Mediaboss Marketing

Top Republican congressional leaders rushed to defend the Trump administration Tuesday after it was revealed that the White House directed GOP Hill staffers to not divulge the details of the extreme vetting and refugee ban they helped draft.

After a weekend of chaos over President Trumps controversial travel ban on seven majority Muslim nations and the resettlement of war refugees into the U.S., it became apparent that several pertinent committees, agencies and leaders were left out of the loop prior to the executive orders immediate implementation on Friday. But as Politico reported late Monday, at least one particular group was consulted beforehand.

Some staff of the House Judiciary Committee were permitted to offer their policy expertise to the Trump transition team about immigration law, but only after they were sworn to complete secrecy even keeping their own bosses in the dark.

OnTuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan remained unfazed andbrushed offthe reports of the Trump administration circumventing GOP leadership to consult Republican legislative staffers.

Congressional staffers help the administration all the time, Ryan said, before directing further questions to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia.

Asked about the remarkable situation in which his staffers were reportedly better briefed on a major immigration shift than he was, Goodlatte defended the Trumps administration on Tuesday.

My staff on the House Judiciary Committee are some of the best on Capitol Hill. They are experts in their respective fields and I proudly allowed them to provide their expertise to the Trump transition team on immigration law, Goodlatte said in a statement.

To be clear, while they gave advice to the new Administration, they did not have decision making authority on the policy. The final decision was made at the highest levels of the Trump Administration, and I support the Presidents executive order.

Major questions still remain about Goodlattes staffs involvement in the executive order specifically if he signed off on the reported NDAs.

The White Houses handling of the executive order has prompted calls from Capitol Hill that Trumps team needs to do a better job going forward of coordinating strategy and messaging.

I think we need to work on better communication, said House GOP Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers,R-Washington, said on Monday.

Trumps order immediately caused confusion and protests at airports as even legal permanent residents of the US, who held green cards, were detained and denied entry at ports of entry.

Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, did not receive advance notice of the executive order.

In the future, such policy changes should be better coordinated with the agencies implementing them and with Congress to ensure we get it right and dont undermine our nations credibility while trying to restore it, he said in a statement.

It would have been smarter to coordinate with us, Representative Dave Brat of Virginia, a Trump ally, told the Atlantic on Monday. They could have done a better job announcing how the complexities were going to work in advance.

Read the original:
Republican leaders proudly defend Trump poaching congressional staffers to help draft refugee ban - Salon

New York Times

The Republican Fausts New York Times Many Republican members of Congress have made a Faustian bargain with Donald Trump. They don't particularly admire him as a man, they don't trust him as an administrator, they don't agree with him on major issues, but they respect the grip he has on ... and more »

Read the rest here:
The Republican Fausts - New York Times

President Trumps uneasy alliance with his Republican majorities in Congress is beginning to teeter.

Top lawmakers and party aides accused the White House of blindsiding them with an executive order on immigration that sowed chaos at major U.S. airports, contradicting administration officials who claimed that Capitol Hill had taken a leading role in writing the policy. Senior aides to the chairmen of the House Homeland Security, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs committees all said the White House failed to consult them on the immigration directive, which led to lawsuits and widespread protests across the country over the weekend. More Republican lawmakers issued statements critical of Trumps action on Sunday evening and Monday, even as many said they supported a temporary halt to the refugee program and restrictions on travel from Muslim countries.

How the Political World Is Reacting to Trump's Immigration Order

It would have been smarter to coordinate with us, Representative Dave Brat of Virginia, a Trump ally, said in a phone interview on Monday. They could have done a better job announcing how the complexities were going to work in advance.

Republicans were particularly angry that the Trump administration did not initially exempt green-card holders, or those who had served as military or diplomatic interpreters from the ban. In the future, such policy changes should be better coordinated with the agencies implementing them and with Congress to ensure we get it rightand dont undermine our nations credibility while trying to restore it, Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement.

A senior administration official told reporters in a background briefing on Sunday night that Republicans on Capitol Hill wrote the policya statement that Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, defended on Monday. But multiple top Republican aides said the assertion was false.

Ha! Thats my formal response, said one senior GOP aide. There was precisely zero coordination with us on the drafting of this executive order. The aide said that one or two rogue staffers with the House Judiciary Committee had worked informally with the White House on the order, but that the administration never formally involved the relevant congressional leaders. Separately, an aide with the Judiciary Committee said that the panels chairman, Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, was not consulted by the administrationa sign that the staffers working under him had helped the White House without Goodlattes knowledge. Politico reported Monday night that the Judiciary Committee staffers signed nondisclosure agreements.

The aides insisted on anonymity to avoid provoking a further fight with the new president, but they spoke with more candor than the more diplomatic statements that GOP members of Congress have released in recent days. Officials said John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, will meet with a bipartisan group of lawmakers Tuesday in the Capitol to discuss the the executive order.

Trumps executive order has plenty of support from conservative immigration hawks on Capitol Hill, including from those, like Brat, who thought the administration stumbled in rolling it out. I think theres a need for some of these moves before something happens thats really bad, Brat told me, referring to the fear that a terrorist might infiltrate the refugee program or otherwise slip into the United States without being detected. Echoing Trump, he faulted both the media and Democrats for overreacting to the order and exaggerating the havoc it wrought at airports.

Many other Republicans, however, argued that the order was overly broad and poorly vetted, leaving them unable to properly defend a policy they would otherwise support on narrower grounds.

While we certainly need to enhance our current vetting process and significantly reform our immigration policies to make sure terrorists are not exploiting our nations proud tradition of freedom and acceptance, the president's policy entirely misses the mark, Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, a freshman Republican, said on Monday.

One senior GOP aide said that some of the confusion about congressional involvement in the executive order resulted from comments that former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made Saturday night on Fox News, in which he said the policy began when Trump asked him to form a commission to draft a Muslim ban in a legal way. That group included McCaul, Representative Peter King of New York, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, according to Giuliani. The congressional aide familiar with the talks said all the group did was write a memo for Trump that explicitly advised him not to pursue a blanket ban on Muslims entering the U.S., as he had promised on the campaign trail.

The memo made a forceful case against some kind of categorical ban on Muslims and made the case that the then-candidate needed to narrowly target the political ideology driving Islamist terrorism, the aide said. It then more broadly made the case that Muslims who embrace American values and our principles are actually an asset to U.S. national security and to our national fabric.

Our hope, the aide continued, was to get him to stop saying Muslim ban and to stop pushing those policies and to focus on real counter-terrorism policies to keep the bad guys out of the United States.

Was the executive order consistent with the memos advice? Mostly no, the aide said. The memo did not recommend banning entry from any of the seven majority-Muslim countries singled out in the executive order.

The GOP aide also rejected Trumps argument, made in a tweet on Monday, that if he had announced the ban with more notice, the bad would rush into our country during that week. It takes up to two years for foreign travelers to enter the U.S. through the refugee program the order suspended, and at least several weeks to get visas from the countries affected by the wider travel ban. We think that was bad policy, and it had a bad outcome. It's not a logical justification, the aide said. There was no risk of terrorists flooding into the country if they had shared this in advance.

The number of Republican lawmakers criticizing the executive order or its implementation grew to more than two dozen on Monday, according to a Washington Post tally, and they included several powerful members of the Senate: John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, and Bob Corker. Trump retained stronger support among the party leadership, but the complaints from senior lawmakers and aides were an indication that the warm feelings of unity with the administration generated by the GOPs policy retreat in Philadelphia last week had chilled considerably. And they cast doubt on the claims by party leaders that the White House was working hand-in-glove with Republicans in Congress on the agenda.

Its also not clear that Trump places a high priority on a close relationship with Congress in the first place. The president needs Republicans to stick together to pass his agenda, particularly in the Senate. But he has not hesitated to attack members of the party who criticize him, most recently McCain and Graham on Sunday.

Despite the criticism of his immigration move, there was no indication of a widespread Republican revolt against Trump fewer than 10 days into in presidency. GOP lawmakers quickly turned aside Democratic attempts in the House and Senate for a vote overturning the executive order Monday night, and Republicans aides said there were no immediate plans for a legislative response.

Read more here:
Cracks Appear in the Trump-Republican Alliance - The Atlantic

New York Times

If Trump Goes After 'Dreamers,' Republican Loyalty May Be Tested New York Times Some Republicans have contemplated those potentially searing depictions and worry they could provoke an outcry that would dwarf this weekend's response to the new restrictions. It is a chief reason they are anxious about precipitately moving forward ... and more »

Read the rest here:
If Trump Goes After 'Dreamers,' Republican Loyalty May Be Tested - New York Times

But many Congressional Republicans also want to achieve the fiscal holy grail: a balanced budget in 10 years. The most conservative among them want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and have been willing to risk government shutdowns and national default just to secure spending cuts.

"We believe government should not live beyond its means," House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week at the GOP retreat in Philadelphia.

But here's the problem: The changes Republicans are considering could add trillions to the debt. And paying for all of them will be a major challenge, if not practically impossible, say some fiscal experts.

As it is, U.S. debt is already projected to grow by roughly $9.4 trillion in the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Here's the GOP to-do list:

Build a wall: $12 billion to $25 billion

Republican leaders estimate the wall that Trump wants built along the U.S.-Mexican border will cost $12 billion to $15 billion. But outside experts believe it could be as high as $25 billion.

Trump, of course, has said repeatedly he would make Mexico pay for it. But Mexico isn't keen on that. So unless and until that happens, Congress will have to authorize money to build the wall.

Normally, Republicans demand that new spending be offset with spending cuts elsewhere. But Ryan indicated in a Politico interview last week that lawmakers will authorize a supplemental request from the White House -- i.e., "emergency spending," which doesn't have to be offset under legislative rules.

Democrats, however, have already indicated they will try to block that funding in the Senate.

Partially repeal, then replace Obamacare: Full cost unknown.

It's difficult to put a price tag on repeal-and-replace.

First, the current assumption is that lawmakers will repeal Obamacare partially: Get rid of the taxes and mandates immediately, then delay the repeal of the Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies by up to two years. The estimated savings would be $550 billion over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. (Full repeal, by contrast, would increase deficits by between $150 billion and $350 billion.)

Second, Republicans have yet to propose a replacement plan. That plan will cost money, wiping out any savings from partial repeal and very likely adding to deficits if it provides the coverage accessibility and affordability that Republicans say it will.

Reform the tax code: $3 trillion to $7 trillion over a decade

The reduction in revenue might hew closer to $3 trillion over a decade if lawmakers stick with House Republicans' proposal, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center. But if they follow Trump's proposal, the price tag could double.

One reason why the House Republicans' tax reform blueprint would cost less is because they would change how imports and exports are taxed. The measure is estimated to raise more than $1 trillion.

But it's not clear if Trump will sign on to that change.

Both Trump and House Republicans, meanwhile, believe their changes would generate economic growth to replace at least some of the revenue loss from any tax cuts.

Invest in infrastructure: $200 billion to $1 trillion over a decade

Here the cost to federal coffers will depend on whether lawmakers choose to rely on direct spending of revenue as well as borrowing; or if they choose to raise money for public/private partnerships.

Increase defense spending: $100 billion to $430 billion over 5 years

Many Republicans want to increase defense spending above the current budget caps in place.

Fiscal conservatives might only want to raise it by $100 billion over 5 years, while major defense hawks -- like Sen. John McCain -- may push for increases north of $400 billion, according to Katherine Blakeley, research fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment.

That range doesn't include any "emergency" money for overseas contingency operations that Congress often approves. Such spending doesn't have to be paid for.

Trump indicated that more defense spending is a priority, budget concerns aside.

"I want a balanced budget eventually. But I want to have a strong military. To me, that's much more important than anything," Trump said on Fox News' "Hannity" last week.

Paying for it all

So how will Trump and Republicans do everything they want without increasing deficits, let alone balance the budget in a decade?

For starters, they're opposed to increasing tax revenue, except through economic growth. While growth is helpful, it's not sufficient.

Second, most spending growth in the future will be in so-called mandatory spending -- that is, spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt. Trump has said he doesn't want to touch Social Security and Medicare at all. And Republicans who want entitlement reform don't want to affect current retirees' benefits. So that pretty much rules out much in savings in the first decade.

Third, the administration and Republicans talk a lot about cutting "discretionary" domestic programs -- which constitute the smallest part of the federal budget and are not primary drivers of debt.

Lastly, there's Trump himself, who says he's more concerned with boosting the economy for now.

"So a balanced budget is fine. But sometimes, you have to fuel the well in order to really get the economy going. And we have to take care of our military," he told Fox.

Factors like these convince Democratic budget expert Stan Collender that "if you're going to be surprised on deficits, it'll be on the high side."

CNNMoney (New York) First published January 31, 2017: 1:05 PM ET

Follow this link:
Republican plans will cost trillions. Can they pay for them? - CNNMoney