Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump walks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (right) and Sen. John Barrasso into a meeting with Senate Republicans on Tuesday. | Alex Brandon/AP

Republicans are preparing to advance a short-term spending bill without relief for Dreamers and dare Democrats to vote against it.

By RACHAEL BADE, JOHN BRESNAHAN and SARAH FERRIS

11/29/2017 01:06 PM EST

President Donald Trump and congressional GOP leaders are daring Democrats to shut down the government over immigration rather than back a plan to extend funding into January.

After Democratic leaders Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer boycotted a Tuesday afternoon White House negotiating session on government funding, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell began hashing out a plan to pass a short-term spending bill to fund the government into January. The measure would not include a fix for so-called Dreamers, something Democrats have demanded be part of any spending bill.

Story Continued Below

Trump was open to the idea of a short-term continuing resolution during a White House meeting with GOP leaders, according to multiple Hill and White House sources familiar with the meeting.

While the plan hasnt been finalized, the House would move first under this scenario, passing a bill with only Republican votes. The Senate would then try to follow suit, but it would need to pick off at least eight Senate Democrats to clear the chambers higher 60-vote threshold. Republicans believe that Schumer would come under heavy pressure from his own colleagues to avoid being blamed for a shutdown, GOP aides said.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Delaying a broader debate on government funding into 2018 would cheer conservatives, who have been dreading a massive year-end spending package that includes a fix for the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Republicans also want to complete work on a massive $5 trillion tax bill before taking on another fight.

But it also raises the likelihood of an ugly shutdown battle just before the holiday season.

Many Democrats have vowed to withhold their votes from any spending agreement that does not include a fix for the young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as minors. Democratic leadership sources have suggested that Pelosi and Schumer could back a one- or two-week CR. But theyre loath to move the deadline past Jan. 1.

Still, Democrats may come under pressure to avoid a government shutdown over DACA, which does not fully expire until March. One House Appropriations Committee Democratic source said there could be some wiggle room in the partys stance on DACA that could help avert a shutdown. The source speculated that while many Democrats are dead-set against a full-year spending package without an immigration deal, there may be fewer who would object to a CR into January.

There are a lot of questions that would determine how Democrats vote, the source said. "DACA is one, but theres also the question of the supplemental. Theres the question of a [spending] caps deal.

At the same time, Ryan and other GOP leaders have for weeks resisted the idea of a stopgap bill through January.

"This is something the speaker feels strong about," leadership ally Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told POLITICO on Monday night. "A CR and sequester for the military is not a way to begin the New Year.

But that stance is shifting as Dec. 8 when the government runs out of money approaches and the GOP remains laser-focused on its tax bill.

Democratic leaders refusal to show up at the White House for spending talks Tuesday, after Trump insulted them on Twitter, has also solidified a GOP desire to consider a more hard-line strategy.

"Im very disappointed that Democrats abandoned the field with a shutdown looming. I think thats irresponsible, said Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), a longtime spending panel member who often works with Democrats on funding matters. "If the Democrats won't even talk, theyre the ones who are going to cause a shutdown."

Asked about the new strategy, Ryans office downplayed the notion that it has settled on a new GOP-only approach, arguing that everything is still in flux.

No plan has been decided on, said Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong. Assuming Democrats are interested in talking with congressional leadership and the White House, talks will continue.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The left is far from alone in its resistance to a CR through January. GOP defense hawks such as House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry of Texas abhor the idea of funding the military on a temporary basis and often complain that the lack of budget certainty cripples the nations readiness.

However, Defense Secretary James Mattis, who also attended the White House meeting Tuesday, plans to talk to defense hawks to try to make them more comfortable with the plan. GOP leadership is also going to try to win over defense hawks by promising more spending for the military if they wait until January, perhaps even higher than the nearly $603 billion currently being considered, according to one House GOP source.

GOP leaders could also encounter resistance from moderate Republicans representing Hispanic-heavy districts. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) on Tuesday said he would vote against any government funding bill past December that doesnt include a solution for Dreamers.

Im announcing today that I will not support any appropriations bill that funds the government beyond Dec. 31 unless we get this DACA issue resolved," Curbelo said at a panel on immigration reform in Florida held by the pro-immigrant business group IMPAC Fund and the University of Miami.

At the same time, a longer stopgap spending bill would be applauded by conservatives. Members of the House Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee have been urging Ryan not to create a new deadline right before Christmas, fearful that it would cripple the GOPs leverage and lead to the right getting steamrolled on immigration.

If we have to do a CR, we prefer January rather than Christmas, Freedom Caucus leader Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said Wednesday morning.

The lawmakers who actually have to write spending bills would also prefer a stopgap that stretches into January, as it would give them more time to work on a bigger appropriations package to fund the government.

Eliana Johnson contributed to this report.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Here is the original post:
GOP looks to jam Democrats in shutdown fight - POLITICO

Among registered voters, 56% say they favor a Democrat in their congressional district, while 38% prefer a Republican. That 18-point edge is the widest Democrats have held in CNN polling on the 2018 contests, and the largest at this point in midterm election cycles dating back two decades. The finding follows several other public polls showing large double-digit leads for Democrats on similar questions.

And those Republicans who are still in the electorate are less enthusiastic about voting next year than Democrats. Overall, 49% of registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for Congress next year, compared with 32% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters who say the same.

The poll was conducted before the passage of Republicans' signature tax reform bill this week, which the GOP hopes will boost their electoral prospects next year. Findings from the same poll released earlier this week found that the bill's unpopularity on the rise, with few expecting tangible benefits for themselves once it becomes law.

The Republican Party itself is viewed less favorably than the Democratic Party. About a third -- 34% -- have a favorable view of the GOP, while 46% say the same about the Democrats, according to the poll. That marks a rebound for Democrats after their favorability ratings sagged earlier this fall and is the highest mark for them since July of 2016. The Republican numbers are also on the rise, but remain below levels reached earlier this year.

The GOP may be further held back by a public displeased and angry with the way the country is being governed under their control. Overall, 68% say they are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed, and a matching 68% say they are angry about the way things are going in the country today.

Those numbers are similar to the levels seen in December 2015, ahead of the 2016 presidential election in which voters seeking change propelled Donald Trump to the presidency. But the partisan divides underlying those numbers are now largely reversed.

About two-thirds of Republicans say they're satisfied with the way the nation is being governed now, up from 10% in 2015, when Barack Obama was president and Republicans controlled the Congress. Among Democrats, satisfaction has fallen from 40% to 6%. Independents remain about equally unsatisfied: 25% are now vs. 22% in 2015.

Anger, too, has switched sides, with half of Democrats now saying they are "very angry" about the way things are going in the US, up from 14% in 2015. Among Republicans, deep anger has dipped from 41% in 2015 to 10% now.

And on that change voters were seeking in 2016, most say Trump did bring it: 77% say his presidency has created significant changes in the country, but more say they're for the worse (43%) than for the better (30%). Back in 2009, fewer thought Obama had brought change by November of his first year in office (69%), but by a 40% to 27% margin, they said those changes were for the better rather than the worse.

Trump himself continues to garner deeply negative favorability ratings -- 36% hold a positive view, 60% a negative one -- and his approval rating for handling the economy has reached a new low, despite the White House's frequent touting of the country's economic progress. Overall, 49% disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy, the highest level to say so since he took office, while 44% approve.

House Speaker Paul Ryan's favorability ratings have ticked upward from their low point in mid-September, but he remains net negative, 35% favorable to 45% unfavorable, as midterm elections approach. The Speaker does earn net-positive ratings among his own partisans: 66% have a favorable view, 19% unfavorable. But his numbers lag behind Trump's ratings among the Republican laity, 85% of whom have a positive view of the President.

Ryan has been circumspect in discussing his own political future in the face of a pile of daunting poll numbers, saying in an interview this morning on ABC's "Good Morning America" that "It's not even 2018 yet ... (Running for reelection is) something (my wife and I) haven't discussed yet. Something we'll discuss down the road when the appropriate time comes."

Read the original:
Poll: Democrats' 2018 advantage expands - CNNPolitics

What pretty lies Republicans tell, most of all about themselves. And what a gorgeous opportunity they have given Democrats to steal that bogus rhetoric right out from under them.

Try this on for size: Democrats are the party of family values because they promote the creation of more families. They did precisely that with their advocacy of marriage equality, which didnt tug the country away from convention but toward it, by encouraging gay and lesbian Americans to live in the sorts of arrangements that conservatives in fact extol.

Democrats also want to give families the flexibility and security that help keep them afloat and maybe intact. Thats what making the work force more hospitable to women and increasing the number of Americans with health insurance do. And Republicans lag behind Democrats on both fronts.

Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility because they dont pretend that they can afford grand government commitments whether distant wars or domestic programs without collecting the revenue for them.

Democrats are the party of patriotism, because theyre doing something infinitely more urgent and substantive than berating football players who kneel during the national anthem. Theyre recognizing that a hostile foreign power tried to change the course of an American presidential election. Theyre pressing for a full accounting of that. Theyre looking for fixes, so that we can know with confidence that we control our own destiny going forward. The president, meanwhile, plays down the threat, and Republicans prop him up.

Democrats are the party of national security. They dont taunt and get into Twitter wars with the rulers of countries that just might send nuclear warheads our way. They dont alienate longtime allies by flashing contradictory signals about their commitment to NATO. The leader of the Republican Party does all of that and more, denying the G.O.P. any pretense to stewardship of a stable world order.

Democrats are the law-and-order party. While many Republicans and their media mouthpiece, Fox News, labor to delegitimize the F.B.I. and thus inoculate Trump, Democrats put faith in prosecutors, agents and the system.

Democrats are the party of decency and modesty. None of their highest leaders uses the public arena to bully private citizens in the way that the Republican president does. None advances his or her financial interests as brazenly or brags as extravagantly.

Democrats are the party of tradition, if its interpreted and it should be to mean a news media that operates without fear of government interference, an internet to which access isnt tiered, judicial appointees who have a modicum of fluency in trial law.

Under Trumps thumb and spell, the Republican Party is watching the pillars of its brand crumble. Democrats should grab hold of and appropriate them. And theyre starting to, fitfully and imperfectly. Jettisoning Al Franken as the Republican National Committee reteamed with Moore was part of that effort.

Who among us doesnt care about family values, defined justly and embraced honestly? Who doesnt see the good in patriotism, tradition and decency? Theyre neither hokey words nor musty concepts, and thats why Republicans have been using (and misusing) them. But in the age of Trump, they constitute a language that Democrats can more credibly speak.

See the rest here:
Democrats Are the New Republicans - The New York Times

Im starting to think that all too many Democrats believe that private citizens and private corporations dont actually own their private income or their private property.

Otherwise, how can we explain the Democratic insistence, repeated endlessly over the last 24 hours, that Republicans somehow are poised to execute a grand heist by cutting corporate and individual tax rates, granting an estimated 80.4 percent of taxpayers an average tax break of $2,140.

The rhetoric was remarkable, and the hysterics werent confined to fringe figures on the left.

Heres House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi:

And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer:

Democratic presidential frontrunners Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders weighed in:

Note the key words. A tax cut is a heist. Its looting the governments money. Youre robbing and ransacking the middle class. Schumer is the most measured, and even he acts like the government is giving people money by granting a tax break.

Yes, part of this is just talking points. Theyre words chosen to win a news cycle. But they also betray a deeper problem. Taken at face value they represent a fundamental redefinition of private property. Its part of the Democratic march towards socialism, and it doesnt just have implications for tax rates, it has grave consequences for civil liberties as well.

The traditional view of private income and private property is clear. You own and control the money you make or the property you possess. By the consent of the governed the state can tax a portion of that money and regulate your use of your property, but the fundamental presumption remains its your property. Its your money.

To put it in legal terms, the government bears the burden of establishing the need for your funds or the necessity for regulation. Indeed, the Constitution establishes the primacy of individual rather than state ownership by noting that the government can take your property only for public use and only after paying just compensation.

Increasingly, however, the American Left is flipping the proposition. Whats yours is the array of government goods and services established by the vast and growing federal bureaucracy. Whats yours is the bundle of bureaucratic and regulatory rights created by an increasingly regulatory state. Thus, private property is in reality a public resource. Private businesses are public accommodations that can easily be commandeered to become instruments of social policy just ask the Christian business owners required to furnish free abortifacients to their employees or to use their artistic talents to celebrate immoral events.

Read through that lens, and you can easily see why Democrats use the rhetoric of theft. In Barney Franks memorable phrase, Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together. Its the core expression of American community and the primary expression of American values. Its the centerpiece of American life.

In other words as with so many other elements of our public debate were back to first principles. Were back to culture war. Red and Blue America are once again like ships passing in the night. A conservative hears the language of theft and laughs. Im not stealing from anyone if Im allowed to keep more of my own cash. The progressive hears the same word and nods. After all, the government must fund our welfare state, and the more money a person has, the greater the governments moral and legal claim on his resources.

Culture wars arent static. The boundaries arent fixed. The gospel of private ownership and personal prosperity can and should win converts, especially when contrasted with the extraordinarily high real-world cost and staggering inefficiency of the Sanders/Warren model of immensely expanded government. But gospels need evangelists, and Republicans need to remember that good ideas still need good advocates. The policy has passed. The sales pitch is just beginning.

READ MORE:NR Editorial: A Solid Accomplishment on TaxesFinal Tax Bill: The Biggest Cuts Are for the Middle ClassMost Americans Believe False Claims about the Tax Bill

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Continued here:
Democrats: Republican Tax Bill Is Theft | National Review

If youve read any conservative commentary on the war on poverty in the past week, youve likely seen this talking point: We spend $1 trillion each year on welfare and theres been no reduction in poverty. Thats crazy! Then, a sentence later, youll probably see a line like this: Its true. According to a recent report, we spend a trillion dollars on means-test programs each year, yet the official census numbers show no reduction in poverty.

If you are reading that second line quickly, you probably think it bolsters the credibility of the first line. Its an official number, and the census and the report probably quote accurate numbers too, night? They do, but the second sentence is actually used as an escape hatch to say something that isnt true. We dont spend anywhere near a trillion dollars on welfare unless you mangle the term welfare to be meaningless, and we do reduce poverty.

First, Dylan Matthews has already dissected the claim that poverty hasnt declined. It has. Its just that the official poverty rate doesnt factor in the earned-income tax credit or food stamps in its calculations. Given that these are two of the most direct ways that the government tries to lift people out of poverty, thats a major problem. These programs do, in fact, lift people out of povertyit just doesnt show up in the official rate, because thats how the rate is constructed.

The claim about $1 trillion on welfare is more interesting and complicated. It shows up in this recent report from the Cato Institute, which argues that the federal government spends $668 billion dollars per year on 126 different welfare programs (spending by the state and local governments push that figure up to $1 trillion per year).

Welfare has traditionally meant some form of outdoor relief, or cash, or cash-like compensation, that is given to the poor without them having to enter an institution. As the historian Michael Katz has documented, the battle over outdoor relief, has been a long one throughout our countrys history.

However, this claims says any money mostly spent on the poor is welfare. To give you a better sense here, the federal spending breaks down into a couple of broad categories. Only about one-third of it is actually what we think of as welfare:

1) Cash and cash-like programs: As Michael Linden of Center for American Progress told me, there are five big programs in the Cato list that are most analogous to what people think of as welfare: The refundable part of the Earned Income Tax Credit ($55 billion), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($21 billion), Supplemental Security Income ($43.7 billion), food stamps ($75 billion), and housing vouchers ($18 billion)and the Child Tax Credit. All together, thatsaround$212 billion dollars.

2) Health care: This is actually the biggest item on Catos list. Medicaid spends $228 billion on the non-elderly population, and childrens health insurance plan takes up another $13.5 billion. This is also roughly a third as well.

3) Opportunity-related programs: These are programs that are broadly related to opportunities, mostly in education or job-training. So you have things like Title 1 grants ($14 billion) and Head Start ($7.1 billion) in this category. But as Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Donna Pavetti notes, these programs dont all go to poor people. For instance, Title I benefits school districts with a large share of poor children, however that money will help non-poor students attending those schools.

4) Targeted and community programs: What remains are programs designed to provide certain services to poor communities, which make up the bulk of the number of programs. Adoption assistance ($2.5 billion) and low income taxpayer clinics ($9.9 million) are two examples here.

So what should we take away from this?

The federal government spends just $212 billion per year on what we could reasonably call welfare. (Even then, the poor have to enter the institution of waged labor to get the earned income tax credit.) And there have been numerous studies showing that these programs, especially things like food stamps, are both very efficient and effective at reducing poverty. They just dont show up in the official poverty statistics, because thats how the poverty statistics are designed.

Publicly funded services have never been thought of as welfare. I drive on publicly funded roads, but nobody analytically thinks of roads as belonging to category of welfare. If the poor take advantage of, say, a low-income taxpayer clinic, how is that welfare? Do taxpayer clinics encourage illegitimacy, dependency and idleness and other things conservatives worry about when it comes to welfare? This confuses more than it illuminates, which I imagine is the point.

Medicaid makes this very obvious. If a poor person gets access to decent health care, thats not free money they get to spend on whatever they want. They arent on the dole.

The fact that Social Security and Medicare, major victories of the War on Poverty, arent here makes it clear something is wrong in the definition. Even though these are anti-poverty programs associated with the War on Poverty, nobody thinks of them as welfare, though they should fit this definition as well.

Its interesting to see conservatives consider opportunity programs to be welfare, because those programs broadly involve things they say they are for. Perhaps you think these programs are good investments or perhaps you dont, but they are a whole other conceptual category than welfare, or just giving poor people money when they need it.

Its also interesting to see conservatives lament the sheer number of anti-poverty programs. One reason this set-up exists is because so many programs are run through nonprofit groups (a set-up that makes us unique among developed countries). But conservatives have long tended to favor this arrangement, since nonprofit groups are supposed to boost civil society and provide an antidote to the nameless, faceless Big Government bureaucrats.

Read that again: conservatives complain that we should have less welfare and more opportunity and civil society, only to turn around and also call those things welfare too when the time comes.

Perhaps some of these programs should be discontinued, or expanded, or turned into straight cash. (How about cash instead of food stamps?) But we cant have a productive conversation unless we make it clear what the government is, and is not, doing. And it is spending a lot less on welfare than conservatives claim, and getting fantastic results for what it does spend.

Mike Konczal is a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, where he focuses on financial regulation, inequality and unemployment. He writes a weekly column for Wonkblog. Follow him on Twitterhere.

See the original post:
San Juan County Democrats | Democratic Party