Mediaboss Marketing

The last two groups are a direct result of the opportunity provided by Monday's non-partisan evaluation of the GOP's repeal and replace Obamacare plan, which shows seniors and the poor suffering the most, including potentially devastating Medicaid cuts that could cause headaches for Republican governors.

The trio of targets will make up the thrust of Democrats 2018 health care argument, according to CNN interviews with about a half-dozen Democratic campaign strategists and aides.

It is still early in the process and Democrats have yet to recruit candidates in most of the targeted races. But Democrats are cheered by a series of polls and focus groups showing health care animates swing voters to their side more than other issues, including White House initiatives such as building a costly Southern border wall and the travel ban initiated against six Muslim majority countries.

The Republican health care plan, which has White House support, received a damaging score from the Congressional Budget Office Monday. The report found 14 million more people would be uninsured by 14 million in 2018 and 24 million by 2026.

Most damaging in the eyes of some Democrats is the finding there would be a steep premium hike for older people with lower incomes. A 64-year-old making $26,500 would pay $1,700 for coverage in 2026 under Obamacare, thanks to its subsidies -- but under the GOP plan, that person would get hit with a annual premium bill of $14,600.

The GOP proposal would cut also Medicaid, a federal program administrated by states that provides health coverage to low-income Americans, by $880 billion over 10 years.

"I am not trying to be too cute here, but House Republicans have truly constructed a bill that offends every important group," said Tyler Law, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "I do think it is fair to take it to the bank that we will be talking about this through 2018."

The prospective messaging has also infused previously downbeat Democrats with a boost of confidence in the wake of their disappointing 2016, which left them out of power in both the House and Senate and Republican Donald Trump in the White House.

In the House, there are eight Republicans in congressional districts that Clinton won who also have already cast preliminary votes of approval for the GOP health plan because of the committees they sit on.

Reps. Leonard Lance in New Jersey, Ryan Costello in Pennsylvania, Mimi Walters in California, Erik Paulsen in Minnesota, Peter Roskam in Illinois, Carlos Curbelo in Florida, Pat Meehan in Pennsylvania and Dave Reichert in Washington each sit on either the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Ways and Means Committee and voted last week to back the bill.

Though most of these races don't yet have Democratic candidates, the DCCC has already begun working with local politicians to stress the need to push voters over the health care votes.

"From a purely political standpoint, you are talking about a lot of vulnerable Republicans who have already voted on it," said one operative tasked with winning back the House,

Already, several Republicans are feeling the pressure over health care.

Lance, one of the vulnerable Republicans who represents a district Clinton won in northern New Jersey, told reporters Tuesday that the Republican bill wouldn't make it through the Senate and wouldn't be worth supporting.

"I do not want to vote on a bill that has no chance of passing over in the Senate," Lance said.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican from a district Clinton won, also announced on Tuesday that she wouldn't back the Republican bill.

"I plan to vote NO on the current #AHCA bill. As written the plan leaves too many from my #SoFla district uninsured," she tweeted.

National Republicans heading up the midterm campaigning say the targeted members, some of whom have long represented Democratic districts with a localized-style of Republicanism, will be just fine.

"These particular members of Congress were in the cross hairs this past cycle ... these guys have been targeted by the DCCC right along and they have proven they can separate themselves," said Jesse Hunt, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

"We have run on repealing and replacing Obamacare. We have won on that issue. All that Republicans are doing right now are fulfilling a promise they made to the American people," he added.

On the Senate side, Democrats told CNN they see opportunities to message directly to older voters in states with 2018 elections such as Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Maine.

"This is moving from theoretical conversations about what the plan would potentially do, to a very real impact on seniors where they could be forced to pay up to five times for care," said one Democratic aide tasked with winning back the Senate.

The aide added Democrats expect the predicted rate hikes could be felt on seniors right before voters go to the polls making the message resonate even more.

Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada are of particular interest to Democrats. Both their states have a sizable number of senior voters, and were fertile ground for Clinton -- she won Nevada and lost Arizona by just 4%. Voters 65 and older backed Trump over Clinton nationally by 7% in 2016, according to exit polls. In Arizona, that number was a more stark -- 13%. But in Nevada, Clinton won seniors by 5%.

Florida and Maine, meanwhile, are two of the oldest states by population.

Democrats are hopeful that concerted messaging will mean their candidates -- both Senate and House -- could turn out seniors, a reliable voting bloc even in off-year elections. On average, voters over 65 make up close to 20% of voters in midterms, more than their share in presidential elections.

Then there are states that expanded Medicaid, which, under the Republican plan, would see their funding go down due to both cuts and changes in how federal monies will be allocated.

Democrats plan to push Republican candidates in Nevada, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which both expanded Medicaid and have 2018 Senate races.

The GOP plan, according to experts, would likely endanger Medicaid funding for issues like drug treatment and mental health rehabilitation.

Richard G. Frank, a professor of Health Economics at Harvard University, told CNN that since the new plan would allow states more flexibility but pare back their funding, states are forced to choose to continue the existing services at their own expense or make cuts.

"Historically, states have been loath to cover substance abuse treatment," he said.

Some Republicans have already expressed concerns over this aspect of the plan.

"Don't kill Medicaid expansion," Ohio Gov. John Kasich said earlier this month. "Here's what we're talking about: If you're drug addicted, if you're mentally ill, you have to consistently see the doctor. From what I see in this House bill, the resources are not there."

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told CNN Tuesday that stripping Medicaid funding from states will be a top issue in 2018.

"The Republican plan is one broken promise after another, forcing older Americans to pay as much as five times more for their care and stripping Medicaid funding that states from West Virginia to Arizona use to fight the opioid epidemic," Van Hollen said. "In every Senate campaign, we will make sure voters know that Republicans will make you pay more for less care so that the insurance companies and rich can profit."

The focus on health care, especially in states with vulnerable Republicans, also fits with the message testing Democrats are already doing for the 2018 midterms.

Groups -- including American Bridge, the liberal super PAC and opposition research firm led by longtime Clinton adviser David Brock -- have found out through polls and focus groups that voters who backed Obama in 2008 but Trump in 2016 are more swayed by Trump's plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act than they are by other issues.

Longtime Democratic operative James Carville bluntly told donors at an American Bridge summit in Florida earlier this year: "The mover on health care loses; to do something is to lose."

That logic accounts for the backlash Democrats felt after passing Obamacare and the pain they hope to inflict on Republicans in 2018.

"The Republican plan to repeal Obamacare is a disaster that is going to be a political liability in 2018," Brock said. "Bigly."

This story has been updated.

CNN's MJ Lee contributed to this report.

Original post:
How Democrats will use the GOP health care bill against Republicans in 2018 - CNN

Donald Trump carried Missouri by 19 percentage points on his way to the presidency. But Sen. Claire McCaskill, who faces a fight for reelection next year in the conservative-leaning state, isnt exactly voting like Washington, D.C.s idea of a red-state Democrat.

McCaskill has sided with Democratic leaders against all of Trumps most contentious Cabinet nominees and six of the eight regulatory rollbacks teed up by the Senate GOP since Inauguration Day, according to a POLITICO analysis. She is not alone among red-state Democrats who lately have remained in their partys fold: On the Senates highest-profile votes since the president took office, eight of the 10 most vulnerable Democrats on the ballot next year voted with their party at least four-fifths of the time.

Story Continued Below

Even famously GOP-friendly Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has sided with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren more often than he aligned with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

It's obviously still early in Trump's presidency to draw sweeping conclusions. But the voting behavior of Senate Democrats particularly the 10 from states Trump won in November suggests that the president has a lot more bridge-building to do with red-state Democrats. Their support could prove critical to the success or failure of his legislative priorities, such as infrastructure and tax reform.

So far, Trump has mostly fostered Democratic unity by tweeting combatively and sparking protests around the country with his order barring travelers from majority-Muslim nations.

"The Trump administration has been so outrageous in its early stages that it's probably made it easier for Democrats to hang together," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview. "It's not hard to be united around the United States not discriminating against people based on religion."

The burgeoning unity among Democratic senators about the only emergency brake on the Trump train, as Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) put it one week after his ticket lost the White House is about to face its biggest test yet in the coming confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. While Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) caucus has stuck together against the GOP's Obamacare repeal bid, it's far from clear that Democrats can deny Gorsuch 60 votes.

McCaskill said she has based her votes so far this year on substance, not partisanship.

"I have not voted for some Trump Cabinet members. I have voted for others," the Missourian said in a brief interview, adding that the same pattern holds for the eight rollbacks of Obama-era regulations that the Senate has passed so far. "So I make a decision based on each individual issue, and its not about party."

Liberal activists who are mobilizing demonstrations to protect Obamacare and pushing Democrats to block Gorsuch say Republicans are kidding themselves if they think senators who must court Trump voters next year are easy marks for his agenda.

Grass-roots mobilization has already opened the way for red-state Democrats to follow their conscience, MoveOn.org Washington director Ben Wikler said in an interview. Everything about the way this administration operates suggests it will keep inflaming an incredibly broad resistance movement."

Democratic senators facing reelection in states Trump carried understand that these are not normal times, said Ilyse Hogue, president of the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America. They understand that there is a heightened sense of desire and expectation that people are going to be heard.

Theres also a heightened GOP awareness that Democrats from swing states where Trump prevailed narrowly such as Sens. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, both members of Schumer's leadership team have more incentive to vote with the rest of their party. But that doesnt mean they wont face political pressure to move to the right.

In the past week, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has slammed Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) as an unapologetic Washington liberal and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) for his knee-jerk opposition" to Gorsuch.

To identify the most divisive Senate votes of Trumps young presidency, POLITICOs analysis focused on confirmation of the seven Cabinet nominees whom Democratic leaders singled out for opposition and the eight deregulatory measures that Senate Republicans have teed up for Trump to sign so far.

The Democrat crossing the aisle most often during those 15 votes, Manchin did so on seven of them. Excluding Manchin, Trump's most controversial Cabinet nominees lost Republican votes as often as they won Democratic votes.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) was close behind Manchin with five GOP-aligned votes. Sens. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, broke from the bulk of their party on three of the 15 votes.

McCaskill, the fourth-most conservative Trump-state Democrat, has split from her leaders on two deregulatory measures under Trump, voting to kill an Interior Department rule for the disposal of coal mining waste in streams and a teacher preparation rule at the Department of Education that drew criticism from teachers unions. Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, up for reelection next year in a state Trump carried by 21 percentage points, voted to strike down the education rule and another regulation governing background checks for Social Security recipients seeking to buy guns.

Moderate Maine Sen. Susan Collins of Maine broke with her Republican leaders on more of the Senate's 15 most consequential votes under Trump than McCaskill and Tester split from Schumer, Warren and Sanders. Collins strayed from the GOP pack three times, voting against Scott Pruitt's bid to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, against Education Secretary nominee Betsy DeVos, and against axing the coal mining waste regulation.

Both McCaskill and Tester opposed all seven of the Cabinet nominees at the top of Democrats' target list: Pruitt, DeVos, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, and White House budget director Mick Mulvaney.

Among less politicized Cabinet confirmations, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson got a "no" from McCaskill and a "yes" from Tester, while both joined most other red-state Democrats in supporting Trump's picks to lead the departments of Commerce, Energy and Interior.

McCaskill also called for Sessions to resign amid the ongoing controversy over his meetings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak while serving as a Trump campaign surrogate (that landed the Missouri Democrat into a pickle of her own over her attendance at a group meeting with Kislyak). Even Manchin, who voted for Sessions, quickly pressed him to recuse himself from investigations into Russian meddling in the presidential election.

A play-by-play preview of the day's congressional news in your inbox.

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

Few other Democratic senators have crossed the aisle to side with the GOP on polarizing votes since Inauguration Day. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia supported Tillerson, while Sens. Bill Nelson of Florida and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada voted against axing the teacher preparation regulation.

POLITICO's analysis excluded three Cabinet-level nominees who Senate Democrats did not add to their top tier of targets for confirmation fights: Defense Secretary James Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. Fifteen Democrats backed Pompeo on the Senate floor on Jan. 23, triggering a groundswell of grass-roots liberal fury.

Despite the early solidarity, however, Democratic senators are well aware that their red-state colleagues will break from the pack on future votes.

"Every member of our caucus is going to make a decision about what's right for their state," Murphy said. "Chuck's not twisting anybody's arms, so there are going to be times when members of our caucus will vote with Republicans. That's democracy."

More here:
Trump-state Democrats choose party over president - Politico

Im not sure who decided that the Democratic critique of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch would be that he doesnt side with the little guy. Its a truly terrible idea. Like other liberals, Im still shocked and upset that Judge Merrick Garland never got the vote he deserved after his nomination by President Barack Obama, and Id rather have a progressive justice join the court. But the thing is, siding with workers against employers isnt a jurisprudential position. Its a political stance. And justices -- including progressive justices -- shouldnt decide cases based on who the parties are. They should decide cases based on their beliefs about how the law should be interpreted.

Lets start at the beginning. Way back in the beginning, in fact. The Hebrew Bible, which sides with the little guy a great deal, has something to say about parties to a case. Specifically, Deuteronomy 16:19 says judges shouldnt respect persons, which is the King James Versions translation of the Hebrew phrase that literally means recognize faces. Justice -- which is mentioned in the famous next verse (Justice, justice shalt thou pursue) -- requires judges to decide cases under the law, not based on preferences for individuals.

QuickTake U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

If the Bible doesnt convince you, consider the whole point of a rule-of-law system: It establishes rules so that people can be confident in advance of how decisions are made. That creates regularity and predictability. And in the long run, it protects the little guy a lot better than a system rigged to favor one side, because such systems will naturally tend to favor the rich and powerful, not the poor and downtrodden.

Assuring that the rule of law is followed is in fact the specific role of appellate judges, like Gorsuch. Trial judges find facts and also interpret the law. Appellate judges arent supposed to revisit facts determined by the trial court. Theyre supposed to make sure the legal rules are applied consistently.

Looking at the Gorsuch decisions that the Democrats have made into their touchstones demonstrates how misguided their strategy is, legally speaking.

One of them, TransAm Trucking Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, involved the agencys determination that a trucker had been wrongfully fired after refusing to stay with his truck on a cold winter night as directed by a dispatcher. The majority of the panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld the agency on highly creative grounds. The relevant law said the driver couldnt be fired for refusing to operate his vehicle under the conditions set by the trucking company. The judges held that the driver, who drove away in his cab, had arguably refused to operate the vehicle -- because the term operate in the statute was vague.

Gorsuch dissented. The panel had relied on the so-called Chevron doctrine, a special bugaboo of Gorsuchs, in which judges defer to agencies interpretations of unclear laws. Gorsuch said the law wasnt ambiguous as required by Chevron, because the driver was fired for failing to stay with his truck full of cargo, not for driving away.

Im not sure Gorsuch was right -- but his view was perfectly defensible, and it certainly didnt seem to be driven by dislike of the driver. Rather, Gorsuch followed his preference for reading the law on its own terms and against Chevron. Theres nothing troubling about it.

Another case that progressives are citing involved denial of state funding for placement of an autistic child under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Gorsuch wrote the opinion, reasoning that under binding Supreme Court precedent, the boys existing school placement was legally sufficient because he was making progress.

As it happens, the law regarding the proper standard to apply in such cases is uncertain -- so much so that the Supreme Court is considering it this term. The 10th Circuit standard, which Gorsuch helped craft, may be too narrow; I certainly think so. But its a plausible reading of the existing precedent.

It would be nice if Gorsuch had pushed for a more inclusive, and arguably more progressive, standard. But it doesnt show a lack of sympathy for autistic kids -- especially when you consider that wealthier parents are better placed to go to court and challenge state determinations of what resources should go to their disabled kids.

The last case being mentioned, Hwang v. Kansas State University, raised the question of whether its a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act to stay out of work beyond the term of six months leave granted by the employer. Grace Hwang, a professor at KSU, got the universitys maximum of six months leave as she underwent cancer treatment. She was about to return to work when a flu epidemic hit the campus. Concerned that she might get sick while immunocompromised, she requested further leave as a reasonable accommodation.

Gorsuch wrote for a unanimous panel that staying out of work beyond the six months wasnt an accommodation at all, because accommodation requires you to do the job, and not coming to work isnt doing the job. He reasoned that she could go on disability leave. As he put it, Ms. Hwangs is a terrible problem, one in no way of her own making, but its a problem other forms of social security aim to address.

That may sound somewhat harsh, but legally speaking, it isnt shocking -- and it might even be correct. Accommodation isnt an endlessly flexible standard and, at some point, inability to work becomes a basis for disability. The statute could require longer sick leave but, as written, it doesnt.

Its perfectly fine to resist Gorsuch for not adhering to a progressive jurisprudence that takes seriously the governments duty to regulate the market. But it isnt fine to say he should side with workers against employers or parents against school districts. The rule of law isnt liberal or conservative -- and it shouldnt be.

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: Noah Feldman at nfeldman7@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stacey Shick at sshick@bloomberg.net

Read the rest here:
Democrats' Misguided Argument Against Gorsuch - Bloomberg

Democratic lawmakers made the case Tuesday that there are two causes for Mississippis budget woes: the first a struggling economy, the other, tax cuts and lots of them. Wochit

Mississippi State Capitol(Photo: File photo/The Clarion-Ledger)

Democratic lawmakers made the case Tuesday that there are two causes for Mississippis budget woes: the first a struggling economy, the other, tax cuts and lots of them.

In recent years, the Legislature has doled out some 43 tax cuts or breaks, nearly half of which were for sales taxes.

During a news conference at the Capitol, leaders of Mississippis Black and Democratic Caucuses sharing figures from the state Department of Revenue. The agency estimated that corporate tax cuts had resulted in the loss of $350 million for the current fiscal year. The figure could be higher, however, as the department was not able to determine the impact for several tax credit programs.

Citing the states burdened infrastructure and underfunding of schools, Sen. Bill Stone of Holly Springs, who chairsthe Senate Democratic Caucus, postured, we dont have enough money to fund the core and basic functions of government.

SEE ALSO: MS tax cutswhat do we really know about them?

"At the end of the day, we are rearranging chairs on a sinking ship, he said.

So far, revenue in fiscal year 2018 has not meteconomists projections, leading to three rounds of budget cuts.

The shortfall has put lawmakers in a crunch as they work to finalize the states budget in the waning weeks of the session. Many of the states agencies are likely to lose funding in the upcoming fiscal year, according to an FY 2018 Action vs FY 2017 report.

And though theres been much handwringing over the size of the revenue pie lawmakers have to divvy up, Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman David Baria of Bay St. Louis said the lack of acknowledgment by Republican leadership of the loss of revenue resulting from tax cuts remains the elephant in the room.

He pointed out that the House has passed tax breaks this session.

One of those proposals, House Bill 1601, is on its way to the governor. On Tuesday, senators approved the measure, which would give certain tax exemptionsto first-time homebuyers.

The states largest tax cut, a more than $415 million package that includes the phasing out of Mississippis corporate franchise tax, is set to start in 2018.

Baria said the caucuses will champion the postponement of the cuts through talks with legislative leadership. The likelihood is slim the efforts would secure the blessing of House Speaker Philip Gunn, R-Clinton, or Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves.

"Legislative leadership will not allow input on the budget process," Democrats said in a news release.

"Democrats in Mississippi are trying to impress their liberal counterparts in D.C. by fighting for higher taxes and bigger government, while my Republican colleagues and I work to lower taxpayers' burden and reduce the overall size of government," Reeves said in a statement Tuesday. "Republicans believe individuals know best how to spend their money more than any government agency ever will."

Still, the party is ready to push for a delay, possibly through the use of amendments.

Legislators are crafting a more than $6 billion budget for fiscal year 2018. Wednesday is the deadline for lawmakers to pass revenue and appropriations bills originating in the other house.

ContactBracey Harrisat 601-961-7248 orbharris2@gannett.com.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read or Share this story: http://on.thec-l.com/2nleQ8g

Read the original here:
Democrats sound alarm on Mississippi's 'financial crisis' - Jackson Clarion Ledger

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (left) looked on as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke to reporters during a new conference on the GOP health care bill.

After railing against Republicans for years for being the party of no, Democrats these days are proudly wearing that label -- and members of the Democratic grassroots are demanding their leaders keep saying it.

And so it is. No to repealing Obamacare. No to practically everyDonald TrumpCabinet nominee. No to Trumps Supreme Court nominee. No to Trumps travel ban and whatever changes he makes to it. Over the weekend former US attorneyPreet Bhararaof New Yorkwas even praised by liberals because he said no, hewouldn't stop working for Trump.

Advertisement

Democrats are united around no. Politically, no is an easy organizing principle. It is certainly easier than getting more people to say yes.

Just consider Obamacare. It was easy for Republicans to unite in opposition toit for years. (It was even difficult to get enough Democrats to pass the bill at the time.) It is much harder for Republicans now to craft a replacement bill that will have enough in their party saying yes.

Get Political Happy Hour in your inbox:

Your afternoon shot of politics, sent straight from the desk of Joshua Miller.

In fact, Democrats have little choice but to be the party of "no." First, they have no power in Washington to enact anything anyway. Second, the Democratic Party has become decentralized, without a major leader or a key issue to push. In other words, there is no consensus on what Democrats should say yes to, much less any power to do anything about it if they did.

So, "no" it is.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats wear the 'Party of No' label proudly (not that they really have a choice) - The Boston Globe