Mediaboss Marketing

The Department of Justice announced Thursday that it had dropped a requirement that Harley-Davidson spend $3 million to fight air pollution as part of a settlement reached with the Obama administration.

The Milwaukee-based company will remain responsible for $12 million in fines for selling illegal Screamin' Eagle motorcycle tuners. But it will no longer be compelled to pay $3 million to an American Lung Association project promoting cleaner-burning cook stoves, according to the notice from the Justice Department.

Certain new developments led the United States and the defendant to agree to revise the consent decree in this manner, the announcement said. The original consent decree would have required defendants to pay a non-governmental third-party organization to carry out the mitigation project. Questions exist as to whether this mitigation project is consistent with the new policy.

It was the first time the Justice Department had put into place a Trump administration policy overturning Obama-era penalties intended to offer redress such as funding an antipollution initiative.

The settlement agreement withHarley-Davidson dates from August 2016and involves the manufacture and sale of around 340,000 illegalmotorcycle tuners.

The devices generate a higher amount of air pollutants. In addition, the company had alsoproduced andcommercialized over12,000 motorcycles without certification from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Under the agreement with the EPA, Harley-Davidson agreed to halt the selling of the engine super tuners, buy them back and destroy them, as well as cover a penalty for violating air pollution laws and sell only models of these devices that are certified to meet Clean Air Act emissions standards, a statement from the EPAsaid at the time.

Obama administration officials said it was a landmark enforcement action.

Given Harley-Davidsons prominence in the industry, this is a very significant step toward our goal of stopping the sale of illegal aftermarket defeat devices that cause harmful pollution on our roads and in our communities, Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden, head of the Justice Departments Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in a statement in August 2016.

Anyone else who manufactures, sells, or installs these types of illegal products should take heed of Harley-Davidsons corrective actions and immediately stop violating the law.

Harley-Davidson also agreed to pay an additional $3 million to the American Lung Association for a project to replace conventional wood stoves with cleaner-burning stoves in northeastern communities.

Thursdays decision reverses an Obama administration practice of having banks and companies donate money to outside groups as part of settlement agreements with the federal government.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the policy last month.

When the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the American people not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power, Sessions said in a statement.

But Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project and former director of the EPAs Office of Civil Enforcement, said such third-party payments were justified.

Once these companies are caught, you cant turn the clock back to undo the damage theyve done to public health or the environment, so getting part of the settlement to support actions to reduce that damage going forward helps to make the environment whole, which isnt accomplished just by paying penalties or returning to compliance, he said in an interview.

The American Lung Association said it was not informed in advance of the decision and would be forced to drop the program.

The Justice Department and Harley-Davidson declined further comment.

Go here to read the rest:
Trump DOJ gives Harley-Davidson $3 million discount on Obama-era pollution fine - Washington Post

Sen. Rand PaulRand PaulThe Hill's 12:30 Report Senate heads to new healthcare vote with no clear plan Overnight Healthcare: CBO predicts 22M would lose coverage under Senate ObamaCare replacement MORE (R-Ky.) is opening the door to helping GOP leadership get a healthcare bill over a key procedural hurdle.

The Kentucky Republican said on Thursday that he would support the motion to proceed to the House-passed healthcare bill, which is being used as a vehicle for any action, if he could get a deal on amendments.

"If they want my vote, they have to at least agree that we're going to at least have a vote on clean repeal," Paul told reporters.

"I think they're pretty equal in support. Let's do a random selection. Let's have three or four of them, put them in random order, the first day, equal billing. I think that's a compromise. I'm willing to get on the bill," he said.

Senators are expected to hold a procedural vote on Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellMitch McConnellParliamentarian deals setback to GOP repeal bill OPINION | How Democrats stole the nation's lower federal courts Flight restrictions signal possible August vacation for Trump MORE (R-Ky.) will need the support of at least 50 GOP senators to take up the House bill and let senators offer amendments, including clean repeal, the Better Care Reconciliation Act or other proposals.

Three GOP senators have said they would not take up the bill if it's to proceed to a repeal-only proposal. Paul and GOP Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) do not support the Senate GOP repeal-and-replace plan.

Paul is widely viewed as one of the most entrenched"no" votes within the GOP caucus on healthcare. If leadership is able to win him over, it could bolster their chances to at least debate if not ultimately pass healthcare legislation.

McConnell's math is even narrower with Sen. John McCainJohn McCainSen. Flake's GOP challenger: McCain should resign The Hill's 12:30 Report Armed Services leaders appoint strategy panel members MORE (R-Ariz.), who announced on Wednesday night that he had been diagnosed with brain cancer, out of Washington. It's unclear when he will return.

With McCain absent and all other 99 senators voting, McConnell can only afford to lose one GOP senator.

Paul stressed that he was not yet on board with voting "yes" on the initial hurdle, adding that there has been "resistance" to his idea.

If the Senate is able to take up the House bill any senator will be able to offer an amendment under an hours-long "vote-a-rama," but Paul said he wanted a guarantee his amendment wouldn't get buried in a "four in the morning" vote.

"Up front we have a vote on clean repeal, and maybe BRCA, and maybe Collins-Cassidy. I think the major proposals could be put at the very front. We debate them on the first day," he said.

GOP leadership signaled that they might not know what the ultimate outcome will be, repeal-only or repeal-and-replace, until after they get on the House bill.

"Asking what the first amendment is going to be actually misses the point, because anybody that's got a better idea can offer that and nobody can stop them," said Sen. John CornynJohn CornynSenators who have felt McCain's wrath talk of their respect for him Senate heads to new healthcare vote with no clear plan McCain absence adds to GOP agendas uncertainty MORE (R-Texas).

Link:
Rand Paul opens door to backing healthcare bill on key hurdle - The Hill (blog)

Earlier in the week, it looked like the Senate healthcare bill -- the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) -- was dead and buried. That very well may still end up being the case, but perhaps rumors of the proposal's death have been premature. According to multiple reports, Republican Senators are still in talks to revive the effort, with some signs of incremental progress starting to emerge. It sounds like developments are still quite some distance away from a House-style bounce-back, but it still sounds like marginal progress. First, Rand Paul -- who's faced some heat for his at-times contradictory intransigence -- appears willing to throw an important procedural bone to his fellow Kentuckian, Mitch McConnell:

Additional details from The Hill:

This strikes me as constructive and fair. Rather than debating nothing, upper chamber Republicans would consider a number of options, including (presumably) a finalized version of the still-evolving BCRA. Speaking of which, a new CBO score of the bill didn't result in too many changes -- people are again seizing on it to perpetuate the "22 million lose coverage" myth -- with one potentially-significant exception. McConnell has opted to leave a few more Obamacare taxes in place, freeing up more on-paper dollars to address concerns raised by moderate holdouts:

This appears to confirm whispers about GOP leaders' next move, first reported earlier in the week:

In a bold move to revive their healthcare bill, Senate Republican leaders are getting ready to propose giving $200 billion in assistance to states that expanded Medicaid, according to a person familiar with internal Senate negotiations. The huge sum would be funded by leaving in place ObamaCares net investment income tax and its Medicare surtax on wealthy earners, according to the source briefed on the proposalThe source said the aid would be targeted primarily at Medicaid expansion states, adding it would be distributed on the back end of the bills timeline, when the legislation would phase out the generous federal contribution for expanded Medicaid enrollment a central pillar of ObamaCare. The goal is winning the support of wavering moderate Republicans who will make or break the legislation...

On one hand, this move could pay double dividends. It would help assuage centrists who are worried about the (needed and fair) Medicaid reforms, while also eliminating two "tax cuts" (really reversals of tax increases) that Democrats have argued are sweetheart deals for the rich. On the other hand, with Paul still almost certainly in the "no" camp on final passage, joining at least Susan Collins and Mike Lee, McConnell is stallion grave danger of falling short of the requisite 50 votes -- a challenge made more difficult by John McCain's indefinite absence. Someone like Mike Lee's vote is likely essential for the legislation to have any chance of passage. How does greasing moderates' skids with more tax dollars help attract skeptical conservatives? Don't they need policy sweeteners, too? Ed Morrissey addressed this 'see-saw' problem yesterday:

That may appeal to the moderates, but the conservatives wont like it at all. They want the savings to go toward tax reform, which the savings from necessary Medicaid reforms will help buffer. While there is enough deficit improvement from these reforms to allow for horse-trading at this level, its about all McConnell can afford to give up while still qualifying the BCRA under reconciliation, and it could complicate the tax-reform effort that is next on the Republican agenda. Its tough to imagine Mike Lee and Ted Cruz coming along for this buyoff, let alone Rand Paul and if they dont, then the whole effort is pointless.

Cruz seems willing to play ball so long as his amendment survives, but Lee broke ranks on this front a few nights ago. Winning him over is just as crucial as bringing Capito or Heller into the fold. Perhaps if the chips are down and the Texan is satisfied with imperfect compromises, he can convince his Utah ally to hold his nose and pass something that improves upon the failing Obamacare status quo. Step one is getting onto the bill, which is by no means a foregone conclusion at all, even with Paul's concession. With votes supposedly scheduled for next Tuesday, let's stand by for updates. I'll leave you with this brutal takedown of baseless anti-BCRA propaganda offered by a former top Obama healthcare official. Cynical lies or revealing ignorance? Take your pick:

Read the original post:
Movement: Rand Paul Now Open to Motion to Proceed, McConnell Adds Medicaid Funding to Woo Moderates - Townhall

Republican Sen. Rand Paul sided with President Trump on Thursday after the commander-in-chief criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

Paul, R-Ky., tweeted Thursday morning:

I agree with @realDonaldTrump, his Attorney General should not have recused himself over reported incidental contacts with Russian officials.

The tweet comes after the president told The New York Times that the attorney generals recusal was very unfair to the president.

How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? Trump said, slamming Sessions. If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, Thanks. Jeff, but Im not going to take you.'

The libertarian-leaning Paul went on to take a shot at Sessions over a separate policy move a day earlier -- tweeting his concerns about the DOJ's shift on what's known as asset forfeiture.

SESSIONS OPENS DOOR FOR POLICE TO SEIZE ASSETS, FACES GOP PUSHBACK

What Im most concerned about though is the Attorney Generals actions yesterday to push forward with federal asset forfeiture, Paul tweeted.

He added, Asset forfeiture is an unconstitutional taking of property without trial. Its wrong and I call on the AG and Administration to stop.

Pauls comments come after Sessions ordered the expansion of the governments ability to seize suspects propertya move that put him at odds with Republicans who have slammed the practice as a violation of civil rights.

Sessions touted the use of asset forfeiture as a key tool for law enforcement and said it weakens criminal organizations and the cartel.

Fox News Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.

Brooke Singman is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.

Read more:
Rand Paul sides with Trump on Sessions slam - Fox News

The greatest trick any politician can pull off is to get his self-interest and his principles in perfect alignment. As Thomas More observed in Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons," "If we lived in a State where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would make us saintly."

Which brings me to Sen. Rand Paul, the GOP's would-be Man for All Seasons. Paul emerged from the smoldering debris of the Republican health care-reform train wreck as a figure of high libertarian principle, the shining "no" vote on any compromise that came short of full repeal.

"Look, this is what we ran on for four elections," Paul told Neil Cavuto of Fox News. "Republicans ran four times and won every time on repeal Obamacare, and now they're going to vote to keep it. Disappointing."

I found many of Paul's arguments and complaints entirely persuasive on the merits. But there have been times when I had to wonder if the merits were all that was driving him.

Was it just a coincidence that the bill was terribly unpopular in his home state of Kentucky, where more than one in five Kentuckians are on Medicaid?

This is the problem. When touting your principles is a politically expedient way of avoiding accountability, it's hard to tell whether principles or expedience is in the driver's seat. But not impossible.

Paul learned politics on the knee of his father, Ron Paul, a longtime Texas congressman and irrepressible presidential candidate. In the House, the elder Paul earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he voted against nearly everything on the grounds that it wasn't constitutional or libertarian enough.

"I'm absolutely for free trade, more so than any other member of the House," he told National Review's John Miller in 2007. "But I'm against managed trade."

So Paul opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement and all other trade deals, not on Trumpian protectionist grounds but in service to his higher libertarian conscience, which, in a brilliant pas de deux, landed him in the protectionist position anyway.

Ron Paul loved earmarks. He'd cram pork for his district into must-pass spending bills like an overstuffed burrito and then vote against them in the name of purity, often boasting that he never approved an earmark or a spending bill.

In 2006, Republicans proposed legislation to slow the growth of entitlements by $40 billion over five years. Democrats, as usual, screamed bloody murder about Republican heartlessness and voted against it. And so did Ron Paul on the grounds the reform didn't go far enough. Man, that sounds familiar.

Now I can't say for sure that Rand Paul is carrying on the family tradition. He is different from his dad in many ways.

And yet: Every time health-care proceedings moved one step in Paul's direction, he seemed to move one step back. Sen. Ted Cruz offered an amendment that would open up the market for more flexible and affordable plans, like Paul wanted. No good, Paul told Fox's Chris Wallace. Those plans would still be in the "context" of the Obamacare mandates.

"My idea always was to replace it with freedom, legalize choice, legalize inexpensive insurance, allow people to join associations to buy their insurance," Paul said.

Sounds good. Except a provision for exempting associations from Obamacare mandates was already in the bill.

Paul insists he's sympathetic to the GOP's plight and its need to avoid a midterm catastrophe. (It would look awful if the party did nothing on health care at all.) His solution? Just repeal Obamacare now, and work on a replacement later. "I still think the entire 52 of us could get together on a more narrow, clean repeal," he told Wallace.

That sounds like a constructive idea, grounded in principle.

And yet: That's what GOP leaders wanted to do back in January. And one senator more than any other fought to stop them, and even successfully lobbied the White House to change course and do repeal-and-replace simultaneously. Guess who?

"If Congress fails to vote on a replacement at the same time as repeal," Paul wrote back then, "the repealers risk assuming the blame for the continued unraveling of Obamacare. For mark my words, Obamacare will continue to unravel and wreak havoc for years to come."

In the wake of the Senate bill's collapse this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he's all for a clean repeal, and so does Rand Paul. For now.

Jonah Goldberg is a senior editor of National Review. Email him at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com.

Excerpt from:
Rand Paul elusive on health care: Jonah Goldberg - GoErie.com