Archive for the ‘Republican’ Category

Peyton Manning reportedly will speak at Republican retreat featuring President Trump – Chicago Tribune

In the nearly one year since he retired from the NFL, Peyton Manning has spent most of his time doing advertisements and watching football games as a VIP spectator. Now, he's making a little room for politics.

The former quarterback is scheduled to join speakers that include President Trump, Vice President Pence and British Prime Minister Theresa May at a joint Senate-House GOP retreat that begins Wednesday in Philadelphia, Politico reports. The purpose of the retreat is to map out the Republican agenda.

Manning is no stranger to Republican causes, even though he initially backed a candidate not named Donald Trump. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush outed him as a donor to his presidential campaign a year ago, telling a crowd that he rooted for Manning's Denver Broncos in Super Bowl 50 "because Peyton Manning wrote me a check." Manning and Donald Trump Jr. ran into each other on the campaign trail last summer in Mississippi and there seemed to be no hard feelings about the past.

In the past, Manning has donated to several Republican politicians, most of whom were candidates in Tennessee - where Manning starred in college.

Throughout their careers, Manning and New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady were inextricably linked and it seems they share a friendship with the new president, as well. Brady has acknowledged that Trump is a good friend, although he would not reveal his vote last November. Last year, Trump told CBS's "Face the Nation" that he knew and liked Manning.

"I very much have always liked Peyton Manning," Trump said before Super Bowl 50. "He is a very good guy. I know him. And he is a very, very good guy. So, I have to go with the person I know and I like. I like the other team. I think the other team looks fantastic. Probably, they would be favored by something. But I will stick with Peyton, because he is a very good guy."

In a radio interview Monday, Brady attempted to head off questions about his friendship with Trump ahead of his Super Bowl LI appearance, talked about their relationship, explaining that friends need not see eye-to-eye on everything.

"I have called him, yes, in the past. Sometimes he calls me. Sometimes I call," he said on WEEI's "Kirk and Callahan" show, detailing his dialing habits. "But, again, that's been someone I've known. I always try to keep it in context because for 16 years you know someone before maybe he was in the position that he was in. He's been very supportive of me for a long time. It's just a friendship. I have a lot of friends. I call a lot of people."

Originally posted here:
Peyton Manning reportedly will speak at Republican retreat featuring President Trump - Chicago Tribune

Republicans huddle as Trump begins to call the signals – Washington Post (blog)

Even though its only the third week ofJanuary, one of the most important meetings of the year is about to take place in Philadelphia. Think of the upcoming Republican Policy Retreat as the huddle at the start of the first game of the season, when everybody is listening for the new quarterback to call the play. The stakes are high as President Trump meets with both the leadership and the rank-and-file members of the House and Senate Republican caucuses. This will be the first time that just about everyone who matters will be together in one place to talk shop.

Despite some of the ragged edges surrounding the inauguration, I think there is a good vibe and a lot of positive energy building before the retreat begins. Republicans everywhere starting with GOP members of Congress sense a great opportunity not just to correct some of the problems created in the Obama years but also to fundamentally rewrite U.S.domestic policy, from health care and taxes to education and energy.

Trumps Cabinet picks have been well-received by Republican members of Congress, a lot of GOP staff members are beginning to populate the White House and the executive agencies and the chemistry is good. As everything settles into place, it is time for the Trump team to explain the presidents priorities and begin coordinating the efforts that will make Trumps words become law. In other words, the rubber is about to hit the road. It is time to reconcile what the president has said with some conflicting statements Cabinet officials made in their confirmation hearings and synchronize the new administrations priorities with those of the RepublicanCongress.

The stakes are high, but this should not be a difficult encounter. As I said earlier, GOP lawmakers have a sense of optimism and confidence about what they can accomplish with Trump at the helm. It will be unfortunate if tweets, rants, alternative facts or other distractions prevent precise priorities from being defined and a clear message from being conveyed at the end of the Republican Policy Retreat.

Read this article:
Republicans huddle as Trump begins to call the signals - Washington Post (blog)

Week ahead: FCC soon to be in Republican Pai’s hands – The Hill

President Trump has settled on Republican Ajit Pai ashis choice for chairmanof the Federal Communications Commission, sources told The Hill Friday.

The move was widely expected and certain to be welcomed by Republican lawmakers.

Look for Pai to hit the ground running as soon as the pick is made official.

Pai is currently a commissioner on the FCC board and an outspoken critic of many of the regulations pushed by former Chairman Tom Wheeler, who stepped down Friday.

Most notably, he has beena fierce opponentof the net neutrality rules enshrined in the FCC's Open Internet Order, and all signs point to Republicans gearing up toroll back elementsof the regulation.

Pai has had good relations with congressional Republicans and he will be closely watched as he works with House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and his Senate counterpart, Chairman John ThuneJohn ThuneTrump, GOP set to battle on spending cuts Week ahead: FCC soon to be in Republican Pai's hands Senate confirms first nominees of Trump era MORE, (R-S.D.) to undo the many tech and telecom regulations passed under the Obama administration.

But some believe that Pai could also be at odds with the Trump administration on some issues.

Pai is generally lauded by the industry for his anti-regulatory stance, leading many to believe that he will look favorably at the proposed AT&T-Time Warner merger if it comes under FCC scrutiny.

But Trump himselfcame out hardagainst the $85 billion deal during the campaign. Though, in recent days he's suggested he is still deciding his stance,telling Axiosin an interview that "I haven't seen any of the facts." That remark came just one day after hemet with Paiat Trump Tower and less than a week after AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson paid Trump a visit.

A report fromMultichannel Newslast week also said the new president's team is eyeing a massive overhaul of the FCC. The changes could shift many of their efforts on consumer protection handed off to the Federal Trade Commission.

FCC chairman is only one of many tech posts that Trump will need to fill in the coming weeks.

One post tech watchers will be anticipating is a replacement for Chief Technology Officer Megan Smith.

There'll be continuity in one key office though.Trump is keepingPatent and Trademark Office Director Michelle Lee as the head of that agency.

Both chambers of Congress will be back in session in the coming week with the Senate and House Commerce Committees holding meetings on Tuesday.

The Senate panel will take a look at a number of tech bills, including Thune's MOBILE Now Act, which is also sponsored by Ranking Member Bill NelsonBill NelsonWeek ahead: FCC soon to be in Republican Pai's hands Meet Trump's secret weapon on infrastructure Live coverage: Senators grill Trump's Treasury pick MORE (D-Fla.). Thune reintroduced the bill earlier this month to try to free up more wireless spectrum for commercial use.

Also on the Senate panel's agenda, the DIGIT Act, which seeks to boost the development of the Internet of Things (IoT), and the SANDY Act, which would shore up communications networks during emergencies. Those two bills have bipartisan support.

Recent stories:

Trump totapRepublican Ajit Pai as next FCC chairman

Obamasignshis last bill

How cellphone providersprepared for inauguration demand

Five key players for Trump on tech

Patent Office head tokeep spotin Trump administration

FTCfilesanti-competitive practices suit against Qualcomm

Uberagreesto $20 million settlement with FTC over driver pay

Anti-Trump protesters block Uber's San Francisco headquarters

LGBT rights page gone from White House website

Report: Microsoft to lay off 700 employees

Snap hires Kerry aide to run global public policy operations

Department of Labor sues Oracle for discrimination

'Love Actually' director uses Pokmon Go to put focus on global poverty

Read more:
Week ahead: FCC soon to be in Republican Pai's hands - The Hill

Republican Legislators Propose a Series of Bills to Criminalize Peaceful Protests – Cosmopolitan.com

While most of the world is still buzzing with positive energy from the Women's Marches on Saturday, several Republican legislators have been working hard to potentially make future peaceful protests a punishable offense.

According to The Intercept, several proposals have been introduced by Republican legislators over the past few weeks specifically targeting protests that block or obstruct traffic including a North Dakota bill that would allow motorists to hit and kill protesters obstructing the highway "as long as [the] driver does so accidentally."

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Another bill in Minnesota would make obstructing a highway a "gross misdemeanor" punishable by a hefty fine of $3,000 and up to a year in jail, while a separate piece of legislature would make "obstructing the legal process" punishable by an even heftier fine of up to $10,000 plus "imprisonment of not less than 12 months." Similar bills designed to criminalize and discourage protests have also been proposed in Washington, Iowa, and Michigan.

As The Intercept points out, this "trend" appears to be a not-so-subtle workaround to the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Furthermore, the bills seem to be in response to recent protests organized by Black Lives Matter and the activists fighting construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline which is horrifying for a multitude of reasons, most notably the continued criminalization of black and brown people.

The very specific targeting becomes even more concerning when combined with what Slate reports is a "bracing message implicitly directed to supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement" from the Trump administration. As the source points out, amongst the "Top Issues" on President Trump's new White House website is "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community," which in part appears to be addressed to protestors of police violence.

"The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration," the website reads. "The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it ... Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter."

While neither specifically mentions Black Lives Matter or the Dakota Access Pipeline by name, it's easy to see how both the proposed bills and the Trump administration's stance feed a dangerous, violent narrative that targets smaller protests mostly consisting of people of color. As many pointed out in response to the low arrest numbers of the Women's Marches, it's not only a sign of a successful protest, but also proof of a wholly different method of policing which is why, now more than ever, it's so essential just as many people show up for the small, local protests as the big ones.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Follow Gina on Twitter.

See the rest here:
Republican Legislators Propose a Series of Bills to Criminalize Peaceful Protests - Cosmopolitan.com

The Republicans Own Obamacare Now. How Many People Will They Let Suffer? – New York Magazine

Republicans certainly arent pursuing their repeal-and-delay plan because its popular. Photo: Michael Krinke/Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The expanded health-care coverage created by the Affordable Care Act has been in place for just three years, and already its effects are measurable. Hospital-acquired conditions have dropped by 21 percent, saving more than 125,000 lives, in response to better incentives. (Before Obamacare, if hospitals had lots of infections, affected patients would return for more treatment, increasing hospital revenue.) Diagnoses of certain chronic conditions among low-income patients have risen. Access to routine checkups has increased, and people are now in less danger of falling into debt because of illness. Medical inflation has dropped to its lowest level in decades.

As Donald Trumps Republican-controlled government assumes power, it has made its first task the dismantling of the law that has produced these gains. If we were watching a developing country consciously set about reversing its own social progress shutting down its electrical grid, tearing out its indoor-plumbing system to revert to well water we would find it baffling. The extent of the damage Republicans inflict remains to be seen, but one way to calculate it, should the dismantling occur, will be in American lives lost. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 18 million Americans would immediately lose their insurance, a number that would increase to 32 million by 2026. A study of mortality rates in Massachusetts before and after that state enacted reforms similar to Obamacare found that one life was saved for every 830 adults who gained insurance coverage. Eighteen million divided by 830 equals almost 22,000 lives at stake, plus untold suffering from millions who would be denied access to regular medical care. The fact that Republicans are embarking on such a cruel, self-destructive project at all speaks to the pathology that has engulfed the new governing party.

Trump has insisted throughout the campaign that he will take care of everybody, that his plan would be much less expensive and much better and is very much formulated down to the final strokes. We havent put it in quite yet, but were going to be doing it soon. This boast created some initial confusion within party ranks; Republican health-care adviser Yuval Levin reported that the conservative health-care universe, including some people on Trumps own team, quickly concluded that the separate administration plan he described was entirely a figment of Trumps imagination. Trump is employing the same technique he used to enthrall conservatives about the birther conspiracy, only in reverse: Rather than pretending that a real document (Barack Obamas birth certificate) was fake, he insisted an imaginary document (the much cheaper, much better Trumpcare plan) was real. He is hardly alone in this. Trumps lie was merely a less careful version of the same fantasy that Republicans have repeated for eight years. Since the health-care debate began in 2009, they have been promising that if Democrats scrapped their plan, Republicans could provide cheaper, better coverage to the uninsured. Indeed, even as far back as 1994, Republicans promised that if the Clinton health-care plan was defeated, they would start over and pass something terrific instead. They never did. If Obamacare had been defeated in 2010, health-care reform would rank as high on Trumps agenda today as it did on George W. Bushs from 2001 to 2008: last. Instead, Republicans are caught having to follow through on their impossible promises. The GOP health-care plan is the teenage nerds mythical girlfriend who lives in Canada the one nobody has ever seen.

Republicans do have ideas on health care. The catch is that those ideas are resoundingly unpopular. They want to force Americans to make do with much cheaper plans that cover much less care. The party has refused to grapple with any of the trade-offs inherent in the issue. Two-thirds of all health spending is consumed by 10 percent of the public. The only way to cover the cost of their care is to make other people pay for it. Republicans denounce any such mechanism. They also denounce Obamacares regulations, proposing instead to let anybody buy the kind of insurance they want. But all those regulations serve the purpose of spreading the costs from the sick to the healthy. If healthy people can buy cheaper insurance that doesnt cover expensive treatments they dont need, then the cost of those treatments will be borne entirely by people with expensive medical needs. You could fund those treatments through taxes instead but, of course, Republicans hate taxes even more than they hate regulations.

At his confirmation hearing, Tom Price, Trumps nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, promised, Our goal would be to go from what we see as a Democrat health-care system to an American health-care system. He bashed Obamacare for its high deductibles, just as House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have done repeatedly. But Prices own plan would feature much higher deductibles than Obamacare, as would most Republican proposals. Price has previously written a plan that would give people a tax credit ranging from $1,200 to $3,000 a year. Thats only enough to pay for about one-third of the cost of an inexpensive individual plan on the market today. He would also let insurers charge higher rates to people with preexisting conditions, unless they manage the difficult task of maintaining continuous coverage. As an article in the New England Journal of Medicine explained, Prices plan would be likely to lead low-income and even middle-class healthy people to forgo seeking coverage until a serious health problem develops. There are alternative Republican plans floating around that provide more-generous coverage, but the catch, as the Washington Post reported, is that nobody seems to know how to pay for it.

No wonder Republicans have carefully sequenced their legislative strategy in order to prevent any direct comparison between their ideas and Obamacare. If they believed Trumpcare might compare favorably with Obamacare, they would simply put it to a vote. Instead, their plan calls for separate votes first to repeal Obamacare and then, in a later vote, to replace it with something terrific. Their only hope of success lies in first destroying the status quo and then using the threat of the disaster they created to somehow put pressure on Democrats, or even recalcitrant Republicans, to vote to put something, anything, in its place.

The party has taken its fastidious secrecy about its health-care intentions to absurd lengths. In the lead-up to his confirmation hearings, Price has been kept out of the Trump transition teams efforts to craft an Obamacare replacement plan, CNN reported. According to a senior transition official, the incoming administration wants Price to be inoculated from questions about what Trumps alternative to the Affordable Care Act looks like. Trumps advisers would rather delay the process of devising their own plan than risk exposing their ideas to the public.

Republicans certainly arent pursuing their repeal-and-delay plan because its popular. Various polls have found that 20 percent of the public favors a repeal vote that doesnt include a replacement plan. They are doing so because, now that they enjoy almost total control of the federal government, they are stuck. Republicans have been catastrophically successful at convincing their supporters that Obamacare is pure evil, devoid of any virtues whatsoever, and thus that it can easily be replaced with an alternative that is superior in every dimension. How far they will go to maintain their lie is a question on which millions of lives now depend.

*This article appears in the January 23, 2017, issue of New York Magazine.

Josh Kushner, Ivanka Trumps Brother-in-Law, Was Reportedly Spotted at the Womens March

White House (Falsely) Declares Trumps Inauguration Crowd The Largest In History

A Scene from the D.C. Womens March

Trump Says Media Will Pay a Big Price For Reporting That His Inauguration Crowd Was Small

SNL Says Good-bye to Barack Obama With Poignant To Sir, With Love Performance

They say payments his businesses collect from foreign governments violate the Emoluments Clause.

Hes the first person in the Trump White House to be involved in probes conducted by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Treasury.

A love letter to my new country.

Once you lose faith in one institution, you start to lose faith in them all.

The extent of the damage remains to be seen, but one way to calculate it, should the ACA be dismantled, will be in American lives lost.

Seizing the oil would violate international law.

But the other one did.

Cities are places for openness and carlessness.

This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, the White House press secretary lied. Were going to hold the press accountable.

In a speech at CIA headquarters, the president called journalists the most dishonest human beings on earth and his audience cheered.

Jared Kushners appointment as a senior White House adviser does not violate anti-nepotism laws, according to the Office of Legal Counsel.

Washington heard a powerful message: The Democratic demobilization is over and a backlash awaits.

A roundup of the worldwide rallies in defense of gender equality.

John Gore has defended Republican redistricting plans and voting-roll purges against allegations of civil-rights violations.

Pastry chef Duff Goldman says they copied the cake he made for Obama in 2013.

His administration also blocked a change that would have reduced the cost of mortgages for millions of home buyers.

Police used stun grenades, tear gas, and pepper spray to disperse the rock-throwing crowd.

The 45th president does not exactly evoke meekness, mercy, or peacemaking.

Perhaps the single most obvious legal and ethical issue facing the Trump presidency will, for now at least, remain unresolved.

See the rest here:
The Republicans Own Obamacare Now. How Many People Will They Let Suffer? - New York Magazine