Mediaboss Marketing

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's latest bidto salvage the GOP campaign to roll back the Affordable Care Act collapsed Tuesday as centrist Republicans balked at legislation to repeal the healthcare law now and develop an alternative later.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski became the third GOP lawmaker to reject McConnell's new strategy, making it impossible for Senate Republicans to bring up the plan.

Earlier Tuesday, Maine Sen. Susan Collins and West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, said they would not back the "repeal and delay" approach.

I cannot vote to repeal Obamacare without a replacement plan that addresses my concerns and the needs of West Virginians, Capitosaid in a statement.

McConnell on Monday night floated the plan to vote for legislation repealing most of Obamacarenow with a plan to develop an alternative over the next two years.

That strategy, which GOP leaders once championed, was revived after it became clear that McConnell, of Kentucky, could not get enough Republican votes for his bill repealing and replacing large parts of the 2010 law at the same time.

But the "repeal-and-delay" planwould cause even more widespread disruption to the nations healthcare system and throw millions more Americans off the insurance rolls.

An independent analysis of such an approach by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office earlier this year concluded that it would lead to 32 million more uninsured Americans over the next decade.

That is some 10 million more than predicted under the Senate repeal-and-replace plan that was scuttled Monday night, which was projected to increase the number of uninsured by 22 million by 2026.

At the same time, repealing major planks of Obamacarewithout a replacementwould cause insurance premiums to jump by 20% to 25% next year for Americans who rely on insurance marketplaces, budget analysts concluded.

And premiums would double by 2026, according to the report.

Similar warnings came from across the nations healthcare system earlier this year when Republicans contemplated a straight repeal bill that followed the template of a repeal-and-delay plan that Congress sent President Obama in 2015 and which he subsequently vetoed.

Delaying such a replacement could create unacceptable instability in the insurance market jeopardizing the healthcare of more than 20 million Americans many of whom are cancer patients and cancer survivors with a preexisting condition, Chris Hansen, head of the American Cancer Societys advocacy arm, said in January.

Even many leading Republican senators havevoiced major concerns about repealing the current law without some replacement.

Congress should replace and repeal at the same time, which requires figuring out how to replace it before fully repealing it,Senate health committee chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said in December.

UPDATES:

10:20 a.m.: This article was updated with Sen. Murkowski's rejection of the new Obamacare repeal plan.

This story originally published at 8:02 a.m.

View post:
McConnell's latest Obamacare repeal plan also collapsing amid more Republican defections - Los Angeles Times

THE TICKER

Then-PresidentObama hugs then-Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)after signing the Dodd-Frank law on July 21, 2010. (AP/Charles Dharapak)

When it comes to Wall Street regulations, congressional Democrats have spent the year playing defense. But as the seventh anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act approaches Friday, a coalition of progressive groups is pushing the party to get back on offense.

The groups including major labor unions, lefty activists, faith-based organizations and consumer advocates, organized under the banner of"Take on Wall Street" aim to crank up grassroots heat on elected Democrats. They want party leaders, though deep in the minority, to revive some of the get-tough measures they campaigned on last year, when they expected to win at least the White House.

The coalitions agenda remains a work in progress. So far it includes proposals to close the carried interest loophole for investment managers; impose a financial transaction tax of .03 percent on most trades; end the deductibility of executive bonuses; revive the Glass-Steagall laws separation between commercial and investment banking; and slow the revolving door between industry and government.

None of those ideas is new. And the coalition plans to build on them, says Shane Larson, the Communications Workers of Americas legislative director, whos coordinating the coalitions efforts.

It plans to get started now, since the collapse of the Obamacare repeal drive on Capitol Hill is giving way to a debate over a tax code overhaul. Larson says the coalition will start a conversation about Wall Street paying its fair share this week by firing up an email list that reaches hundreds of thousands of progressive voters.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.). (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The push comes as Democrats begin to reconsider a governing vision. The party is still reeling from its shock November loss, and leaders are divided over what their message should be as the midterm campaign season swings into view.

A Washington Post-ABC poll released over the weekendshows just 37 percent of voters believe Democrats stand for something, while 52 percent say the party just stands against Trump.

Coalition officials think an anti-Wall Street agenda could help solve that problem. A poll released Tuesday found broad bipartisan support for stricter industry regulation. The survey, commissioned by Americans for Financial Reform and the Center for Responsible Lending, shows 78 percent of respondents in favor of tougher rules and enforcement on the sector, versus 11 percent who say practices have changed enough that no more restrictions are needed.

To us, its crystal clear, Larson says, adding coalition members have been frustrated that Democrats havent yet devoted enough attention to kitchen-table concerns. Democrats are focusing more on Russia than core economic issues that our members really want to hear people talking about.

Democrats say they have only a limited ability to steer the conversation these days in the face of a news avalanche thats so far consisted mostly of Russia revelations and the health-care debate (and the fact they don't control Congress or the White House). Russia is a big deal in the news for reasons that are beyond anyones control besides Donald Trump, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), deputy chair of the national party, told me. And we have been trying to protect this country from having their health-care stripped away. This has been the most salient issue thats been in front of the Congress.

Ellison, who also sits on the House Financial Services Committee, says Democrats will be talking more about the need to tighten the screws on big financial institutions. That would mark a shift for the party. Despite running just last year on a platform promising aggressive new regulations, Democrats have split this year over simply defending the status quo and endorsing tweaks to ease the industrys burden. Says one party strategist in favor of a tougher anti-industry stance, "Some cover from these groups would be helpful."

MONEY ON THE HILL

House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.)(EPA/JIM LO SCALZO)

A budget resolution now represents the key to unlocking what remains of President Trump's economic agenda. The House Budget Committee today is proceeding with a markup of its spending blueprint, a measure if adopted that would allow Republicans to pass a tax-code overhaul without any Democratic votes (which, of course, didn't work out so well for them onObamacare). AP's Andrew Taylor reports: "But it also proposes trillions of dollars in cuts to the social safety net and other domestic programs and puts congressional Republicans at odds with Trump over cutting Medicare. It also would sharply boost military spending... Unclear, however, is whether GOP leaders can get the budget measure through the House. Conservatives want a larger package of spending cuts to accompany this falls tax overhaul bill, while moderates are concerned cuts to programs such as food stamps could go too far."

Congressional reporters and commentators were quick to note Tuesday that the measure faces long odds, and Republicans don't have any better options.

From Politicos Rachael Bade:

From Roll Call's Jennifer Shutt:

Author and writer David Dayen:

From Politicos Sarah Ferris:

Roll Call's Lindsey McPherson has this good rundown of the possible paths forward for a Republican budget resolution. There could be some fireworks at the markup today, especially if Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) follows through with this threat to offer a poison-pill amendment targeting a border adjustment tax.

Financial markets likewise are skeptical that the Trump team will be able to deliver on the sweeping tax overhaul it's promised. The dollar tumbled to a 10-month low after the health-care bill's implosion stoked new fears among investors about the prospects for the administration's economic agenda,Lisa Twaronite of Reuters reports. And/but: Wall Street analysts are still holding out hope for a more targeted package of tax cuts, CNBC's Patti Domm reports.

Meanwhile, the Obamacarerepealdebacle may have taught the Trump administration there are limits to what it can accomplish, even with nominal control of both chambers of Congress. The White House is trimming its ambitions for the tax code overhaul it hopes to take up next. Administration officials are now privately talking about a corporate tax rate between 20 and 25 percent, Politico's Josh Dawsey and company report. That's a major move from the 15 percent rate that Trump has talked up publicly and a bow to the reality that the math and politics of a tax code rewrite are exceedingly difficult, despite what Trump and his top officials have said.

TRUMP TRACKER

President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping meet on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany, July 8, 2017. (REUTERS/Saul Loeb, Pool)

Trump is long on tough talk and short on action when it comes to trade. That's the conclusion Chinese governementofficials have drawn from his first six months in office, a period they entered fearing what the new president might do to make good on his China-focused saber rattling on trade during the campaign. The Wall Street Journal's Jacob Schlesinger reports: "But Mr. Trump has since dropped his threats to impose drastic penalties against Chinese importsan across-the-board tariff, or a formal charge of currency manipulationand has so far focused on small market-opening agreements, instead..U.S. business groups, which had originally braced for the hostilities Mr. Wang referred to, are now growing worried the Trump administration may not press China hard enough for broad reforms they consider necessary to pry Chinas economy open." The two sides meet in Washington today for economic talks.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchinand Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross say they want to see some "concrete" stepsby the Chinese to open their markets. Steve Holland of Reuters reports: "Ross said some initial deals announced in April, as part of a 100-day economic plan aimed at reducing the U.S. trade deficit with China, were a 'good start.'These include the sale of U.S. beef in China for the first time in 14 years and commitments to open up narrow areas of China's financial services sector, such as credit card services and credit ratings agencies. Some of these agreements are yet to be implemented, and there has been little evidence of progress on thornier issues, such as excess capacity in China's steel and aluminum sectors."

Mexico and Canada likely see the early record of the Trump team differently. The Trump administration on Monday released its goals for renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, and it includes what my colleague Ana Swanson calls some "fighting words." Here she walks through four points in particular from the 17-page document that the governmentsof our largest export markets won't be happy about.

This feels like another unforced error on the Russia front by the White House:"Trump had undisclosed hour-long meeting with Putin at G-20 summit." Karen DeYoung and Phil Rucker report: "After his much-publicized two-and-a-quarter-hour meeting early this month with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Germany, President Trump chatted informally with the Russian leader for up to an additional hour later the same day. The second meeting, undisclosed at the time, took place at a dinner for G-20 leaders, a senior administration official said. At some point during the meal, Trump left his own seat to occupy a chair next to Putin. Trump approached alone, and Putin was attended only by his official interpreter."

The White House announced Tuesday that Trump will nominate former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman to serve as ambassador to Russia. Huntsman, a Republican, served as Obama's first ambassador to China.

POCKET CHANGE

JP Morgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon walks next to Chairman and Chief Executive of the Goldman Sachs Group Lloyd C. Blankfein at the White House after a meeting with President Obama on March 27, 2009. (REUTERS/Larry Downing)

Goldman Sachs's bond-trading unit turned in its second bad quarter in a row,prompting a sell-off and raising new questions about the firm's strategy. The Wall Street Journal's Liz Hoffman: "Goldman, once the fiercest trading shop on Wall Street, reported a 40% decline in its fixed-income trading business that lands it at the back of the pack among big U.S. banks to report quarterly results. The results will likely amplify criticism that Goldman hasnt responded quickly enough to dramatic changes in trading trends and market conditions. A rejiggering of the divisions leadership last fall failed to jolt the desk from its malaise, which culminated in having its revenue surpassed in the first quarter by Morgan Stanley, Goldmans rival historically weaker in debt trading."

Morgan Stanley, meanwhile, beat expectations, posting a $1.76 billion second-quarter profit.

Big U.S. banks are starting to pay corporations, financial firms and rich people more to hold on to their deposits, but ordinary consumers will have to wait longer to see more than a few pennies for every $100 they stash in their accounts.

Reuters

Chipotle confirmed that several customers who ate at a location in Sterling, Virginia, reported norovirus symptoms.

CNBC

THE REGULATORS

The Securities and Exchange Commission buildingin Washington. (AP/Andrew Harnik)

Trump is set to nominateformer Senate Republican aide Hester Maria Peirceto the Securities and Exchange Commission. Peirce, who was nominated by then-President Obama but stalled out in the Senate, is likely to face stiff opposition from Democrats. Eric Beech of Reuters reports: "Liberal firebrand Senator Elizabeth Warren is highly critical of Peirce, who is a member of the Federalist Society, an organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers. Peirce could be instrumental in carrying out Trump's plan to reform regulations imposed after the 2007-09 financial crisis and recession. She recently edited and contributed to a book published by the right-leaning Mercatus Center that called for totally restructuring the country's financial regulation." She'd fill one of two empty slots on the five-member SEC.

Executives that represent Wall Street interests pitched ideas on Tuesday about ways to scale back securities regulations that they blamed for stifling the market for initial public offerings.

Reuters

"If you see Cohn go to the Fed, to me, that's an escape path for him and that means that Goldman has given up on the Trump administration," Chris Whalen says.

CNBC

DAYBOOK

Today

Coming Up

THE FUNNIES

The Posts Tom Toles says Republicans werent exactly leveling with you about health care all along

BULL SESSION

Here's what you need to know about the House GOP budget plan:

Washington reacts after the collapse of the GOP health-care bill:

The Post's Glenn Kessler explains:No spending cuts to Medicaid? Then no tax cuts either:

Fans of 'goat yoga' move to a different bleat:

More here:
The Finance 202: Progressives revive attacks on Wall Street in health care's wake - Washington Post

UPDATE: Women's March organizer Linda Sarsour has responded to Tapper, looping him in with her "alt-right" attackers.

***Original Post***

The Women's March, part of the "Resistance" that has emerged in the era of President Trump, has a knack for championing convicted cop killers. The group, which recently went on a 17-mile march in Washington, D.C. against the NRA, declared itslove for Assata Shakur on Twitter.

Shakur, also known as Joanne Deborah Chesimard, is currently on the FBI's Most Wanted list for murdering a New Jersey police officer in 1977. She escaped prison two years later and is now hiding in Cuba. What a perfect person to celebrate!

Condemning cop killers is something upon which I hope both Republicans and Democrats can find consensus. Why, then, CNN's Jake Tapper wondered, aren't any progressives speaking out against the march?

When a social media user challenged Tapper to suggest that most people believe Chesimard to be innocent, he replied with a simple, "nope," and let this FBI document do the talking.

Nevertheless, the Women's March activists are doubling down on their praise of Chesimard. Sophie Ellman-Golan, who serves as the deputy head of socials and outreach for the group, responded to Tapper's tweet with a sarcastic message that read, "Right, because the FBI has a history of being really fair to well-known Black activists." The Women's March Twitter account also defended its initial tweet celebrating Shakur's birthday by sending out a 20-tweet explainer, as documented by the Free Beacon.

Social media users who didn't buy the Women's March's explanation thanked Tapper for exposing the group's radicalism.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined Tapper in his outrage. "Unbelievable that anyone would idolize a cop killer. Chesimard belongs in jail, & #Cuba should return her to the US so she can face justice," he tweeted.

Hopefully some of his Democratic colleagues will echo his calls.

Oh, and it's always worth mentioning that Women's March organizer Linda Sarsour once called for jihad against President Trump.

Even The New York Times Noticed the Dems' Obstructionism

Original post:
Tapper: Why Aren't Progressives Calling Out the Women's March ... - Townhall

Condescension being a hallmark of liberalism is an age-old discussion. Yet, after Hillary Clintons stinging 2016 defeat to Donald Trump, some are wondering if their attitude to people who dont think, act, or live like them might be an issue in terms of bridging the cultural divide we have (i.e. urban vs. rural). Business Insiders Josh Barro, who also hosts Left, Right, and Center on KCRW, commented on this issue and offered ways in which his fellow Democrats can stop being so annoying. There are parts with which I disagree - namely that were a socially liberal country. I still think were right-of-center, but Barro is blunt and straightforward in his assessment that liberals have just become insufferable in their intolerance towards people who dont live in the urban bastions of progressivism. As a result, they have become the moral busybodies that was often a criticism of conservatism. Barro calls this particularly problem within liberalism the hamburger problem. And by cultural disconnect, hes not talking about policy stances either, which is often an excuse for liberals to think that theyre not out of touch.

Suppose you're a middle-income man with a full-time job, a wife who also works outside the home, and some children. Suppose it's a Sunday in the early fall, and your plan for today is to relax, have a burger, and watch a football game.

Conservatives will say, "Go ahead, that sounds like a nice Sunday." (In the Trump era, they're not going to bother you about not going to church.) But you may find that liberals have a few points of concern they want to raise about what you mistakenly thought was your fundamentally nonpolitical plan for the day.

Liberals want you to know that you should eat less meat so as to contribute less to global warming. They're concerned that your diet is too high in sodium and saturated fat. They're upset that the beef in your hamburger was factory-farmed.

They think the name of your favorite football team is racist. Or even if you hate the Washington Redskins, they have a long list of other reasons that football is problematic.

Beyond what you're doing this weekend, this movement has a long list of moral judgments about your ongoing personal behavior.

The SUV you bought because it was easier to install car seats in doesn't get good enough gas mileage. Why don't you have an electric car?

The gender-reveal party you held for your most recent child inaccurately conflated gender with biological sex. ("Cutting into a pink or blue cake seems innocent enough but honestly, it's not," Marie Claire warned earlier this month.)

You don't ride the subway because you have that gas-guzzling car, but if you did, the way you would sit on it would be sexist.

No item in your life is too big or too small for this variety of liberal busybodying. On the one hand, the viral video you found amusing was actually a manifestation of the patriarchy. On the other hand, you actually have an irresponsibly large number of carbon-emitting children.

[]

Liberals like to complain that working-class voters who back Republicans have voted "against their own self-interest," by which they implicitly mean economic self-interest. This idea could benefit from a little introspection.

Do liberals go into the voting booth and choose a candidate based on a narrow conception of economic self-interest? Of course not.

[]

Objectively, you would think the groups most substantively exposed to risk from the Trump presidency are low-income people who face benefit cuts and members of minority groups against whom he whips up and indulges negative sentiment.

Yet, as the Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini has pointed out in his analyses of turnout in House special elections, the "resistance" surge in Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout is occurring almost entirely among college-educated whites. That is, the people most alarmed by Trump seem to be the ones who stand to lose the most cultural power, not those who stand to lose the most materially.

Barro later goes into how liberals can fix this perception that could hurt outreach initiatives since whether they like to admit it or not, Democrats need to win back white working class voters (i.e. Trump voters). One is working to diffuse the high tension on cultural issues and recognizing that this is not a sign of defeat or compromise. Actually, this can be applied to a whole host of issues that liberals will fight to the death on, like immigration. Here's the rest of his advice on what liberals should do to temper their cultural intolerance:

Don't tell people they should feel guilty. As I discussed at the top of this piece, Americans are broadly open to liberal positions on cultural policy issues. Over the last few decades, they have increasingly internalized the idea that the government should let people be free to do what they want in their lives. So embrace that ethos by emphasizing how liberal policy positions would let members of all sorts of groups live their best lives, protected from discrimination and harm. Don't tell people they should feel bad about living their own lives as they want.

Say when you think the liberal commentariat has gone overboard. While former President Barack Obama has urged people to eat less meat, usually the leading voices of the new liberal moralism are not politicians. Less-smug liberal commentators will usually protest that these voices are marginal, especially the college students who get so much attention on Fox News for protesting culturally insensitive sushi in the dining hall. If these voices are so marginal, it should be easy enough for Democratic politicians to distance themselves by saying, for example, that some college students have gotten a little nuts and should focus on their studies instead of the latest politically correct cause. Showing that you also think liberal cultural politics has gotten a little exhausting is a good way to relate to a lot of voters.

Offer an agenda that provides benefits people can see as mattering in their daily lives. If you want voters to refocus away from petty cultural fights and toward public policy, it's not enough to turn down the temperature on culture; you need a policy agenda they can relate to. I wrote in December about some ideas to do this though of course, you could also make such an agenda in farther-left flavors.

Don't get distracted by shiny objects. If the government can't do anything about the problem you're discussing if it's purely a matter of the cultural discourse should you spend your time on it and risk alienating people on the opposite side of the issue? Probably not.

You can debate among yourselves if this will actually take hold with Democratic Party leaders and the elite that keep the war chests funded. Right now, lets say its very possible that these could take hold. Democrats have no economic message for the 2018 midterms at present. Theyre divided, leaderless, and searching for a route to political revival. You never know what could be added into the mix, if they ever get to itfor a winning political message. At the same time, theres plenty to suggest this wont happen. The number of rural Democrats on the Hill is slim. Overall, theyre pretty much a species on the verge of extinction. They were all but wiped out in 2010. In Appalachia, a once robust bastion of Democratic support among working class whites, Hillary Clinton only won 21 out of its 490 counties. Thats a total collapse and Democratic elites may not want to even bother with rebuilding the party apparatus out there, though its necessary if they want to expand the map, especially for state and local races which are key to keeping a talent pool well maintained for future national races. Also, these people dont think white voters matter, which was crystal clear with the Clinton campaign.

Condescension seems to have its roots in American liberalism. Whenever its mentioned I always think back to the story between an aide and Adlai Stevenson, who, like Clinton, is also a two-time presidential loser; Stevenson ran and lost twice in 1952 and 1956. The tale goes that the aide was confident of a Stevenson win, saying to the Democratic candidate something along the lines of Mr. Stevenson, you have the thinking people on your side to which Stevenson replies, ah, but I need a majority. Snobbery and condescension may have always been ingrained in liberal politics, but social media made this virus airborne.

Even The New York Times Noticed the Dems' Obstructionism

Read the original post:
Business Insider: Liberals Can Win Again If They Stop Being Moral Condescending Busybodies - Townhall

Corporate Australia is facing criticism from the Liberal Party for not providing greater support.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reportedly told a group of chief executives at a private dinner in Sydney on Monday night they needed to do more in terms of donating to the party and getting behind the government's pro-business policies.

The Australian Financial Review reported one source saying the prime minister had been "testy" about the point and was "determined to pursue anyone who should be putting their hand in their pocket".

Mr Turnbull was forced to chip in $1.8 million of his own money to keep the Liberals' 2016 election campaign afloat.

Liberal MP Jason Falinski said Mr Turnbull had a right to be angry with corporate Australia.

"The business community has just simply vacated the field," the NSW MP and former Liberal executive member told Sky News on Wednesday.

"What is business doing in terms of arguing against the bank (royal commission), arguing for business tax cuts, arguing for industrial relations reform - I can't see it."

He said the "massive behemoths" in the banking sector were not making the case for better financial regulation.

The problem had existed since the 2007 election, which was won by Labor on the back of a multi-million-dollar union campaign against the Howard government's WorkChoices laws.

"In the 2007 elections unions put in tens of millions of dollars into the campaign and where were they (business)? Still arguing about whether they should put in $50,000. Nothing has improved. It's just go worse," Mr Falinski said.

Visit link:
Liberals cry poor over corporate support - NEWS.com.au