residents claiming business income was an issue, one that he said the Trump campaign also debated.

That has been a problem, I agree, he said. One of the things were really struggling with is how to avoid that problem.

Experts on taxation said that Kansass experience with the exemption for pass-through income should be a source of caution for GOP lawmakers in Washington considering a similar approach.

Its very expensive, said Scott Drenkard, the director of state projects at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation. What weve seen in Kansas as a result of this is that the state has had a hard time making budget.

Yet Moore and other proponents of the policies say that reduced taxes, especially for small businesses, will help encourage economic growth. Kansass economic performance has been only middling over the past several years, but Moore argued that the states problems are a result of tepid growth nationally.

Its certainly not a very Republican idea to be raising income taxes, he said.

Identifying the precise effect of the tax overhaulon the economy is difficult. Overall, Kansass economy expanded by about 2.9 percent between 2011, when Brownback took office, and 2015, the latest year for which data are available. Over the same period, the gross domestic product increased 9.2 percent nationally, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Rooker noted that the coalition voting to override Brownbacks veto in her GOP-dominated chamber included more Republicans than Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are also divided on how to approach the problem of tax reform, confronting similar disagreements on how drastically to reduce federal revenue.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the U.S. Senate majority leader, said in December that he would prefer tax reform that did not reduce federal revenue. Ryan's proposal would cost the government by about $2.5 trillion over a decade, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

What we may be seeing here is the return of the fiscally moderate Republican, said Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden.

View original post here:
Republicans' 'real-live experiment' with Kansas's economy survives a revolt from their own party - Washington Post

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

There are only two certainties in life: death, and Republicans cutting taxes.

That, after all, is what Ronald Reagan did, it's what George W. Bush did, and it's what Donald Trump has promised to dowhich, with a Republican House and Senate, looks like as sure a bet as there is. What's less clear, though, is whether it will be a run-of-the-mill tax cut or a once-in-a-generation tax reform.

What's the difference? Well, tax cuts are just about lowering tax rates, while tax reform is usually about lowering tax rates even more and paying for it by getting rid of tax breaks. The problem, of course, is that some people wouldn't benefit as much from lower tax rates as they do now from the tax loopholes that would be closedso they'll fight it. In other words, tax cuts are easy because everyone is a winner, but tax reform is hard because there are losers. Still, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan thinks it's worth it since tax reform would let them cut rates lower and for longer than they otherwise could.

That second part is the most important. Republicans, you see, are only allowed to pass a tax cut with a simple Senate majoritywhich is all they're going to haveas long as it doesn't add to the deficit after 10 years. That's why the Bush tax cuts came included with an expiration date. So, as New York's Jonathan Chait explains in detail, if Republicans don't want their new tax cuts to come with a similar self-destruct, they'll have to come up with a way to pay for them.

Or, more accurately, appear to do so according to our budget rules. Although when we're talking about a $3 trillion tax cut like the one Republicans have proposed, 99.6 percent of which would go to the top 1 percent of households, even the most aggressive gimmicks wouldn't "cover" all thecosts. Only about 50 percentof them. Here's how. When Republicans say that their tax plan wouldn't lose any revenue, the question is compared to what. And the answer, at least the one they want, is a world without any Obamacare taxes. Think about it like this. If you got rid ofObamacare's $1.2 trillion worth of taxes before you did tax reform, that'd be $1.2 trillion less you'd need to come up with for your plan to be "revenue neutral." And voil, your $3 trillion tax cut would only look like a $1.8 trillion tax cut. (Ain't Washington grand: one tax cut would make another look more affordable). Add in Republicans' favorite assumption that tax cuts would in part pay for themselvesand you're about halfway to home to paying for your tax cuts without actually paying for anything.

There's a hitch, though. Even after seven years, Republicans are still struggling to come up with the "replace" part of "repeal and replace." Their healthcare plans would probably only make the things people don't like about Obamacarehigh deductibles and narrow networksworse without covering as many people. So instead, to paraphrase the President, they've said that they have something vague and terrific that's also terrific and vague coming any minute now. Even Godot didn't make people wait this long. But the point is that, unlike a few months ago, Republicans aren't willing to rush ahead with repealing Obamacare and the taxes that pay for it unless they have a real replacement on tap. They'd rather tell everyone how great their imaginaryplan is than have everyone tell them how much they hate their actual one.

Not that it matters as far as tax reform is concerned. That's because Republicans aren't any closer to coming to terms on the rest of their plan either. The centerpiece of that is supposed to be what's known as a border-adjustment tax. Put simply, it would start taxing imported goods but not exported ones as part of a greater overhaul of the corporate tax system to tax domestic consumption rather than global profits. Now, economic theorytell us that this should send the dollar up enough that importers wouldn't be any worse off than they are now. But CEOs aren't willing to gamble their stock prices (or their bonuses, for that matter) on economic theory, no matter how well-grounded it might be. So every company that depends on imported goods, which is to say every retailer from Walmart on down, is lobbying hard against this taxa tax, mind you, that Republicans are counting onto raise a trillion dollars over 10 years. Indeed, there are already enough Republican senators against it that the border-adjustment tax might not even be dead-on-arrival. It might be so dead that it never arrives.It's border adjustment tax or bust.

So it might just be bust. That's what happens when you can't agree on your real or fake pay-fors. What Republicans can always agree on, though, is just slashing the top tax rate and calling it a day. That's a lot more realistic than the legislative Rube Goldberg machine Paul Ryan has set up actually working.

The Trump tax cuts, then, might end up being a slightly classier version of the Bush tax cuts: more regressive, more red ink, and just as temporary. Sad!

Visit link:
Republicans' dream of tax reform is in big trouble - Washington Post

In the small town of North Harmony, New York, things were anything but harmonious this weekend during a town hall held by conservative Republican Congressman Tom Reed.

The Affordable Care Act doesnt work, Reed said.

Rep. Tom Reed faces a largely hostile town hall crowd

It is working for a lot of people, so why do we throw the baby out with the bath water, lets fix it, a constituent replied.

Its similar to the reception other Republicans have gotten at home including Jason Chaffetz of Utah.

Do your job, do your job, a crowd chanted at him.

Anger over the threatened repeal of Obamacare is one of the biggest issues, but there are others.

Ezra Levin is with the Indivisible Project, one of numerous progressive groups trying to turn anti-Trump anger into a national movement.

CBS News

As long as Donald Trump, his administration and this Congress are pursing and agenda that is at odds with most Americans, I think youre going to see a lot of people standing up to resist it, Levin said.

Its modeled on the tea party movement that rose up in opposition to President Obamas health care reform plan in his first term.

Levin claims this movement is coming together more quickly.

This isnt just a city center thing. There are groups in 99.5 percent of congressional districts, he said.

Some Republicans have claimed that their critics are professional protesters. Stay-at-home mom Alyswin Preis, who is attending Tuesday nights town hall with Congressman Dave Brat in Blackstone, Virginia, begs to differ

Play Video

"Indivisible" began as an online guide to resisting the Trump agenda. Now, it's given rise to a growing movement that's making itself heard in Ca...

We are not paid protesters, we are not agitators, we are just people that really want to have our concerns answered, she said.

Bob Charlton voted for Donald Trump and went to the town hall support Congressman Brat.

I hope it doesnt just change into a referendum on the Trump presidency, he said.

The protests have even gotten the attenion of President Trump. On Thursday evening, he tweeted, The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Read more:
Amid Obamacare repeal efforts, Republicans facing hostile constituents back home - CBS News

There's an untold story from the 2016 election that should encourage Democrats and worry Republicans. It happened in Houston, the nation's fourth largest city in population and the hometown of former President George H. W. Bush. To be precise it's Harris County, Texaswhich consists mostly of Houstonthat we're talking about.

On November 8, Hillary Clinton lost Texas to Donald Trump by 9 percentage points. But she won Harris County by an astonishing 13 percentage points. And that's not all. Republicans lost every county-wide race (including incumbents) and 24 of 24 judgeships. The son of Lt. Governor Dan Patrick was among Republican judges who were ousted.

For Republicans, it was literally a wipeout. Even so, that doesn't quite capture how bad it was for them. The Democratic sweep underlined how rapidly the GOP is fading in Harris County, third population-wise among the nation's counties. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama by 971 votes. In 2016, Trump lost to Clinton by 161,511. She beat Trump by a larger margin than former Texas governor and President George W. Bush achieved in his two presidential campaigns.

The GOP's suffering is all the more painful because of the false dawn provided by city's 2014 ordinance that outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation, "sexual identity," and 13 other factors. The ordinance was challenged in a referendum in 2015 as opponents rallied around the battle cry of "no men in the women's bathrooms." That killed the ordinance. It lost by a whopping 61 percent to 39 percent, raising Republican hopes that Houston is more conservative than everyone thought.

Maybe it is, but Republicans haven't benefitted from that. Gary Polland, a three-time Harris County Republican party chairman, can't remember a time the GOP has done so poorly. "It could be back to the 60's." Jared Woodfill, who lost the chairmanship in 2014, does remember. "This is the worst defeat for Republicans in the 71-year history of Republican party of Harris County," he said.

But crushing Republicans in a county of 4.5 million people doesn't mean Democrats are on the verge of capturing Texas. In fact, Democratic leaders were as surprised as Republicans by the Harris sweep. But it does show there's a political tide running in their direction.

Democratic strategists are relying on a one-word political panacea to boost the party in overtaking Republicans: Hispanics. They're already a plurality42 percentin Harris County. Whites are 31 percent, blacks 20 percent, and Asians 7 percent. And the Hispanic population continues to grow. Democrats control the big Texas citiesDallas, San Antonio, El Paso, to name threethanks to Hispanic voters.

But in Houston, at least, Democrats have another factor in their favor: Republican incompetence. It was in full bloom in 2016. Though it was the year of a change election, GOP leaders chose a status quo slogan, "Harris County Works." Whatever that was supposed to signal, it wasn't change.

"It doesn't exactly have the aspirational ring of 'Make America Great Again' or even Hillary's 'Stronger Together,'" Woodfill said. "It is very much a message of 'everything is okay here, let's maintain the status quo.' People were confused and uninspired."

A separate decision was just as ruinous. GOP leaders, led by chairman Paul Simpson, panicked at the thought of Trump at the top of the ticket. So they decided to pretend Trump was not on the ticket. They kept his name off campaign literature. They didn't talk about him. And Trump, assured of winning Texas, didn't spend a nickel in the Houston media market. It became an "invisible campaign," Polland said. "There were votes to be had," Polland told me. They were Trump votes. They weren't sought.

This strategy defied reason and history. Disunited parties usually do poorly. GOP leaders gambled that their candidates would do better if the Trump connection were minimized. That may have eased the qualms of some about voting Republican. But it's bound to have prompted others to stay at home on Election Day. We know one thing about the gamble: It didn't work. Republicans were slaughtered, and it wasn't because the candidates were bad.

"Our overall ticket was of high quality, but no casual voter would know it since the campaign focus was on 'Harris County Works,' and Houston doesn't," Polland insisted. "Did we read about any of the high-quality women running? Not much. Did we read about issues raised by Donald Trump that were resonating with voters? Nope. Did the Simpson-led party even mention Trump? Nope."

Republicans tend to do better in non-presidential years in Texas, just as they do nationally. After Romney lost to Obama in 2012, Greg Abbott carried Harris Country by 20,655 in his successful race for governor two years later.

Abbott told the Texas Tribune he expects Republicans to bounce back in 2018, when Sen. Ted Cruz will be running for reelection. The debacle in Harris County "was really just kind of an echo of what happened in the last few presidential cycles and little more than that," Abbott said.

Republican Rep. Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said the "holy grail" for Democrats, both in Texas and nationally, is winning the Hispanic vote. "They did that somewhat successfully" in 2016, he said in an interview. Unless Democrats attract significantly more Hispanic voters in 2018, Brady thinks Republicans should recover. His district north of Houston lies partly in Harris County.

For this to happen, they will need to attract more Hispanic voters themselves. They recruited a number of Hispanics to run in 2016, several of them impressive candidates. All were defeated in the Democratic landslide.

Polland said Republicans can't wait to elect a new Harris County chairman in the 2018 primary. "This is not about ego. It is not about who is in charge. It's about the survival of the GOP in Harris County."

Read more:
Houston, Republicans Have a Problem | The Weekly Standard - The Weekly Standard