Mediaboss Marketing

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell needs the support of 50 of 52 GOP senators to proceed to a floor debate on the bill, and two senators have already said they will not support that motion. That means just one more GOP senator coming out against the motion to proceed would stop the bill, as written, in its tracks.

Increasing the pressure: GOP leaders have restarted the clock by publicly stating that they'd like a vote (or at least to take the procedural steps toward a vote) next week. The White House is also making its push -- on Twitter, by phone and behind closed doors -- in an effort to net President Donald Trump a major legislative achievement ahead of lawmakers' August recess.

The White House legislative affairs team held meetings on the legislation with Senate leadership "all afternoon" on Friday, a senior White House official said. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will be making calls throughout the weekend on health care as well, the official said.

McConnell recently announced that the recess would be delayed by at least two weeks, but it still wasn't clear going into the weekend whether the additional time would help the GOP leadership get this legislation through the chamber.

Here's what we know after this week:

The revised legislation also has $45 billion in opioid-treatment funding -- a top request from senators like Rob Portman of Ohio and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia -- and money for states meant to lower premiums for high-cost enrollees.

In several key areas, though, the new bill remains unchanged.

The new version does not address moderates' concerns about cuts to Medicaid, which the original bill would slash by $772 billion by 2026. That would leave an estimated 15 million fewer people insured by the program.

The Congressional Budget Office is expected to release its score of the revised bill early next week, when the White House will continue its lobbying effort, the senior White House official said.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky: "The new bill is the same as the old bill -- except for worse," he said Wednesday. Paul, who reiterated his opposition Thursday, is facing pressure from the White House to support the bill. While on an official trip to Paris, Trump called Paul urging him to vote yes, an aid to Paul told CNN.

The revised Senate bill left Medicaid virtually untouched, meaning the serious concerns of moderates (particularly those in Medicaid-expansion states) were not addressed. And with the Cruz amendment in the bill, all eyes are now on moderates.

Heller is another one to watch. In the past, he has sharply criticized the Senate's version of the bill, and he's recently indicated that he's in lockstep with his state's Republican governor, Brian Sandoval. The state's chief executive this week did not sound enthused with the bill, particularly as it relates to residents in his state covered under the Obamacare-era expansion of Medicaid.

"I'm greatly concerned and very protective of the expansion population," Sandoval told CNN Thursday at the National Governors Association meeting in Rhode Island. "They are living healthier and happier lives as a result of their receiving coverage, and for them to lose that at this point would be very hurtful for them. And it's about people -- this is about people. And 210,000 people in my state."

In addition to these senators, a number of others have remained noncommittal. They include: Murkowski; Jeff Flake of Arizona; Mike Lee of Utah; John Hoeven of North Dakota; Bill Cassidy of Louisiana; Thom Tillis of North Carolina; Ben Sasse of Nebraska; Thad Cochran of Mississippi; Cory Gardner of Colorado; and Todd Young of Indiana.

The President tweeted four times about health care on Friday from France. He said Vice President Mike Pence is "working hard" on it and that he'll have his "pen in hand" to sign a bill into law.

Pence touted the Senate bill -- and stressed his view that the Affordable Care Act is collapsing -- during remarks Friday to a group of about 30 governors at their group's summer meeting.

"Let me be clear: President Trump and I believe the Senate health care bill strengthens and secures Medicaid for the neediest in our society, and this bill puts this vital American program on a path to long-term sustainability," he said, without noting that the bill also cuts Medicaid spending from current projections.

"I understand and appreciate, as the President does, the concerns that many of you have as we talk about Medicaid in the future going forward. Our administration's paid very close attention to this issue," he said.

The President remains focused on getting a deal on health care that's better for the American people, a senior administration adviser told CNN on Friday.

"If they don't get this done now, I don't know when it'll happen," the adviser said. "We've had seven years to create an alternative plan."

CNN's MJ Lee, Lauren Fox, Tami Luhby, Eric Bradner, Liz Landers, Ryan Nobles and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

Follow this link:
Crucial week for Republicans' plan for health care: What you need to know - CNN

WASHINGTON Senate Republican leaders cant seem to find the votes to repeal and replace Obamacare. Theyve had no help from Democrats, of course, who oppose what theyre doingand havent been consulted anyway. But theyve also had no help from two senators in their own party: Susan Collinsof Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Collins and Paul have been a hard no on both of the GOP health care bills unveiled over the last month. Thats made things exceptionally difficult for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),who can afford to lose only two Republican votes. Its left his latest Obamacare repeal bill hanging by a thread, as a handful of Republicans on the fence threaten to produce the fatal third vote.

Theyre an unlikely pair to ended up united against their party on something. Collins is a pro-abortion rights moderate from a state that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton carried in 2016; Paul is a libertarian-leaning conservative who regularly rails against big government. But their different ideologies explain why they are so opposed to what GOP leaders are doing.

The thrust of Collinsconcern is that Republicans are trying to repeal too much of the Affordable Care Act, to the point where people will get hurt. The GOPs latest bill, which was released Thursday, would cut overall Medicaid funding by more than 30 percent and eliminate the Affordable Care Acts expansion of that program. That would mean millions fewer people would have access to Medicaid, namely low-income and elderly people.

Collins wasted little time announcing her opposition to the bill and instead urged her colleagues to change course and work on a bipartisan fix to Obamacare.

Collins also has problems with the sheer number of people who would lose health care coverage under the bill and the plans negative effect on health care access in rural areas.

The Congressional Budget Office hasnt yet released its estimates on the revision of the health care bill, but under the original Senate version, which isnt that different from the new one,roughly 22 million people would lose coverage.

Susan Collins

Paul, meanwhile, argues that the GOP health care billswouldnt repeal enough of the Affordable Care Act. Hes complained all year about Republicans leaving too much of the law intact, and, when GOP leaders unveiled their initial health care bill in June, he ripped it as too expensive and doomed to fail.

The bill is just being lit up like a Christmas tree full of billion-dollar ornaments, and its not repeal, Paul fumed in a Fox News Sunday interviewearlier this month.

Now the Republicans are getting so weak-kneed theyre saying, Oh, were afraid to repeal the taxes, he continued. What happened to these people? They all were for repealing Obamacare. Now theres virtually no one left.

The Kentucky senator is even less happy with the revised health care bill, which includes new insurance deregulation provisions. The language was added to win support from conservatives, but it comes with more federal spending a big no-no for Paul, who fundamentally disagrees with the idea of the government subsidizing health care.

He aired his grievances in a Thursday op-ed in The Washington Times, headlined Crony Capitalism Isnt a Right, So Why Does Senate Healthcare Bill Give Insurance Companies the Right to a Bailout?

I really cant describe my level of disappointment, Paul wrote. Crony capitalism is enshrined as a right by the new GOP Obamacare bill, while that bill does little to nothing to repeal Obamacare or fix our ailing healthcare sector.

Read this article:
How 2 Republicans Ended Up At Odds With Their Party On Health Care - HuffPost

Photo: Johnathon Henninger / For Hearst Connecticut Media

Tim Herbst signs a banner for a friend after announcing his run for Governor of Connecticut at Trumbull High School on Thursday, June 8, 2017.

Tim Herbst signs a banner for a friend after announcing his run for Governor of Connecticut at Trumbull High School on Thursday, June 8, 2017.

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton attended the announcement by New Milford's Pete Bass of his candidacy for mayor on Tuesday evening, July 11, 2017, in New Milford, Conn.

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton attended the announcement by New Milford's Pete Bass of his candidacy for mayor on Tuesday evening, July 11, 2017, in New Milford, Conn.

Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti speaks after being announced as grand marshal of the 109th Bridgeport Columbus Day Parade at Port 5 Naval Veterans Hall in Bridgeport, Conn. on Monday, June 19, 2017.

Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti speaks after being announced as grand marshal of the 109th Bridgeport Columbus Day Parade at Port 5 Naval Veterans Hall in Bridgeport, Conn. on Monday, June 19, 2017.

Prasad Srinivasan, Republican

Prasad Srinivasan, Republican

Peter Lumaj of Fairfield, Republican candidate for Connecticut Secretary of the State.

Peter Lumaj of Fairfield, Republican candidate for Connecticut Secretary of the State.

Republicans torn over publicly-funded state elections

The top Republican contenders for governor find themselves at cross-purposes with lawmakers from their own party over publicly funded elections in 2018, with millions of dollars for their campaigns at stake in upcoming budget negotiations.

They have spent months trying to qualify for public funds under Connecticuts clean-elections program, a slog that requires them to raise $250,000 from individuals in $100 increments or less. Some are more than half-way toward unlocking $1.4 million for the GOP primary and $6.5 million for the general election if they become the nominee.

But GOP budget hawks want to cut the program to help close a $5 billion deficit, saying that the potential $40 million cost of subsidizing candidates up and down the ballot is too much and that there is a shortfall for the first time in the programs history.

The schism has cast a shadow of uncertainty over the wide open race going into a the special budget session, which had been scheduled for Tuesday but has been delayed by majority Democrats to build support for their plans.

Obviously, having raised almost 60 percent of the grant and being on the back nine, I hope going through this process the program will still be in place, said Tim Herbst, Trumbulls first selectman. Now youve had people give you a quarter of a million dollars for nothing.

The cost of publicly-funded elections in Connecticut

2008: $9 million

2010: $27.3 million*

2012: $10.8 million

2014: $33.4 million*

2016: $11.5 million

2018: $40 million

* denotes governors race

denotes forecast by the Office of Fiscal Analysis

Source: Citizens Election Program

Tarnished by a pay-to-play scandal that led to the resignation and imprisonment of Gov. John G. Rowland a decade ago, the state created the program to wean candidates off special-interest money and free them from the time required for fundraising.

The programs popularity has been on the rise, with $33.4 million awarded to 287 candidates for statewide office and the Legislature in 2014. Nearly half of that total $15.8 million was spent on the governors race.

GOP leaders are warning of a $10 million shortfall for 2018, however. Until now, the program has relied on proceeds from the sale of abandoned property and unclaimed bottle deposits to cover its cost.

Were broke and its kind of tough to say, Were going to cut Medicaid and were going to cut social services programs so we can fund pencils, pens and political paraphernalia, said Senate Republican Leader Len Fasano, of North Haven. I dont think anybody has an advantage or disadvantage if the system goes away.

House GOP Leader Themis Klarides, of Derby, said its about priorities.

I dont think anybodys definition is taxpayer-funded elections, Klarides said. Im sure there are people that wouldnt be happy about it.

Longtime GOP Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti, who is coming off a record-setting quarter in which he raised $145,090, said now isnt the time to abandon the program.

Its a little late in the game to be talking about that unless they have a sunset clause that gets you past the next cycle, Lauretti said. You know 15 to 20 people have started down this path. Think of the thousands of Connecticut residents that have donated. Isnt that a little disingenuous to them?

If lawmakers want to rein in the programs expenses, Lauretti said, they should look at the grant amounts for legislative candidates and the types of expenditures allowed.

I.e. golf balls and golf tees with their name on them and tee-shirts, Lauretti said.

If it wasnt for the program, Lauretti said, he probably could not afford to run for governor.

Im not independently wealthy, number one, he said. Good, bad or indifferent, the program does demonstrate to a certain degree that a candidate has support.

As a state legislator, Republican Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton voted against publicly-funded elections. Now as a potential third-time candidate for governor, he has raised $162,000 to try to qualify for the program.

Ive never believed that the government should be funding campaigns, particularly a government thats $5 billion in the hole, Boughton said. If I were governor, I would seriously look at dismantling the program.

Boughton said he is prepared for whatever outcome, including going back to his 2,000 contributors if the program and its $100 cap are abandoned.

Right now, were operating under the rules that are put in place, Boughton said.

Westport businessman Steve Obsitnik, whose exploratory committee raised $201,567 during the second quarter, said he doesnt need public funds to be viable.

These are tough financial times for Connecticut, Obsitnik said. I defer to the Legislature.

Bridgeport Republican Dave Walker, the former U.S. comptroller general, said the program needs to be reformed, but should be preserved. He would eliminate grants for House and Senate candidates, as well as do away with separate primaries and grants for lieutenant governor.

I could probably have an advantage if it was eliminated, but I think it has intellectual merit at least for the office of governor, Walker said. You want to try to encourage people who may not be wealthy to run and try to provide a level playing field.

State Rep. Prasad Srinivasan, R-Glastonbury, who has raised $205,103, said he could accept the program being suspended, but only if it is part of a comprehensive budget fix.

Obviously, its going to impact me very personally, he said. At the end of the day youve got to do whats right. I think (the program) is an equalizer. There are parts of a budget that you like and there are parts of the budget you dont like.

Fairfield Republican immigration lawyer Peter Lumaj has raised $281,130 for his exploratory committee for governor, but only $76,000 counts toward public financing because of a high percentage of out-of-state donors.

I've never believed that taxpayers should foot this bill, but unfortunately, professional politicians have created a system in which individuals cannot be competitive in Connecticut elections unless they are self-funding millionaires or participants in (the program), Lumaj said. We need to reexamine donation and expenditure limits, within reason, to fix this problem. If we address those concerns we can create an election environment that remains competitive while removing the burden off of the backs of hardworking taxpayers.

Herbst said lawmakers should consider scaling back the grants to the levels before 2010, when Democrats overrode a veto of then-GOP Gov. M. Jodi Rell and doubled the funds available to governor candidates.

Look, they wouldnt be fiscal conservatives if they werent looking at it, and, for that, I respect them, Herbst said of GOP leaders.

http://twitter.com/gettinviggy ; nvigdor@hearstmediact.com; 203-625-4436

See the rest here:
Republicans torn over publicly-funded state elections - CT Post

Progressives dial up pressure on Republican moderates over Senate health bill Sacramento Bee Moderate Republican senators who opposed the original Obamacare replacement bill will face increased pressure from health care advocates to hold the line next week in a possible vote on the revised legislation. Republican senators who are on the fence ... and more »

Original post:
Progressives dial up pressure on Republican moderates over Senate health bill - Sacramento Bee

By KRIS CRAIG

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Committee unapologetically rigging its primaries against progressive Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016, a growing number of progressives and young voters are choosing to leave the Democratic Party, citing what they describe as irreparable corruption.

Many others, however, believe the best way to fight back is to effect a hostile takeover of the party from within. The fact that we have these competing views is not a problem.

What is a problem, however, is the prevailing assumption among both factions that these two strategies are mutually exclusive. I dont believe that they are.

Proponents of an internal revolution within the Democratic Party, led by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, will tell you that the two-party duopoly makes any effort to run for higher office outside one of the two major parties virtually impossible. Instead, theyre focusing on taking over the party at the local levels and launching primary challenges against the establishment-supported incumbents. These are sound ideas, though detractors are quick to point out that they do have flaws.

Progressives who have decided to kick the Democrats to the curb argue that fighting for equal representation within a party that has already demonstrated that its willing to violate even its own rules in order to prevent that from happening is a futile endeavor. After all, if too many people are voting for the candidate that party leaders dont like, they can always just prevent people from voting again by altering their party affiliations in closed primary states without their consent like they did in 2016.

Thats in addition to the corporate media already declaring the establishment candidate the winner before a single vote is cast. These folks, often identified by the #DemExit label, mostly believe that starting a new party or joining an existing third party is the only answer.

Therein lies the problem, according to many Berniecrats. While theres a consensus among #DemExit supporters that its time for progressives and young people to leave the Democratic Party, nobody can seem to agree on exactly where we should all go from there. In our severely outdated first-past-the-post voting system, scattering votes across many different candidates and parties essentially guarantees that your movement will have little to no representation.

Both of these factions make valid arguments, which has led to a lot of debate and disagreement. Unfortunately, this also has resulted in a growing amount of animosity and division among progressives.

In some cases, Ive even seen outright in-fighting where each group accuses the other of not being progressive and/or trying to sabotage the movement. This needs to stop as it accomplishes nothing and plays right into the hands of those in the political establishment who would like to see us remain marginalized and ignored.

So which strategy do I think is best? Thats simple: Both. Theres no reason why we cant fight to take over the Democratic Party from within while also putting pressure on them in the form of outside challenges, especially if the two factions coordinate their efforts.

For example, Berniecrats who manage to gain enough control at the state level can push the states to adopt ranked choice instant-runoff voting, which would mean that independent and third-party candidates would no longer be at a disadvantage because lesser-evilism would no longer apply. Everyone could vote for whom they want without having to worry about helping the Boogey Man du jour win.

This will enable the #DemExit faction to start really making gains, diminishing the power and resources of the two major parties as they lose seats all across the country. That, in turn, should weaken the neoliberal party establishment enough for the Berniecrats to finally succeed in claiming the Democratic Party as their own.

The blueprint to our success lies in mutual cooperation, not converting everyone to the same way of thinking. People who want to leave the party should do so, while those who choose to remain should not be discouraged.

Instead of focusing on trying to convince the other side that your way is better, try to think of how you could use the benefits of your way to help them with what theyre trying to accomplish. Diversity of perspectives is not a weakness.

It is perhaps our greatest strength. So lets use it and work together toward our common goals.

Kris Craig is a software engineer from College Place, Wash., who is active in progressive politics. He served as both precinct captain and local delegate for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders during the primaries.

Read the original here:
Kris Craig: Berniecrats and #DemExit progressives must work together - WatertownDailyTimes.com