Mediaboss Marketing

New York Times

Democrats, Buoyed by GOP Health Defeat, See No Need to Offer Hand New York Times WASHINGTON President Trump, looking for a flicker of hope after his Republican majority fell to pieces last week, predicted that the opposition party would eventually give in: I honestly believe the Democrats will come to us and say let's get ... Democrats determined for 2018 | Government and Politics | qctimes ...Quad City Times Oregon Democrats call for party unity in wake of TrumpEast Oregonian (subscription) After Trumpcare Failure, Democrats Have a Small Window to Change Perception of Healthcare in AmericaThe Daily Banter all 50 news articles »

Read this article:
Democrats, Buoyed by GOP Health Defeat, See No Need to Offer Hand - New York Times

WASHINGTON Fresh off a defeat on U.S. healthcare legislation, the White House warned rebellious conservative lawmakers that they should get behind President Donald Trump's agenda or he may bypass them on future legislative fights, including tax reform.

The threat by White House chief of staff Reince Priebus to build a broad coalition on tax reform that could include moderate Democrats came as the Republican head of the tax-writing committee in the House of Representatives said he hoped to move a tax bill through his panel this spring.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady said his committee had been working on tax reform in parallel with the failed healthcare reform push.

"We've never stopped working," Brady told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo." "We will continue to make improvements."

Brady said the committee planned to move on the bill in the spring. He said he wanted the House blueprint to be the basis for Trump's tax reform plan rather than have competing versions from Treasury and the White House.

Investors on Wall Street worry the healthcare bill's defeat bodes poorly for tax reform. Equities have rallied since Trump's election partly on expectations of tax cuts. Economic growth would be more modest without fiscal stimulus and U.S. equity index futures fell to a six-week low on Sunday.

Both Trump and Priebus have scolded hardline conservatives who rejected legislation backed by the White House to replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Priebus held out the possibility of working with moderate Democrats as well as Republicans to pass other aspects of Trump's agenda, such as his proposed budget, the revamp of the tax code and a renewed effort at healthcare reform.

"If we can come up with a bill that accomplishes the goals of the president with Republicans alone, we'll take it and we'll move forward with it," Priebus said.

But he added: "I think it's more or less a warning shot that we're willing to talk to anyone. We always have been and I think more so now than ever."

In an embarrassment for Trump, who had campaigned for the White House on what he said were his skills as a dealmaker, the healthcare bill was pulled from the floor of the House of Representatives on Friday because it failed to draw enough support from within Trump's Republican Party.

Objections from members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and from moderate Republicans left leaders short of the votes needed for passage, with Democrats unified in opposition.

Trump failed to win over the Freedom Caucus lawmakers despite courting them intensively. Outside conservative groups such as the Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America that are closely aligned with the Freedom Caucus had strongly opposed the Republican healthcare bill and urged lawmakers to reject it.

In a tweet on Sunday morning, Trump lashed out at both the Freedom Caucus and the conservative groups, saying their actions had left "Democrats smiling in D.C."

Priebus said it was a "real shame" that conservative lawmakers decided not to get behind the healthcare bill.

"And I think the president is disappointed in the number of people he thought were loyal to him that weren't," he said.

MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUT

Trump has put tax reform at the top of his legislative agenda now that the healthcare bill has failed.

Priebus said Trump was not backing off his view that the tax reform bill needed a border tax. He also said that the measure would include a middle-class tax cut that he said might help to attract votes from moderate Democrats.

In a sign that not everyone in the Freedom Caucus was in line with its approach and a positive signal for Trump as he looked ahead to tax reform, U.S. Representative Ted Poe, a Texas Republican, said he had resigned from the group.

"In order to deliver on the conservative agenda we have promised the American people for eight years, we must come together to find solutions to move this country forward," Poe said in a brief statement. "Saying no is easy, leading is hard."

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump over his handling of the healthcare bill and said Republicans would face roadblocks from conservatives on other issues.

"They're going to repeat the same mistake they made on Trumpcare with tax reform," Schumer told ABC's "This Week."

He urged Trump to go a different path: Reject the Freedom Caucus and work with Democrats.

"If he changes, he could have a different presidency," Schumer said. "He's going to have to tell them he can't work with them and we'll certainly look at his proposals. But it's going to be guided on our values."

Republican Representative Mark Meadows, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, said on Sunday he was optimistic on tax reform and that his group could support a plan that is not revenue neutral.

"So, tax reform and lowering taxes, you know, will create and generate more income," he said. "And so we're looking at those, where the fine balance is. But does it have to be fully offset? My personal response is 'no.'"

Another Freedom Caucus congressman, Jim Jordan, rejected fingerpointing over the collapse of the health bill.

"Instead of doing the blame game, let's get to work," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

(Additional reporting by Jessica Toonkel and Jennifer Ablan in New York; Writing by Caren Bohan; Editing by Andrew Hay and Peter Cooney)

WASHINGTON U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday will announce that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will oversee a broad effort to overhaul the federal government, a White House official confirmed.

U.S. stocks slid on Monday amid concerns that Republican President Donald Trump may struggle to push a sweeping overhaul of the tax code through Congress in the wake of his party's failure last week to pass broad healthcare legislation.

Go here to see the original:
White House looks past conservatives on tax reform - to Democrats - Reuters

Charles Schumer, the leader of the Senate minority, has said that he will ask Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch. In response to that request, the Senate Democrats have four options. Each of them has considerable appeal, but each also runs into significant objections.

1: Return to normal order. At least since the unsuccessful nomination of Judge Robert Bork in 1987, Supreme Court nominations have been highly politicized and occasionally ugly, and the situation has been getting worse. Before Borks defeat, it would have been possible to say that so long as a Supreme Court nominee meets basic tests of character and competence, the Senate will confirm him -- and that members of the opposing party will not mount a serious protest. After all, Antonin Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98-0 in 1986.

At least on some days, a principled Democratic senator might be tempted to think: Lets stop this, here and now. Judge Gorsuch clearly passes the character and competence tests. Thats that. An advantage of this approach is it might reduce partisan contestation over Supreme Court nominees in the future.

The chief objection is that if youre in a real fight, and if the national stakes are high, unilateral disarmament can be a terrible idea. After the Republicans disgraceful refusal even to allow a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, should the Democrats suddenly capitulate, when there is no guarantee that Republicans will ever show reciprocity? Wheres the good in that?

2: Return to normal order -- while rejecting judicial extremists. Democrats might call a halt to the confirmation wars of recent years and return to the approach they embraced during the Bork nomination. Sure, presidents are entitled to deference, but the Senate need not confirm people who are out of the mainstream. Robert Bork, no; Anthony Kennedy, yes.

Democrats could endorse this approach while sincerely insisting on the need to return to normal order, and while signaling to the White House and to Senate Republicans that they are prepared to be reasonable. In one version of this approach, Democrats might even vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch on the ground that he is a distinguished nominee who falls within the mainstream. In another version, Democrats might vote a firm but nonetheless gracious and respectful no (without resorting to the filibuster), carefully engaging with the nominees record to argue that he has not established that he is a mainstream figure.

The appeal of an approach of this sort is it could well reduce the intensity of future confirmation battles, while leaving the Democrats room to fight hard against genuinely unacceptable picks. But the objection is obvious: It might seem to be another form of capitulation, especially in the immediate aftermath of the Garland fiasco.

3: Protect liberty and equality on principle. For many Democrats, the issue is simple. In view of the immense importance of Supreme Court nominations on the most fundamental questions -- racial justice, privacy, executive power, gun control, campaign finance -- it is perfectly appropriate for senators to oppose nominees on the ground that they disapprove of their likely judgments, above all if those judgments would be destructive to liberty and equality.

From this point of view, partisan battles over Supreme Court nominations are a reasonable response to the centrality of the Supreme Court to American life -- and to the fact that political convictions inevitably affect the justices votes. Democrats can explain to the public that their full-throated opposition is principled, in the sense that it depends on what the nominee is likely to do.

The appeal of this position is that it is refreshingly candid. The objection is that it acknowledges that confirmation wars are here to stay, which would be pretty terrible news.

4: Its all about political power. The Republicans success in blocking the Garland nomination might mean that with respect to Supreme Court nominations, the only real question now is: Do you have the votes?

If Hillary Clinton had been elected president, and nominated someone as far to the left as Judge Gorsuch is to the right, there is no question that Republicans would have done whatever they could to stop that nominee. They used their power to block Judge Garland. Why shouldn't Democrats do the same?

The best answer is that two wrongs do not make a right. The system for confirming Supreme Court justices is badly broken, and if you insist that its all about power, it will stay that way.

For this reason, we should rule the fourth approach out of bounds. And under current conditions, no Democrat is likely to be drawn to the first.

That leaves the second and third options, and, for many Democrats, the choice between the two will not be obvious. But in my view, the balance of considerations favors some version of the second. It reflects a sensible understanding of the system of separation of powers, and it would be a form of statesmanship. We can certainly use some of that.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Cass R Sunstein at csunstein1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net

Link:
The Best Option for Democrats on Gorsuch - Bloomberg

New York Times

To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party New York Times When I came to this country from Ireland some 45 years ago, a cousin, here 15 years before, advised me that Catholics vote Democratic. Having grown up in the Irish Republic, I was well disposed to Republican Party principles like local autonomy and ... and more »

See the original post:
To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party - New York Times

New York Times

Insults Fly Between Democrats in New York Senate, Underscoring Rift New York Times In mid-March, Senator Michael N. Gianaris, a Queens Democrat, accused a group of eight breakaway Democrats, who have partnered with the Senate Republicans, of being President Trump's New York Democrats happy to eat the crumbs from the ... and more »

Here is the original post:
Insults Fly Between Democrats in New York Senate, Underscoring Rift - New York Times