Mediaboss Marketing

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

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

On February 7, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was reading a letter critical of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), then the nominee for attorney general, when the Senate's top Republican forced her to stop. Invoking an obscure Senate rule against disparaging colleagues, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)had Warren ejected from the Senate chamber. Minutes later, she appeared on MSNBC and #letlizspeak began trending on Twitter. Warren then read the full letterwhich had been written by Coretta Scott King in 1986on Facebook Live. By the next morning, the Facebook video had been viewed more than 5 million times.

McConnell, known as one of the savviest political operators in Washington, appeared to have made an uncharacteristic mistake. Rather than silence Warren's message, he made it go viral. McConnell defended his decision that night by stating that he had warned Warren but "nevertheless, she persisted"a phrase Warren's supporters have now emblazoned on apparel, mugs, and their bodies as tattoos.

But there were some who theorized that McConnell was, as ever, two steps ahead. Reporters and pundits debated whether McConnell had intentionally elevated Warren's public profile because he wants the Democratic Party to be defined by one of its most liberal members. Not long after, a report inPolitico corroborated this theory: Republicans have decided to use Warren as a sort of boogeyman ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, when 10 Democratic senators are up for reelection in states Donald Trump won. By late February, the committee tasked with electing Republicans to the Senate launched digital ads attacking vulnerable Democrats by stating how often they had voted with Warren.

At a time of division within their party, Republicans believe the best strategy is to unite against a common foe. Without Barack Obama in the White House, they need someone else to run against in 2018. Warren, a household name and an unapologetic liberal, is an easy choice. Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist in Washington, DC, says going after Warren is part of the Republican playbook for 2020, as well. "Always define your opponent before your opponent can define you," he says. And taking on Warren now, O'Connell suggests, will hurt her chances if she becomes her party's presidential nominee in 2020.

What's strange about Warren is that both parties seem to agree that she should be in the spotlight.

A law professor who studied bankruptcy and debt, Warren arrived on the political scene in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. She pushed the federal government to set up an agency to protect ordinary Americans from unfair practices by Wall Street and other industriesan effort that led to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the Senate, she voted down Obama's nominees whom she considered too cozy with Wall Street. She has championed issues like student loan reform and raising the minimum wage that Democrats believe will appeal to voters charmed by Trump, who has already endangered his populist reputation by filling his Cabinet with mega-rich Wall Street alumni.

What's strange about Warren is that both parties seem to agree that she should be in the spotlight. Democrats say they welcome Republicans' decision to elevate one of their most populist voices. Ultimately, they believe Republicans' strategy will backfire because Warren's reputation and message resonate across the country. "Elizabeth Warren was Bernie Sanders before Bernie Sanders," says Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist in Massachusetts. "When you look at her first race here [for the Senate in 2012], she tapped into much of the sort of populist economic anxiety that a lot of people had here in Massachusetts. That's not going to go away."

And if red-state Democrats are afraid of Warren's progressive reputation, they don't show it. Warren has visited Republican-leaning states on behalf of Democratic candidates, from Kentucky (where she helped McConnell's challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, in 2014) to Ohio (where she campaigned for Hillary Clinton last year).

One of the best examples is her work on behalf of Jason Kander, who ran a surprisingly close race last year for the US Senate in Missouri against incumbent Republican Roy Blunt. In 2018, Missouri's Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill, is up for reelection, and the Warren-as-boogeyman strategy could be tested there. As early as 2015, Warren sent out emails on behalf of Kander. She held fundraisers and flew to Missouri for a last-minute rally. "Sen. Warren's profile being raised is not a bad thing for the party at all," says Abe Rakov, Kander's campaign manager. "I think she's a very, very good messenger for the party, and I think it showed in Missouri."

Of course, Kander lost, as did Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky and Clinton in Ohio. But Warren consistently drew some of the biggest crowds, and Rakov says her presence was only a benefit to the campaign. "After she was here, we saw our volunteer numbers go up, we saw our fundraising go up," he recalls. Over the course the election, he says, Kander's campaign had built up "a lot of evidence that it was sort of a Republican myth that she would cause us problems." (Her fundraising prowess was evident after McConnell kicked her off the Senate floor, when a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee email about the incident helped the group shatter previous fundraising records.)

But if Republicans are able to cast her as a typical liberal zealot rather than a populist messenger, their strategy of running against her makes sense. "She has been very polarizing along party lines, even in Massachusetts," says Steve Koczela, a pollster in Boston. He agrees that Warren's message probably resonates with some Trump voters on a policy level but says that is unlikely to endear her to them. "Logic doesn't always apply when evaluating partisan actors these days," he says. "It's more, do people see you as with them or with the other team?"

Simply raising Warren's profile may not be enough to turn white working-class voterswhose support in Rust Belt states was key to Trump's electoral victoryagainst her and the Democratic Party. Roland "Butch" Taylor, a retired welder and pipefitter in northeast Ohio, supported Clinton in 2016, but many of his peers and fellow union members backed Trump. When asked about Warren, he immediately brought up the episode on the Senate floor. "When they gaveled her on the Senate floor, what did she do?" he said. "She didn't go back in the back and pout. She went right to the cameras and started her own speech in front of American people." Rather than show her as an out-of-touch liberal, Taylor said, the episode convinced him "that's the kind of leader you need." He thinks Clinton might have done better in the Ohio Rust Belt if Warren had been on the ticket with her. "She would make a great candidate for the party for 2020," he said.

That's exactly what Democrats are counting onthat Warren's persona and message will appeal beyond the party's progressive base and coastal and urban strongholds. But O'Connell says he isn't worried about Warren's populist message undercutting Republicans. Warren's support for environmental regulations, he believes, provides a wedge issue Republicans can use to hold onto working-class white voters who supported Trump in November. "What you're seeing here is a potential collision between environmentalists, which Warren loves, and big labor," he says. Taylor, whose livelihood depended on the oil and gas industries in Ohio, would be a good target of that strategy. He even qualified his praise for Warren by stressing that her appeal is contingent on her support for energy-sector jobs.

Ultimately, Democrats and Republicans simply disagree on the extent and geography of Warren's popularity. Democrats think she can attract support across the country and that her ability to fire up the base is an asset that Clinton lacked in 2016. Republicans believe her appeal is limited to her base. "The one thing I think that Republicans are betting on, should she actually become the Democratic presidential nominee," O'Connell says, "is that she isn't going to be able to come up with a message that is unifying for all 50 states."

Go here to see the original:
Republicans Are Trying to Raise Elizabeth Warren's Profile. So Are Democrats. - Mother Jones