Archive for February, 2017

Senate Democrats boycotting HHS, Treasury nominees – CNN

The Senate Finance Committee was set to vote on the nominations of Rep. Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and Steve Mnuchin for Treasury Secretary.

But minutes after the vote was scheduled to take place, Democrats on the panel convened an impromptu news conference to announce that they refused to participate in the proceeding, all as their Republican colleagues were waiting in a hearing room down the hallway.

Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, pointed to what he called "truly alarming news" that surfaced on Monday, referring to a Wall Street Journal Report that said Price had received a special discounted rate of stocks at an Australian pharmaceutical company called Innate Immunotherapeutics.

"This is contrary to congressional testimony he gave. Congressman insisted he didn't get special access to a special deal," Wyden said. "He misled the congress and he misled the American people."

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown said Price had "outright lied to our committee."

Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch had choice words for his colleagues across the aisle, calling their actions "abysmal" and "amazingly stupid."

"This is the most pathetic thing I've seen in my whole time in the United States Senate," Hatch said. "They ought to be embarrassed."

Hatch accused Democrats of acting out because they are unhappy with Trump: "What's the matter with the other party? They're that bitter about Donald Trump? The answer has to be yes."

The senator said he fully intends for the committee vote on the two nominees to take place, and that he would call for another mark-up at his convenience.

But the timing remains unclear. The Senate Finance Committee's rules state that at least one Democrat must be present in order for the panel to take a vote on nominees. That means Democrats can continue to refuse to show up to future committee votes, making it impossible for the panel to consider a nominee.

Asked how Republicans plan to proceed, a committee aide said GOP lawmakers need to explore "next steps."

CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

See the original post here:
Senate Democrats boycotting HHS, Treasury nominees - CNN

United by post-inauguration marches, Democratic women plan to step up activism – Washington Post

Days into Donald Trumps presidency, large numbers of liberals say they plan to step up their political activity, with Democratic women particularly motivated to take action, according to a new Washington Post poll.

The results suggest that the womens marches immediately after Trumps inauguration, which brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators into the nations streets to protest his agenda, could reflect something more than a momentary burst in activism.

The poll finds 40 percent of Democratic women say they will become more involved in political causes this year, compared with 25 percent of Americans more broadly and 27 percent of Democratic men. Nearly half of liberal Democrats also say they will become more politically active, as do 43 percent of Democrats under age 50. Interest in boosting activism is far lower 21 percent among independents and Republicans alike.

I have called my senators. I called my congressman. I am sending emails. I just donated $100 to the ACLU, said Iris Dubois, 49, an attorney and human relations manager in Atlanta, referring to the American Civil Liberties Union. She did not join her local womens march but has nevertheless become more politically engaged particularly in opposing Trumps cabinet picks.

[Read the full poll results]

For some, the activism has been more subtle. Brenda Tucker, 63, a school bus driver from Yorktown, Va., said she didnt march and hasnt written any letters. But she is speaking up more at church, where many of her fellow congregants back the president. I call them out on their Christianity, Tucker said, noting her dislike of Trump. Everybody should be doing something, like marching, on everything he does. Obviously, the majority of people did not want him.

The breadth of activist leanings from the left follows a deeply divisive election in which Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton, the first female nominee of a major party to vie for the presidency. His treatment of women became an issue for his campaign, particularly after the release of a videotaped conversation in which he boasted about grabbing women's genitals.

Overall, female voters preferred Clinton by a 13-point margin, according to exit polls, with more than 7 in 10 of her female supporters saying a Trump presidency made them feel scared.

The new survey results echo what took place after President Barack Obama took office in 2009. Conservative voters, stunned and outraged by the election results, immediately began organizing to remake the Republican Party platform and block Obamas agenda under a loosely affiliated movement called the tea party.

The movement was effective, leading two years later to a sweep of state and congressional seats by conservative Republicans. But it remains to be seen whether the surge in liberal activism can coalesce into a similarly powerful force.

In the Post poll, majorities say they have heard a lot about the womens marches and that they support the demonstrations representing wider awareness and support than the tea party movement held at the height of its power in 2010.

(Zoeann Murphy,McKenna Ewen,Rhonda Colvin/The Washington Post)

Organizers of the womens marches are certainly trying to parlay the protests into something more sustained. Immediately after the Jan. 21 gatherings, they launched an effort dubbed 10 actions for the first 100 days, which included postcard-writing campaigns to members of Congress. Other liberal activists have launched major phone campaigns to protest Trumps agenda to lawmakers as well as to Trumps resorts and other businesses. A National Education Association campaign yielded more than 1 million emails to senators from people opposing Trumps education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos.

[More than 1 million email sent to senators, urging opposition to DeVos]

On Tuesday, march organizers Bob Bland and Tamika Mallory gathered with other activists near the Capitol to call for senators to reject Trumps nominee for the Department of Justice, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).

The womens march on Washington aims to send a message to all levels of government and the current administration that we can stand together in solidarity and expect elected leaders to protect the rights of women, their families and their communities, organizers said in a statement.

But some women expressed skepticism that the marches could translate into political change.

I like what the women are protesting for, but I am not sure that protesting will really do anything, said Angelica Rodriguez, 22 a college student and in-home health aide in San Antonio, Texas. I dont think anyone in office is going to take the womens marches seriously or take their concerns seriously when it comes to passing the laws.

Rodriguez said she supported Clinton but did not vote. Now, she expects to feel the pain: She is worried she will lose access to free birth control, which she gets through the Affordable Care Act. Republicans, including Trump, have pledged to repeal the law.

Some voters see Trumps actions speaking louder than his words, and do not fear the effect on women.

Magdalene Rose, 66, a retiree from Phoenix who voted for Clinton, noted that Trump has daughters and appointed a woman, pollster Kellyanne Conway, as his White House counselor. While she has misgivings about the rest of his agenda, thats one of the few things Im not worried about, she said.

The survey was conducted Wednesday through Sunday among a random sample of 1,018 adults nationwide reached on cellular and landline phones and carries a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Asked about the recent womens marches, 60 percent say they support or lean toward supporting them while 29 percent oppose them or lean in opposition. One-third say they support the marches strongly, while 13 percent are strongly opposed.

The Post poll finds a sharp gap in plans for activism depending on views of the womens marches. Roughly one-third of those who support the marches say they plan to become more politically active, rising to 46 percent among those who support them strongly. By comparison, 13 percent of those who oppose the march plan to increase their political activity, including 18 percent who strongly oppose the demonstrations.

Americans are far more divided along partisan lines rather than gender lines toward the womens marches. Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats support the womens marches (87 percent), as do 58 percent of political independents. Republicans hold largely negative views of the marches, though they are not as unified as Democrats: 27 percent support the marches, while 59 percent are opposed.

Women and men are about equally positive toward the womens marches, 61 percent and 60 percent in support, respectively, though women are seven points more likely to express strong support. Within partisan camps, women and men report similar views of the demonstrations.

A 57 percent majority say they heard a lot about the womens march protests, suggesting the single day of demonstrations garnered as much attention as the tea party movement attained through months of organization and protests. Pew Research Center polls in 2010 found the percentage of registered voters who heard a lot about the movement rising from 31 percent in March to a peak of 54 percent in late October, just before congressional elections.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

See the article here:
United by post-inauguration marches, Democratic women plan to step up activism - Washington Post

Republican leadership: The new silent majority – The Hill (blog)

When Jeff FlakeJeff FlakeWestern Republicans seek new federal appeals court Republican leadership: The new silent majority Republicans who oppose, support Trump refugee order MORE, the junior Republican senator from Arizona, was a young congressional staffer serving in the House of Representatives in the mid-1990s, he signed up for an ill-fated staff delegation to Southern Africa, with a stop in Zaire, which is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Upon arrival, Flake, along with two other staffers, boarded a WWII-vintage DC-3 and flew from Kinshasa, the capital city, to Jamba, in Southern Angola. It was to be a mission of U.S. advocacy for peace.

I thought about that story this weekend, because it reminded me that the senator has guts, and is willing to take political risks.

That was certainly true this Saturday, when he became one of the first Republican members of Congress to speak out against President Trumps executive order to halt the entry into the U.S. of all citizens from seven designated, and largely Muslim, nations, and to freeze the re-settlement of refugees from war-torn Syria.

The executive order was issued without exception, regardless of visa or green card status, and irrespective of the circumstances of the individual or family impacted. It was a blanket action.

Flake tweeted out, "President Trump and his administration are right to be concerned about national security, but its unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry. Enhancing long-term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims."

My view on immigration executive order https://t.co/9PvXbqE5JK

Within 24 hours, a federal judge in Brooklyn, New York, issued an emergency stay, permitting the entry into the U.S. of those with valid visas and green cards.

But the collateral damage continues.

No doubt, all Americans should be concerned with protecting the homeland. But the White House executive order on immigration is just bad policy masquerading as political theatre.

There was no justification for the countries selected. No imminent threat. These seven nations were on a list that the State Department submits to the Congress of those states harboring terrorists or foreign fighters, without correlation to the threat posed to U.S. citizens in America.

The Trump surrogates who have come out to justify the White House action, including press secretary Sean Spicer, could not, or will not, walk viewers through their decision-making process. The righteousness of their position is non-negotiable.

If you are not with us, you are against strong borders, you are weak on immigration, you are against protecting America from Islamic Extremists. Such hyperbole is really dangerous, particularly when it is not challenged by those with the constitutional responsibility to do so.

Sean Spicer says Trumps immigration order isnt banning people. Thats a lie. https://t.co/2QHjr5r8SM

Other than Flake, the Republican members of Congress who have spoken out are few and far between. Only a few Houses members and a handful other senators have criticized the action, including Sen. John McCainJohn McCainDem offers bill to remove Bannon from National Security Council Republican leadership: The new silent majority GOP senators press Pence behind closed doors over refugee order MORE (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey GrahamSessions approved by Senate committee GOP going nuclear over Gorsuch might destroy filibuster forever Republican leadership: The new silent majority MORE (R-S.C.), who said in a joint statement "we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism."

Meanwhile, the Republican congressional leadership has been on mute. Said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellMitch McConnellManchin to meet with Trump's Supreme Court pick Schumer: Trump's Supreme Court pick will need 60 votes Centrist Dems won't rule out Supreme Court filibuster MORE (R-Ky.) on ABCs This Week, The president has a lot of latitude to try to secure the country, and Im not going to make a blanket criticism of this effort.

And yesterday, breaking his silence, Speaker of the House Paul RyanPaul RyanHouse begins to map out infrastructure strategy Homeland Security chairman suggests changes possible to Trump refugee order Republican leadership: The new silent majority MORE (R-Wis.) announced that he stood firmly behind Trumps move to suspend the refugee-resettlement program and temporarily block entry into the United States from seven majority-Muslim countries, but regretted the confusion surrounding its implementation.

I fully appreciate the importance of party loyalty, particularly during the first 100 days of a new presidency, but not when decisions are ill-constructed, and violate the fundamental values that define our country.

So good for Flake, for McCain, for Graham, and for all of those Republican members who challenged the president. Because in the end, blind loyalty is corrosive to our democratic institutions and will diminish our leaders, not empower them.

K. Riva Levinson is president and CEO of KRL International LLC, a DC-based consultancy that works in the worlds emerging markets, and author of "Choosing the Hero: My Improbable Journey and the Rise of Africa's First Woman President" (Kiwai Media, June 2016).

The views of contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

View original post here:
Republican leadership: The new silent majority - The Hill (blog)

Seven Questions To Ask About Republican Health Plans – Forbes


Forbes
Seven Questions To Ask About Republican Health Plans
Forbes
Republican proposals to replace Obamacare seem to be emerging at a dizzying pace. To help sort through them, my brother Jeff Goodman has prepared the chart below. Meanwhile, there are seven key questions to ask in evaluating the adequacy of each of ...
Republicans Must Use Obamacare Policies To Stabilize Healthcare Market, Top Republican SaysBuzzFeed News
A conservative Republican explains his plan to replace ObamacareVox
Nancy Pelosi: Republicans' health care plan will make America sick againCNN

all 620 news articles »

Visit link:
Seven Questions To Ask About Republican Health Plans - Forbes

It Would Appear Republican Senators Like The Muslim Ban Enough To Support Jeff Sessions – Above the Law

Jeff Sessions (Generated by JG JPEG Library)

The Jeff Sessions nomination has made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 11-9. Straight party-line vote.

Sigh.

I knew that the Sessions confirmation was likely unstoppable. I knew that it was a foolish hope to think that Republican Senators would turn on one of their former colleagues, simply because his record suggests hes a racist. Thats not a dealbreaker for Republicans. I knew that.

But I did think that the Muslim Ban might be so horrible to pull at least one or two of these guys off message. Ben Sasse is on the Judiciary Committee. Lindsey Graham is on the Judiciary Committee. So is Jeff Flake. Would none of them of the guts to demand that Sessions clarify his position on this executive order before rubber stamping his nomination?

Things did get heated during the final vote, but not from the people who mattered. Ted Cruz blasted Al Franken who blasted back, until John Cornyn white knighted Cruz. But if I tell you Al Franken was on one side and Ted Cruz was on the other, I dont even have to tell you the issue they were fighting over for you to make up your mind you who support. The Senators one might hope would give a second thought to Sessions after the Muslim ban, didnt waver.

The nomination will now go to the full Senate where Sessions is expected to be overwhelmingly confirmed. I should get used to typing that.

Sen. Jeff Sessions Wins Senate Committee Approval for Attorney General Post [NBC News]

Follow this link:
It Would Appear Republican Senators Like The Muslim Ban Enough To Support Jeff Sessions - Above the Law