Mediaboss Marketing

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Alex Wong/Getty Images and Win McNamee/Getty Images.

Last September, in a classified briefing, the CIA told senior lawmakers that Russia was working to elect Donald Trump president. In that meeting, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed skepticism of the intelligence and questioned its veracity. And he made a threat of sorts. At the time, the Washington Post reported that McConnell made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics. Put simply, if President Obama spoke out on Russian interference, McConnell would turn it into a partisan football. The president kept quiet.

Jamelle Bouie isSlates chief political correspondent.

Of the turning points that brought us to our present crisis, this is among the most consequential. McConnells stance in that briefing didnt just enable Russian hacking, it precluded official scrutiny and criticism of that hacking and effectively gave cover to key members of Team Trump as they sought information to use against Hillary Clinton. McConnell downplayed Russian interference for what were likely partisan reasons, with little knowledge of the scope of and even less fear for the far-ranging implications of what he was covering up. And in that, he presaged the response of the entire Republican Party, which didnt just utilize the hacked and leaked information but has looked the other way at every sign of something untoward involving Donald Trump and the Russian government.

Republicans are still looking the other way, even as that stance becomes more and more untenable. And they are looking awayas well as downplaying the seriousness of the issuedespite the real chance that the truth is more damning than what we know at the present, and that it may damage our country more than we want to believe. This see no evil response is especially egregious given recent revelations around Donald Trump Jr. and his efforts to obtain favorable information for his fathers campaign. We now know Trump Jr. responded enthusiastically to what was communicated as part of Russia and its governments support for Mr. Trump and arranged a meeting between himself, the lawyer in question, Jared Kushner, and thencampaign manager Paul Manafortas well as, weve just learned, a former Soviet intelligence official.

The Trump Jr. meeting is just the latest revelation in a kaleidoscope of connections that, even if not illegal (that were aware of as yet), should be alarming to anyone regardless of party. We know of a GOP operative who said he had contacted Russian hackers in an effort to find deleted emails from Hillary Clintons private server, and we know the operative said he was coordinating with Trump loyalist (and later short-time national security adviser) Michael Flynn. We know that Jared Kushner and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have had several contacts with Russian officialsincluding Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyakthat they omitted from official documents, and we know of various contacts and meetings and relationships between various Trump associates and assorted Russian business. It is true we have no concrete evidence of direct cooperation between Team Trump and the Russian government. There is no fire, so far. But there are thick bellows of smoke. We at least know that Trumps campaign was receptive to Russian help, even if they didnt coordinate or collude.

Its an implicit statement that foreign interference is an acceptable path to partisan gain.

There is a response to this, increasingly popular among Trumps defenders: Collusion isnt illegal. But thats almost beside the point. Democracy is only possible if there is confidence in the process, and foreign interventionpotentially solicited by one campaignis deeply damaging to that confidence. It threatens the legitimacy of the entire enterprise. For our system of government, the question of Russian interferenceand the extent of Trumps awareness and involvementis existential.

But that fact, and the steady stream of damning revelations, has not kept GOP lawmakers from giving Trump and his team the benefit of the doubt. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch called the Donald Trump Jr. story overblown, praising the 39-year-old as a very bright young man, a very nice young man. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis called the Trump Jr. emails a distraction. House Speaker Paul Ryan has been subdued, declaring it absolutely unacceptable that Russia has meddled in our elections but also refusing to say if he would have accepted a similar meeting with Russian intermediaries. McConnell punted, deferring to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation when questioned on recent revelations.

And while other Republicans, like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, used harsher language when referring to Team Trumps dalliances with Russia, theres no indication that any Republicans have wavered in their overall support for the Trump administration. There have been no calls for an even deeper investigation, no sense from GOP lawmakers that this is an urgent affair. Republicans are playing a dangerous game: covering up a scandal, without knowing the full scope of the offense.

What if future revelations detail actual collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government? Though there is currently no proof, do Republicans really believe the chances are zero that thisor even worse possibilitiesare true? What if strategic use of hacked information gave Trump a critical edge in the election? What if we learn that Russia actually influenced the results? Even if its actions didnt determine the eventual outcome, the resulting doubts would still be real and potent. By allowing the collapse of trust, the Republican Party will have abetted a wholesale subversion of American democracy.

If nothing else, Republican behaviorthe extent to which the party is still powering through a hyper-partisan agenda, even as evidence of something untoward mountsis an implicit statement that foreign interference is an acceptable path to partisan gain. At the risk of clich, it normalizes outside meddling in American democracy. And the 2016 election wont even be the end of Russian interference in our elections. There is real potential for further, more damaging hacking aimed at often-obsolete local election infrastructure. Preventing this is of national concern and requires cooperation from both sides at all levels of government. It requires both parties to show a commitment to the ideals of American democracy.

Unfortunately, its not clear that both parties have that commitment. The GOPs recent enthusiasm for voter ID laws (and the voter suppression they cause) has long since thrown that issue of commitment into question. But the institutional indifference to foreign intervention is something different. It signals a dangerously zero-sum attitude, where any priceincluding subversion from outside forcesis worth paying if it clears a path to partisan and ideological victory. Perhaps the worm will turn and Republicans will join Democrats in demanding real answers from President Trump and his associates. For now, at least, we have a Republican Party that values its success above the integrity of our system.

See original here:
The Most Dangerous Game - Slate Magazine

In last Sundays Denver Post, John Ingold wrote a front page story entitled The Faces of Medicaid. In this story he compassionately described a little girl who was disabled, a boy with severe autism and a senior suffering from the Alzheimers disease. Ingold highlighted their dependence on Medicaid, a shared federal/state partnership that provides a health care safety net for the poor and disabled. The Republican-led Congress is now considering significant reforms to Medicaid due to its sky-rocketing costs as part of efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare.

Historically, Medicaid is a shared costs program with the states and the federal government each paying about half its expenses. The Republican proposal moves Medicaid from its current archaic fee-for-service system to one where states can choose to either accept a fixed capitated amount per enrollee, increased annually by a formula of medical inflation plus one percent per year, or a block grant. Under the block grant, states would receive much more flexibility in how they manage the delivery of care for their Medicaid population and provide relief to their budgets by reducing the cost of delivering medical care. However, for vulnerable patients, like the ones highlighted in The Post story last Sunday, there remains the uncertainty of how changes to Medicaid may impact their access to care. Not surprisingly, the uncertainty of how changes to their care will affect them and their families has created an environment of anxiety and fear of the unknown.

The irony of this is that none of the programs described by Ingold were part of the ACA. What the ACA did was to create the Medicaid expansion program. Medicaid expansion added an entirely new class of recipients to Medicaid by making eligible able-bodied individuals, without dependent children, who earn up to 138% of the federal poverty level. The ACAs Medicaid expansion program has increased the number of Medicaid enrollees across the country by almost a third and is the main driver of Medicaids dramatic increase in spending.

On Tuesday, I sent a letter to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suggesting that Republicans revisit their approach to ACA reform and break it into three separate initiatives. The first would limit changes to Medicaid to only the ACA-created Medicaid Expansion program and apply any savings as an offset for the taxes and penalties that impact working and middle class families; the second bill would move all other ACA-related taxes out of the health care debate and into the pending tax reform bill; and the third would address the failing health insurance exchanges where individuals not eligible for Medicaid and who do not have employer provided health insurance now go for coverage. This part should be negotiated in a bipartisan manner outside of the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process.

Medicaid expansion:As noted above, the traditional Medicaid program is a shared responsibility with costs divided about evenly between the federal government and the states. Under the ACA, the Medicaid expansion program has the federal governments share starting at 100% and phasing down to 90% by 2020. It makes no sense to me that the federal government would favor able-bodied adults over all other Medicaid recipients, such as disabled children, whose costs are reimbursed at 50% by the federal government.

The ACAs Medicaid expansion needs to revert to the standard Medicaid cost shares that the states receive for all other Medicaid enrollees. This could be done by phasing it into effect by allowing all Medicaid expansion enrollees up to January 2020 to remain at the 90/10 split indefinitely while all new enrollees from January 2020 are at the standard reimbursement rate for each respective state (50% in Colorado).

Tax reform:There are 21 taxes and penalties in the ACA, many of which have nothing to do with health care. The ACA taxes on higher income Americans, such as the 3.8% surtax on net investment income, are better addressed in the impending tax reform bill, not during the health care debate.

Health insurance reform: The ACA promised lower health insurance rates but we all know that never materialized. Now the health care exchanges, created under the ACA, are failing as health insurance carriers are losing money on the plans offered through the exchanges with more and more of them dropping out of the program. When there are no carriers willing to provide policies for a certain state or region serviced by an exchange, the program collapses and consumers lose the ability to buy income-adjusted subsidized policies. I believe this is an area where Republicans and Democrats can come together to find a bipartisan solution that works to lower health insurance costs while maintaining consumer protections such as preexisting conditions.

Right now we in Congress have a bipartisan opportunity to fix the many problems Americans have in obtaining access to affordable health care and to responsibly address the unsustainable cost of the ACAs Medicaid Expansion.

Mike Coffman, a Republican, represents Colorados 6th Congressional District.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Originally posted here:
Three ways Republicans could better reform the ACA - The Denver Post

Make America Great Again was the battle cry of the Republican Party. After five months of pursuing greatness, this is what Republicans have come up with: Gutting the EPA (boiling water is OK). Making America the laughing stock of the world (yeah, that's right, we're crazy). Getting rid of health care (who needs it?). Restricting voter rights (it's OK, Russia will help us). Attacking the free press (that's only for democracies, all hail our dictator). And on and on and on.

Donald Trump as president has broken all the rules of human decency. He lies (daily), cheats, demoralizes and is a womanizer. He is a racist and bigot who exhibits extreme arrogance and pathological insecurities. The religious right is his base (see, we're crazy). But seriously, he is not the big player. Republicans are in their pockets so deep they've sold their souls. The sad thing about all this is his supporters. They still think there is something in it for them. Sorry, Republicans, you've been screwed and you're taking our country down with you.

Read this article:
Letter: Republicans are taking our country down - Salt Lake Tribune

Democrats risk losing election after election if they focus too much on winning back white blue-collar voters from PresidentTrump, according to progressives worried that young minorities are abandoning the party.

We are not going to get back to national majorities again without these voters, said Cornell Belcher, the top pollster who worked on both for former President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaTrump aims to use UN climate fund for coal plants: report Trump will ask Supreme Court to block judge's order on travel ban Axelrod: 'Implausible' POTUS didn't know about Trump Jr. meeting MOREs campaigns.

Belcher recently conducted focus groupsin Florida and Wisconsinfor theCivic Engagement Fund that point to the problems Democrats have with millennials of color. The group, founded by progressive leader Andrea Hailey, analyzes data from past elections to increase voter engagement.

Research conducted by the Brookings Institution shows that millennials will be the largest voting bloc in the U.S.by 2020. As of 2015, 44.2 percent of millennials are people of color.

You're damn right, I don't have any loyalty to Democrats, one participant in the Florida focus group said. If Republicans want to get real about shit that's happening in my community, I would vote for every one of them. Thenmaybe Democrats would take usserious too.

The Civic Engagement Funds work found that a number of black and Hispanic millennials either voted for a third-party candidate last year or stayed home.

In the focus group conducted by Belcher, millennials said they had no regrets about electing Trump through their actions.

Though they hold strong negative views of Trump and feel his presidency is an embarrassment, these voters do not regret voting third party or choosing not to vote in the 2016 election, the Civic Engagement Fund wrote in their report, provided to The Hill.

They view their decision as an effective means to shake up the system in 2016 and in future elections.

To win the voters over, theCivic Engagement Fund says Democrats shouldembrace issuesthat it says would appeal to young progressives.

In 2016, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonRussian lawyer who met with Trump Jr. was in touch with top Russian prosecutor Kushner scheduled to address congressional interns next week Artist fills a giant snow globe with Hillary Clintons unused election night confetti MORE did about as well as 2004 Democratic nominee John KerryJohn KerryWhite House says US-Russia cyber unit would not share intel 2 years in, Iran nuclear deal needs a healthy dose of transparency Progressives: Dems at risk of perennial election defeat MORE with black and Hispanic voters, but fell well short of Obamas numbers.

She won 88 percent of the black vote compared to just 8 percent for Trump. In 2012, Obama won 93 percent of the black vote compared to 6 percentfor Republican Mitt Romney.

In 2008, Obama won 95 percent of the black vote.

Clinton won 66 percent of the Hispanic vote compared to 28 percent for Trump. That compares to 71 percent for Obama in 2012 and 27 percent for Romney.

The drop in support from Obama could have cost Clinton, who won the popular vote over Trumpby 2.9 million votes, in key states.

In Milwaukee County in Wisconsin, Wayne County in Michigan and Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania, Clinton failed to turn out as many black voters as Obama. She lost all three states, the first Democratic presidential candidate to do so in decades.

The third-party vote also hurt Clinton, and the Civic Engagement Fund argues that an important number of those voters are millennials of color.

Belcher pointed to statistics thatshow that 8 percent of black voters ages 1829 voted for someone other than Clinton and Trump, while 6 percent of Hispanic voters of the same age group voted for someone other than the two candidates. In 2012, just 1 percent of black voters in that age group and 3 percent of Hispanic voters in that age group voted for third-party candidates.

Their breakaway cost Hillary the election, Belcher said.

In Florida, where Trump beat Clinton 48.6 percent to 47.4 percent, 3 percentofvoters backed a third party.

In Wisconsin and Michigan, 5percent backed a third party.

Its not about what Donald TrumpDonald TrumpRoger Stone says House testimony is delayed Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr. was in touch with top Russian prosecutor Foxs Shep Smith on Trump Jr. meeting: Mind-boggling deception MORE did, Belcher said, making the point that Trump matched Romneys numbers in 2012. Its what she failed to do.

Belcher and others argue that its not just a matter of a natural drop in black voter support for Democrats with Obama, the nation's first black president, off the ballot.

Clemmie Harris, a visiting assistant professor of political science at Syracuse University who specializes in African-American studies, said he warned Kerry of the dangers for Democrats12 years ago.

He argued that the message Democrats used for past generations of minority voters might not work for millennial minorities.

I stated that the Democratic Party will likely continue to fail in its desire to attract younger generations of blackvoters because its strategies for outreach to the African-American community were based on a civil rights era paradigm, Harris said.

I pointed to the party's continued reliance on traditional modalities of black leadership from the baby boomer generation rather than build a new brand that would point towards the future by cultivating a new post-civil rights generation of African American leaders.

The pressure from progressives comes as other Democrats say the party must do more to win back white working-class voters from Trump who rolled up figures across the country that surprised members of both parties.

The tensions within the Democratic Party over these issues can be seen everywhere from Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersMajor progressive group endorses Martha McSally challenger OPINION | Sanders triumphs over Trump in healthcare's battle of ideas Progressives: Dems at risk of perennial election defeat MOREs (I-Vt.) rise in power to the debate over whether Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should stay on as the Democratic leader in the House.

It is important for the Democrats to regain their standing with working-class voters, but not at the expense of other core constituencies like African-Americans or immigrants. That would be a huge mistake, said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. If the Democrats treat this as a zero-sum game, they will further hurt their coalition rather than strengthening and growing it.

Former aides to Clintonacknowledged that they could have done more in the campaign to win over young black and Hispanic voters.

There were a lot of levels of engagement, but ultimately I don't think we did enough,said one former Clinton campaign aide who dealt with millennial outreach.And I dont think we did a good job in creating a message that resonated with everyone.

An aide at the DemocraticParty also acknowledged the party's lack of focus on the key demographic."They're right. No doubt. And the numbers bear out."

Democratic National CommitteePolitical Director Amanda BrownLierman took it a step further.

It's not enough to show up at a black church or a historic black college every fourth October," she said. We want to be a presence every month, every year.

Brown Lierman said the party has taken steps to improving upon grassroots efforts in all 50 states andpromoting "the values we share"including healthcare, jobs and education as well as "pushing back against this administration's assault on civil rights.

Focusing on young voters can be a risky business.

Millennials are less likely to go to the polls than senior citizens. During the 2012 presidential election, 72 percent of Americans 65 and older cast their ballots, while only 41 percent of those 1824voted.

Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist, says the party needs to make a more concerted effort to get these voters to the polls.

Weve been looking for shortcuts when it comes to campaigning, Simmons said. Much of the focus is spent trying to turn out middle of the road, right-leaning swing voters and I think the balance is wrong. Were overloaded on swing voters but were under-resourced on base color persuasion.

Simmons isnt alone in that assessment.

Rep.EmanuelCleaver (D-Mo.) said in an interview that he and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus were sounding the alarm bells to the Democratic National Committee throughout the 2016 cycle and well before that to not just focus on persuading right-leaning voters.

Every member of the CBC was preaching that sermon for a decade, Cleaver said, adding that they were dismissed by the DNC because of polling, even while experts were saying the opposite.

Cleaver said ultimately, the millennials of color were not inspired.

That was not an inspirational election that we went through. It doesn't mean we lost them, he said. We just have to do more to get them active again."

View post:
Progressives: Dems at risk of perennial election defeat - The Hill

Progressives dial up pressure on Republican moderates over Senate health bill Miami Herald 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 »

Originally posted here:
Progressives dial up pressure on Republican moderates over Senate health bill - Miami Herald