Archive for March, 2017

Republicans ‘Turn The Cannons On Each Other’ In Week Of Public Feuding – NPR

President Trump has lashed out at the conservative House Freedom Caucus for its role in bringing down the GOP health care bill, while House Speaker Paul Ryan is urging the party to work together. Getty Images hide caption

President Trump has lashed out at the conservative House Freedom Caucus for its role in bringing down the GOP health care bill, while House Speaker Paul Ryan is urging the party to work together.

President Trump escalated a Twitter war with lawmakers in his own party on Thursday evening, calling out three members of the Freedom Caucus by name.

"If @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan and @Raul_Labrador would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform," he tweeted.

The attack follows an earlier 140-character missive aimed at both the Freedom Caucus and Democrats. It's a curious tactic, given that Trump's only two options to pass his agenda through Congress are to either unite the fractured GOP or to form new alliances across the aisle.

"The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!" Trump tweeted on Thursday morning.

It did not change hearts or minds.

"Freedom Caucus stood with u when others ran. Remember who your real friends are. We're trying to help u succeed," replied Rep. Ral Labrador, R-Idaho, a member of the group of conservatives who helped take down the GOP health care bill.

The public and personal feuding among Republicans percolated throughout the U.S. Capitol this week as GOP confidence in their party's ability to govern alongside the Trump administration is shaken.

"It's clear that tensions are running high," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. "I believe we can come together, and the only way for us to govern and deliver on our promises is for Republicans not to turn the cannons on each other, but stand united behind shared principles, and that's what I hope all of us do."

The White House has provoked congressional Republicans further in recent days by suggesting he'll just go around them and cut deals with Democrats instead.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., tried to head off any potential alliance, telling CBS: "I don't want that to happen." Ryan's reasoning correctly is that if the president needs Democrats to pass major legislation, it will be a lot less conservative than anything the speaker hopes to enact in the next two years.

Ryan was more conciliatory toward the president than Labrador.

"This is a can-do president, who's a business guy, who wants to get things done, and I know that he wants to get things done with a Republican Congress," Ryan told CBS. "But if this Republican Congress allows the perfect to be the enemy of the good, I worry we'll push the president into working with the Democrats. He's suggested as much."

Across the Capitol, Ryan's argument did not impress at least one prominent fellow Republican. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn. called out Ryan, again on Twitter: "We have come a long way in our country when the speaker of one party urges a president NOT to work with the other party to solve a problem."

House Republicans' health care failure has left Senate Republicans wondering if they need to shoulder more of the legislative burden. In that event, Democrats will be integral to the process because of the 60-vote hurdle to do most of the legislating in the Senate.

For their part, Democrats say they are ready if not exactly excited to work with the president. "We say, 'any time, anywhere,' " House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters on Thursday. "We never stand in the way of anyone meeting with a Democratic or a Republican president."

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., chairs the New Democrat Coalition, a faction of about four dozen business-friendly Democrats that, in theory, stand ready to work with the president on certain agenda items, like infrastructure spending. But Himes hasn't heard from the president. "No, the White House has not reached out," he said. "We're totally willing to engage in that, provided that it's consistent with our values."

Himes also said the burden to extend the olive branch rests on the other side of the aisle. "Look, these guys run the show now. They've got the Oval Office, they've got the Senate and the House. If they're interesting in having our support, it's kind of on them to come to us."

At least in the short term, Republicans have decided they need to work with Democrats to keep the government open. The federal government faces a shutdown on April 28 unless Congress enacts another stopgap spending bill or passes the remaining annual spending bills.

Seeking to head off another shutdown fight, GOP leaders and the appropriations committees are working behind the scenes on a bill to enact the remaining 11 spending bills at previously agreed to spending levels that conservatives opposed in the past. They are also looking to separate out the president's funding request to start building a U.S.-Mexico border wall, and the speaker has indicated Republicans will not add in "poison pill" policy riders on things like defunding Planned Parenthood.

All of those concessions are intended to bring Democrats on board to make sure Congress can pass the legislation. The end result is a less conservative vision of how Congress should spend the nation's money. If it works, it might also provide a framework for how this Congress will work going forward.

More here:
Republicans 'Turn The Cannons On Each Other' In Week Of Public Feuding - NPR

House Republicans to Trump: Steal All You Want – New York Magazine


New York Magazine
House Republicans to Trump: Steal All You Want
New York Magazine
Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee voted this week not to compel the release of President Trump's tax returns. And Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, who claimed before the election that he had years of ...

and more »

Read the original:
House Republicans to Trump: Steal All You Want - New York Magazine

The Hot Bible Verse That Republicans Use to Justify Drastic Cuts to Food Stamps – The Root

Stephen Morton/Getty Images

Here are two things you can bet money on: There will always be an interpretation of a Bible verse to justify just about anything, and that interpretation will most times be found by a white, male Republican. The latest biblical verse being used to justify cuts to SNAP, aka food stamps, is Thessalonians 3-10.

[T]he Scripture tells us ... for even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: If a man will not work, he shall not eat, Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said during a House of Representatives hearing on nutrition, according to the Washington Posts Wonkblog. Arrington continued: And then he goes on to say, We hear that some among you are idle. I think that every American, Republican or Democrat, wants to help the neediest among us. And I think its a reasonable expectation that we have work requirements. I think ... that gives more credibility, quite frankly, to SNAP.

Arrington isnt even original, as Wonkblog points out. Hes the third Republican to use the hot biblical verse to justify gutting the public assistance program. Of course, many Republicans believe the myth that the majority of people on public assistance are merely freeloaders just trying to take the system for a ride. The Post points out that many people on SNAP cant work, either because they dont have job skills, theyre mentally ill or disabled, or theyre children who have recently aged out of foster care. But when have Republicans ever let facts stop them?

No one is suggesting that people who dont want to work should get benefits,Josh Protas, the vice president of public policy at MAZON, told Wonkblog. There are stereotypes about SNAP recipients and myths about the program that are very harmful to people in need who could take advantage of it.

The Post also notes that the unemployed make up a small percentage of those who actually use SNAP: According to the Department of Agriculture [pdf], nearly two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, seniors and people with disabilities. Of the remaining third, the vast majority are employed. According to the USDA, only 14 percent of all SNAP participants work less than 30 hours per week.

And as USA Today reports, recipients get between a lousy $1.40 and $1.90 per meal.

But yes, lets all band together and take that from them because the Biblewhich also promotes kindness, generosity, love; you know, all the basic tenets of being a nondeplorablesupposedly says so.

Read more at Wonkblog and USA Today.

More here:
The Hot Bible Verse That Republicans Use to Justify Drastic Cuts to Food Stamps - The Root

Will Republicans learn the limits of oppositional politics? – BBC News – BBC News

Will Republicans learn the limits of oppositional politics? - BBC News
BBC News
Is the Republican healthcare bill a single failure or the symptom of a party that's turned itself into a protest movement?

and more »

See the rest here:
Will Republicans learn the limits of oppositional politics? - BBC News - BBC News

Progressives think McConnell is bluffing on the nuclear option – Hot Air

posted at 1:21 pm on March 31, 2017 by John Sexton

It has been something of a mystery why Democrats are driving so hard toward a filibuster that seems destined to result in the GOP going nuclear but a report today at the Hill suggests an answer. Progressives think Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is bluffing.

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee,called the premise of not filibustering Gorsuch to preserve the filibuster in the future absurd.

Going along with a right-wing justice so later on you have the right to block a right-wing justice is ridiculous, he said. Thats why were urging Democrats to filibuster.

Green added that said its not clear Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) actually has the votes to go nuclear.

It will be a challenge for McConnell to get the votes and we cant let him win something as important as a Supreme Court seat on a bluff, he said. Thats crazy.

Lets just review the facts here.On Tuesday, McConnell said flatly that Judge Neil Gorsuch would be confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court next Friday. McConnell said this despite the fact that Democrats have organized a serious filibuster effort which, as of this morning, has 37 Senators saying they will oppose Gorsuch. Theres really only one way to interpret McConnells certitude that Gorsuch will be confirmed: Hes prepared to go nuclear. And the fact that Senators Orrin Hatch and Lindsay Grahamhave both indicated they are ready to push the button suggests McConnell already has some Senators eager to go along.

Ed touched on this yesterday but even Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill realizes this filibuster is likely to drive the GOP to go nuclear. Theyre not going to let us do that too long before they move it to 51 votes, McCaskill told a group of Democratic donors. She added, God forbid, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, or (Anthony) Kennedy retires or (Stephen) Breyer has a stroke or is no longer able to serve. Then were not talking about Scalia for Scalia, which is what Gorsuch is, were talking about Scalia for somebody on the court who shares our values.

Thats a pretty good summary of what could very well happen here before Trump leaves office. And yet, from the excerpt above, its clear progressives dont really believe it. As Adam Green says, they dont want to lose to McConnell on a bluff.

What I dont think Green and others realize is that efforts to paint Gorsuch as a right-wing extremist havealready failed. A plurality of Americans believes he should be confirmed despite the low approval ratings for the President who nominated him. This is a losing battle.

In addition, Democrats really would have an easier time making the case against a conservative judge who was replacing a progressive on the court. Most Americans cant even name a single sitting Justice. So this battle is not about Americans detailed knowledge of the Court and its decisions. Its much simpler than that. Most people are basing their judgment about these nominees on something like what sounds fair. It sounds fair to most Americans to replace Justice Scalia with a similarly conservativejudge. But it will sound less fair to replace, say, Justice Ginsburg with a very conservative judge.

But none of that will matter if the nuclear option has already blown away the filibuster. Democrats are taking a huge gamble here that McConnell is bluffing. Theres a very good chance it could backfire on them in a spectacular way.

Read more here:
Progressives think McConnell is bluffing on the nuclear option - Hot Air