Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON U.S. House Republicans are working on changes to their healthcare overhaul bill to provide more generous tax credits for older Americans and add a work requirement for the Medicaid program for the poor, House Speaker Paul Ryan said on Sunday.

Ryan said Republican leaders still planned to bring the healthcare bill to a vote on the House of Representatives floor on Thursday. Speaking on the "Fox News Sunday" television program, he said leaders were working to address concerns that had been raised by rank-and-file Republicans to the legislation.

Republicans remain deeply divided over the healthcare overhaul, which is President Donald Trump's first major legislative initiative. It aims to fulfill his campaign pledge to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, the signature healthcare program of his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama.

Democrats say the Republican plan could throw millions off health insurance and hurt the elderly, poor and working families while giving tax cuts to the rich.

"We think we should be offering even more assistance than the bill currently does" for lower-income people age 50 to 64, Ryan, the top Republican in Congress, said of the tax credits for health insurance that are proposed in the legislation.

Ryan also said Republicans were working on changes that would allow federal block grants to states for Medicaid and permit states to impose a work requirement for able-bodied Medicaid recipients.

Trump told reporters in a brief conversation aboard Air Force One that he had meetings about healthcare reform in Florida at the weekend and that the effort to sell the proposal was going well.

He has been wooing lawmakers to vote for the bill and won the backing of a dozen conservative lawmakers on Friday after an Oval Office meeting in which the president endorsed a work requirement and block-grant option for Medicaid.

Trump is set to meet Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy special adviser under Obama who helped shape the Affordable Care Acton, at the White House on Monday, along with Ryan and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price.

Block grants would give states a set amount of money to cover people on the Medicaid program and provide flexibility in spending decisions. However, there is no guarantee funding would keep up with future demands.

"TRYING TO FIX BILL"

While Ryan said he felt "very good" about the health bill's prospects in the House, a leading conservative lawmaker, Representative Mark Meadows, told the C-Span "Newsmakers" program that there were currently 40 Republican "no" votes in the House. Republicans hold a majority in the chamber but cannot afford to have more than 21 defections for the measure to pass.

Meadows and two other Republican opponents of the bill, Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas, met at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Saturday "negotiating with the president's team, trying to fix this bill," Cruz told CBS' "Face the Nation."

North Carolina Republican Meadows said the changes being considered for the Medicaid program would not go far enough if they left it up to states to decide whether to put in place a work requirement.

Price acknowledged the tough negotiations, telling ABC's "This Week": "It's a fine needle that needs to be thread, there's no doubt about it."

The healthcare bill would face significant challenges in the Senate even if it were to pass the House.

Senator Tom Cotton, a conservative Arkansas Republican, said the bill would not reduce premiums for people on the private insurance market. "It's fixable, but it's going to take a lot of work," Cotton said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Moderate Republicans have also expressed concerns about the bill, and their worries are often not the same as that of conservatives.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine worried the bill would harm older Americans, and shift Medicaid costs to states - something critics say a block-grant approach would only make worse.

Collins said coverage issues must also be dealt with, citing a report from the Congressional Budget Office that said 14 million people would lose health coverage under the House bill over the next year and 24 million over the next decade.

Affordability has been one of the bigger concerns that insurers and hospital groups have raised about the legislation. To the extent that a change in tax credits makes healthcare more affordable for some people, insurers and hospitals could stand to benefit.

The BlueCross BlueShield Association emphasized the need for the replacement to be affordable when the draft of the healthcare bill was released earlier this month. The association represents BCBS insurers that cover the vast majority of the roughly 10 million people enrolled in 2017 Obamacare plans.

WASHINGTON FBI Director James Comey on Monday confirmed for the first time that the bureau is investigating possible ties between Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia as Moscow sought to influence the 2016 U.S. election.

WASHINGTON Congressional Republicans recrafted their Obamacare replacement bill on Monday in hopes of satisfying critics as U.S. President Donald Trump prepared to promote his first major legislative initiative on Capitol Hill.

WASHINGTON U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to skip an April 5-6 meeting of NATO foreign ministers for a U.S. visit by the Chinese president and will travel to Russia later in the month, U.S. officials said on Monday, a step allies may see as putting Moscow's concerns ahead of theirs.

Read this article:
Republicans revamp US health bill, boost benefits to older Americans - Reuters

FBI Director James B. Comey said at a House Intelligence Committee hearing that he has no information that Trump Tower was wiretapped by former president Barack Obama. (Reuters)

FBI Director James B. Comey made one thing abundantly clear Monday: There is zero evidence that Donald Trump or Trump Tower was wiretapped during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign.

I have no information that supports those tweets, Comey told House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), confirming that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department had found any evidence of the alleged wiretapping after a very close look.

Comey's denial of wiretapping comes on the heels of similar statements by former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., former president Barack Obama and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).

For Trump to continue to make the case that he was wiretapped by Obama during the 2016 election, you must believe that the current FBI director is lying in a public, nationally televised congressional hearing. And that the former director of national intelligence was lying. And that Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, is lying that Britain was not involved in a wiretapping program at the behest of the American government.

That's a very, very, very, very tough sell.

Now, there are ways around this and a number of the Republican members on the Intelligence Committee are taking Trump's lead in suggesting them. The prime pushback is that when Trump used the word wiretapping, he didn't actually mean wiretapping. Instead he meant a broader palette of potential means of surveillance. And so, by denying, specifically, the words wiretapping, Comey and the rest are playing word games and not broadly denying that someone, somewhere was watching or listening to the Republican presidential nominee.

It is possible in the broadest sense of that word that such a theory could have some validity. But it is the longest of long shots, and to believe it, you have to believe that people like Comey and Clapper purposely obfuscated when asked direct questions about whether Trump was being surveilled.

Given Comey's flat denial of any evidence of Trump Tower being wiretapped, there will be increased pressure on both Trump and Republican members of Congress to back off that position and apologize for it. Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Will Hurd (R-Tex.) have already called on Trump to apologize to Obama. It's hard to imagine that other GOPers won't follow that lead in light of Comey's testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee on Monday.

Trump is another matter. His offhand remark at a joint news appearance Friday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that perhaps he and she had both been wiretapped by the Obama administration suggests he isn't planning to leave the issue alone much less apologize for it.

And we know that for 35 to 40 percent of the public, that will be enough; they simply trust Trump more than they trust any intelligence official or media outlet.

But that's sort of beside the point. Trump is the president of the United States. There is now ample evidence that a very serious accusation he made about a former president is simply not true. Standing by it now is simply irresponsible.

Read the original post:
James B. Comey complicated the life of every Republican elected official today - Washington Post

Orlando attorney Kevin Morenski on Monday announced his plans to run as a Republican against Democrat Aramis Ayala for Orange-Osceola state attorney in 2020.

Much of the focus at his news conference at the Orange County Courthouse, however, was on Ken Lewis, a fired former assistant state attorney who Morenski said would be his top assistant if elected.

Lewis was fired in 2016 after writing in a Facebook post in the hours after the Pulse massacre that all Orlando clubs are "zoos; utter cesspools of debauchery and downtown Orlando was a "melting pot of third world miscreants and ghetto thugs."

Morenski, 31, a family law and criminal defense attorney, said he was running in response to Ayalas decision not to seek the death penalty in capital cases.

Ayala said Thursday she would not seek capital punishment for Markeith Loyd, charged with killing Orlando Police Lt. Debra Clayton and his pregnant ex-girlfriend, Sade Dixon. Gov. Rick Scott removed Ayala from the case, but she filed a motion Monday to stay that decision.

I share the outrage an overwhelming number of you feel about of the loss of faith in the position of state attorney for Orange and Osceola counties, Morenski said on the courthouse steps.

The people deserve a state attorney who is honest, ethical and dignified to serve in that capacity, he said. And above all, the people deserve a state attorney who will honor their oath to this community and follow the law. Every decision I make will not be made out of political expediency, cronyism, or an ulterior purpose.

Morenski cited Ayalas death penalty decision, as well as what he called playing the race card during her 2016 campaign in explaining why he decided to run. He also said she went too far in making an example of six employees fired over a cocaine- and marijuana-use scandal, saying two of the fired employees had no connection to the cocaine use and were unfairly targeted.

He also criticized Ayalas predecessor, Jeff Ashton, for using the Ashley Madison online dating website in his work office. Ayala defeated Ashton in the Democratic primary last year, which determined the election with only a write-in Republican challenger.

I am a Republican, and it was shameful that the Republican Party failed to give you a real choice in 2016, he said. That will change, that must change.

Morenski said Lewis, the best and most experienced homicide prosecutor this office had, would be his chief assistant if elected. That should dispel any thoughts or concerns about my administrations qualifications.

Lewis said Morenski had a powerful message, and felt that it was enough of an emegency situation that announcing more than three years before the election was warranted. He also admitted, I dont know Mr. Morenski, but [he] reached out to me Saturday and I said I would listen to what he had to say.

Lewis said the posts that led to his firing were satire, my Facebook page is satire. It has nothing to do with how we do our jobs over here. My record speaks for itself right here in this courthouse.

slemongello@orlandosentinel.com, 407-418-5920 or @stevelemongello

Death penalty decision looms large over Aramis Ayala's political future

See the original post:
Republican attorney announces 2020 run against State Attorney Aramis Ayala - Orlando Sentinel

The Call-In: Answering Your Questions About The Republican Health Care Plan NPR On this week's edition, we answer your questions about the Republican health care proposal. Facebook; Twitter. Google+. Email. Get The Stories That Grabbed Us This Week. Delivered to your inbox every Sunday, these are the NPR stories that keep us ...

Original post:
The Call-In: Answering Your Questions About The Republican Health Care Plan - NPR

The 9th Circuit the largest and most important of the 13 federal court circuits in the country, encompassing 11 Western states and territories and covering nearly 20% of the U.S. population is under siege. Four Republican congressmen have introduced bills to break up the circuit in various ways. All four bills have a chance of passing. None of them makes any sense.

The arguments for splitting the U.S. Courts for the 9th Circuit are perennial: Its too big, too slow and, most of all, too liberal. But none of these complaints is sound. Moreover, breaking up the court would add considerable costs while potentially lowering the quality of judging.

Most of the justifications offered for splitting the 9th Circuit have to do with its size, and it does indeed hear a lot of cases more than 55,000 civil and criminal cases in its district courts in 2015 alone, along with 12,000 appeals in its appellate court.

Big doesnt always mean bad, however. The 9th Circuit may do a lot, but its pretty efficient. The circuit has pioneered mediation units and screening panels to help solve cases early, and it disposes of nearly half its appeals that way. It methodically allocates resources, assigning extra judges to areas faced with a shortage. The appellate court broadcasts arguments on the Web, allowing citizens to watch proceedings without traveling to a courthouse. The 9th Circuit doesnt handle cases any more slowly than other circuits if you account for the number of cases assigned to each judge.

Another common rationale for carving up the circuit is its supposedly high reversal rate in the Supreme Court, which last year hit 79%. That sounds high until you realize the Supreme Court on average reverses lower-court decisions 70% of the time. (The 6th Circuit, comprising just four Midwestern states, had a reversal rate of 81%.) The 9th Circuit also encompasses some of the most experimental states in the country, including Arizona, which frequently passes innovative immigration laws; Oregon, with its expansive individual-rights laws on assisted suicide and marijuana; and, of course, California. If anything, its surprising the Supreme Court doesnt reverse decisions from the 9th Circuit more often.

The real cause behind the efforts to split the circuit is that its appellate court is perceived as too liberal. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, has been a conservative bugaboo since the 1970s, when President Carter and a Democratic supermajority in Congress doubled the number of judges on the court and appointed some of the most liberal jurists in American history. Right-wing radio hosts and politicians love beating up on the nutty 9th.

But in reality, the courts liberalism has declined dramatically. Judges appointed to the court by Presidents Clinton and Obama have been steadily more centrist, while Republican appointees have remained conservative.

Meanwhile, the real-world costs of splitting the 9th Circuit are extremely high. So high that every prior effort to split the circuit there have been seven or eight attempts since the early 1990s has failed. Division would double the bureaucracy and infrastructure to the tune of some $200 million up front and $35 million a year for taxpayers. Businesses could face twice the litigation and compliance costs depending on where they operate, and they might have to wrangle with different interpretations of federal law throughout the West. This is one reason why Congress has modified circuit borders only twice, in the 1920s and the 1980s, in response to requests from judges. By contrast, the 9th Circuits judges have historically voted to remain cohesive.

If lightening the caseload is the reason to break up the circuit, there is simply no good way to achieve that goal. California cases make up nearly two-thirds of the circuits work, and drawing a line in the middle of a state with different federal law on either side would wreak havoc. Each of the pending congressional proposals to split the circuit would siphon only 20% to 30% of its current cases, a figure so small that one of the new circuits would be back up to the 9th Circuits current numbers within a decade or so. Not to mention that putting California in its own circuit, or with just a few other states, would probably create one that is even more liberal.

Additionally, the quality of appellate judging might suffer from a smaller circuit. When the same judges sit together over and over, they become very familiar, which can foster discord or, worse, an over-willingness to defer to one another. Indeed, Congress would do well to consider merging some of the smaller circuits, rather than breaking up a bigger one.

On the 9th Circuit, the Court of Appeals assigns its three-judge appellate panels randomly from its scores of active, senior and visiting judges. The circuits geographic spread means a case arising out of California might be heard by judges from Idaho, Hawaii or Washington, allowing for a great variety of perspectives to inform the courts judgment. The judges sit in different frequencies and in different months. Their relationships are professional rather than personal, in part because of their number and distance.

Shifting the circuits borders around wont change the overall number of cases per judge or the way its judges decide legal questions, either. There are liberal judges from Montana and Arizona, and there are conservative judges from California and Oregon. If Congress really wants to speed up the 9th Circuit and influence the way it decides precedent-setting cases, it should create more judgeships. Compared with the other circuits, the 9th is understaffed; it should have at least five more appellate judgeships and 21 more district judgeships.

Adding judges might be particularly alluring to Republicans because it would allow them to make use of the gift former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid now regrets giving them the ability to appoint federal judges without the risk of a filibuster.

The last time a party controlled the White House and had filibuster-proof power to appoint federal judges was in the 1970s, when Carter gave the 9th Circuit its hyper-liberal reputation. If congressional Republicans took this route, they could shift the courts political leanings without creating problems for litigants and businesses along the West Coast.

There is one final advantage to keeping the 9th Circuit intact: Republicans would retain their favorite culprit. After all, what would they do without the nutty 9th to blame?

Ben Feuer is the chairman of the California Appellate Law Group.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook

More:
The Republican case for breaking up the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit makes no sense - Los Angeles Times