Mediaboss Marketing

For the most part, Congress abides by an unwritten rule: Don't do something that could set you up for a fight with your own party, especially your own president, unless you absolutely have to.

That's what makes a series of sanctions against Russia that the House passed on Tuesday so remarkable: It sets a Republican Congress directly up against a Republican president. And it's the clearest statement yet that Congress doesn'tbelieve President Trump can or will effectively respond to the threat Russia poses.

This is why this bill exists, is they don't trust the administration to do this right, said Olga Oliker, director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The bill, which passed the House by a 419 to 3 vote, imposes newsanctions on officials in Russia, Iran and North Korea. Notably, the legislation will prevent Trump from lifting some of those sanctions on his own, reported The Post's Mike DeBonis and Karoun Demirjian. The Senate could approve the package by the end of the week, and Trump will either be forced to sign it or get in a veto standoff with Congress. Margins like the one in Tuesday's vote show that's a standoff Congress could win.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said it is "well past time" to respond to threats from Russia, Iran and North Korea and pass bipartisan legislation to increase financial sanctions on July 25. (Reuters)

[House prepares to pass sanctions bill and set up veto dilemma for Trump]

The Russia sanctions are retaliation for Russia's alleged meddling in the U.S. presidential election. These will be in addition to sanctions President Barack Obama issued on his way out the door, kicking Russian diplomats out of Washington and seizing Russia-owned compounds in the United States.

If Congress thinks Russia needs more punishment, it's pretty obvious why theyaren't confident Trump will do it.

The White House has said it's not opposed to sanctions, but it's been wishy-washy on what those would be. Also, the White House's official statements don't match with the president's actions. Trump has refused to acknowledge the overwhelming conclusion of U.S. intelligence officials that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered Russia to try to influence the U.S. election to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Trump win. He appears to be considering firing his attorney general after complaining about the Justice Department investigation into Russia's actions and any possible help from the Trump campaign. He'sconsidered giving the diplomatic compounds back to Russia.

Asizable majority of Congress has apolar opposite view on how to handle Russia and decided to take things in its own hands. An initial version of these sanctions passed the Senate 98-2, and this version is expected to pass the House with at least a two-thirds (read: veto-proof) majority.

That's a remarkable demonstration of unity from a Congress that has shown exactly none of it lately. Tying Trump's hands on Russia is one of the only things Congress can agree on right now.

There's a lot of stuff they'd rather be doing, Oliker said, and that they're much better equipped to deal with. But in the face of an administration that seems to be having a very difficult time articulating its foreign policy, members of Congress have felt they have little choice but to take foreign policy into their own hands.

From a diplomatic perspective, it's not ideal for Congress to levy sanctions against foreign governments or officials. Both Congress and the president have the power to do so, but the White House's sanctions power is much more nimble. Trump can institute or lift them with the wave of a pen. It's a flexible carrot-and-stick approachand more in line with thenuanced way diplomacy works, Oliker said.

When Congress issues sanctions, they tend to stay in place for a while. A majority of lawmakers in both chambers to agree to them, then they are signed by the president. The same process has to happen to reverse them.

The last time Congress forced a president to impose sanctions against Russia was in 2012, when a Republican Congress forced President Barack Obama to impose sanctions against Russia with the Magnitsky Act.

The Magnitsky Act was put in place in retaliation for the human rights abuses suffered by Russian lawyer and auditor Sergei Magnitsky, who had uncovered a financial corruption scheme involving theRussian government. It originally blocked18 Russian business executives and government officials from entering the United States and froze assets in U.S. financial institutions. And if it sounds familiar, it's allegedly one of the reasons a Russian lawyer set up a now-infamous meeting with Donald Trump Jr. during the campaign.

Anyway, in 2012, the Obama administration wanted a different set of '70s-era sanctions against Russia repealed. The Congress, then split between a Democratic-majority Senate and Republican-controlled House, basically repealed those and attached the Magnitsky Act. Then too,the message was: We don't trust you to be as tough on Russia as we want you to be.

Congress is saying the same thing to Trumptoday, only with an extra layer of political intrigue. Republicans are in control of Congress, so they decide which bills get a vote in either chamber. Thus they're primarily responsible for sticking it to Trump on Russia.

Republicans in Congress and Trump have mostly agreed on the broad strokes of policy: Repeal Obamacare, crack down on illegal immigration, end federal grants to Planned Parenthood.

But when it comes to getting tough on Russia, even Republicans in Congress don't trust their president.

Original post:
Republicans in Congress really don't trust Trump to get tough on Russia - Washington Post

Republicans in Tennessee effectively blocked Nashville from creating a bus rapid transit system and implementing zoning laws intended to increase affordable housing. Half of all states now prevent localities from setting their own minimum wages. Nearly as many have blocked municipal paid-leave laws. Local action on gun safety, soda taxes, and LGBT rights has all been targeted, too and with increasing frequency.

To be fair, this is not just a Republican problem. Earlier this year, Democrats in New York's state capital voided a fee on plastic bags adopted by the New York City Council.

Yet the problem runs deepest in red states, and Texas provides an especially egregious example. In its regular session that ended in late spring, the state legislature stripped localities of their authority to require background checks for drivers that work for ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft, prohibited localities from adopting construction-related fees to help fund affordable housing, and limited the size of the fee that cities can charge for the use of public property.

Apparently, that wasn't enough. Governor Greg Abbott has called the legislature back for a special summer session to consider 20 other issues, many of which would further curtail local authority. One, known as the "bathroom bill," would prohibit cities from allowing transgender individuals to use the bathroom that corresponds with their identity. Business leaders have lined up against it, apparently unwilling to repeat North Carolina's disastrous experience, and the Republican house speaker has opposed it.

As a general matter, governments at all levels should stay out of bedrooms and bathrooms. And wherever possible, states should stay out of the way of cities. There will be times when regulatory uniformity is necessary, but states should give greater deference and Republicans should offer more than lip service to the principle of local control.

See the article here:
Bloomberg View: Republicans should stop blocking cities from acting - Salt Lake Tribune

Jabin Botsford | The Washington Post | Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., left, and Senate Majority Whip Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas speak with reporters and members of the media after they and other Senate Republicans had a meeting with President Donald Trump.

A seven-year Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare faces a major test this week in the U.S. Senate, where lawmakers will decide whether to move forward and vote on a bill whose details and prospects are uncertain.

The Senate will decide as early as Tuesday whether to begin debating a health-care bill. But it remained unclear which version of the bill the senators would ultimately vote as lawmakers prepared to hear from U.S. President Donald Trump later on Monday.

Trump last week initially suggested he was fine with letting former President Barack Obama's signature law collapse before later urging Republican senators to hash out a deal.

The Republican president is scheduled to make a statement on health care at 3:15 p.m. (1915 GMT) following a meeting with people the White House said were harmed by the Affordable Care Act.

"Republicans have a last chance to do the right thing on Repeal & Replace after years of talking & campaigning on it," Trump tweeted on Monday.

Republicans view the 2010 health law, also known as Obamacare, as a government intrusion in the health-care market. They face pressure to make good on campaign promises to dismantle it.

But the party is divided between moderates, concerned that the Senate bill would eliminate insurance for millions of low-income Americans, and conservatives who want to see even deeper cuts to Obama's framework.

The House in May passed its health-care bill. Senate Republicans have considered two versions but have been unable to reach consensus after estimates showed they could lead to as many as 22 million fewer Americans being insured. A plan to repeal Obamacare without replacing it also ran aground.

A Senate Republican aide on Monday said the Senate will vote this week on whether to begin debate on the House-passed health-care bill. If that procedural vote succeeds, the House bill would then be open for amendment on the Senate floor.

If the Senate approves a motion to begin debating a health-care bill, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will determine which proposal has the most Republican support and move forward to a vote, Republicans said.

Republicans hold 52 of 100 Senate seats. McConnell can only afford to lose two Republican votes as Democrats are united in opposition.

Senator John Barrasso, a member of the Republican leadership, acknowledged on Sunday that there remained a lack of consensus among Republicans.

"Lots of members have different ideas on how it should be best amended to replace what is really a failing Obama health-care plan," Barrasso said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

The Republican effort has also been complicated by the absence of Senator John McCain, who has been diagnosed with brain cancer and is in his home state of Arizona weighing treatment options.

Uncertainty over the health care's future has left health insurance companies and U.S. states as well as hospitals and other doctors unclear about future funding and coverage.

Public opinion polls also show Americans worried about potential changes to the health-care system.

Read the original post:
Republicans' push to roll back Obamacare faces crucial test - CNBC

The midterm election is also a referendum on the president and President Donald Trump's approval rating fell to 39 percent in the latest Gallup poll. Bloomberg's poll last week showed that health care is the most important issue for voters, and they don't like the way Trump has handled it.

Democrats Monday were out pushing a new agenda, aimed at business.Called "A Better Deal," the Democratic economic platform calls for more scrutiny of big mergers and a new independent agency to tackle the high costs of prescription drugs.

Clifton said about 90 percent of the swing in House races in midterm elections can be determined by the generic ballot question. He said in 2009, the data correctly pointed to an out-of-consensus view that the Democrats would lose badly in 2010.

"This was a big move no matter what number you use. This happens to every new president. This happened to Obama. It happened to Clinton. It happened to Reagan. It didn't happen to George W. Bush because of 9/11," Clifton said.

Clifton said while Republicans have a map advantage in both the House and Senate, midterm elections tend to have lower voter turnout and are presidential referendums.

"This is a sign the Republicans need to get their act together. They need to get policy passed," he said. "They've got some real issues, the Republicans."

More here:
Data showing Republicans could lose House majority puts pressure on Trump, GOP for tax reform - CNBC

Only 36% of Republicans, according to the Pew Research Center, believe colleges and universities have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country, versus 58% who say they have a negative effect. Among Democrats, those figures are 72% and 19%, respectively. That finding represents a crisis.

For it to be a crisis does not depend on you having any conservative sympathies. For this to be a crisis requires only that you recognize that the GOP is one of two major political parties in American life, and that Republicans lack of faith in higher education will have practical consequences.

Further, it helps if you recognize that, in the present era, Republicans dominate American governance, with control of the House, Senate, presidency and crucially for our purposes, a significant majority of the countrys statehouses and governors mansions. They also have built a machine for state-level political elections that ensures that they will likely control many state legislatures for years to come.

As an academic, I am increasingly convinced that a mass defunding of public higher education is coming to an unprecedented degree and at an unprecedented scale. People enjoy telling me that this has already occurred that state support of our public universities has already declined precipitously. But things can always get worse, much worse.

And given the endless controversies on college campuses in which conservative speakers get shut out and conservative students feel silenced, the public relations work is being done for the enemies of public education by those within the institutions themselves.

Whos to blame for the fact that so few Republicans see the value in universities? The conservative media must accept some responsibility for encouraging its audiences to doubt expertise; so must those in the mainstream media who amplify every leftist kerfuffle on campus and make it seem as though trigger warnings are now at the center of college life.

But academics are at fault, too, because weve pushed mainstream conservatism out of our institutions. Sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons have found that about half of professors identify as liberal, versus only 14% who identify as Republican. (At the time of their study, in 2006, only a fifth of American adults described themselves as liberal.)

In Whats Liberal About the Liberal Arts? Michael Berube describes and defends a philosophy of non-coercion and intellectual pluralism that isnt just an intellectual curiosity, but an actual ethos that he and other professors live by. I grew up believing that most professors lived by that ethos. I dont anymore. And when I suggest its a problem that academics are so overwhelmingly liberal, I get astonished reactions. You actually think conservatives should feel welcome on campus?

In my network of professional academics, almost no one recognizes that our lopsided liberalism presents a threat to academia itself. Many would reply to the Pew Research Centers findings with glee. They would tell you that they dont want the support of Republicans. My fellow academics wont grapple with the simple, pragmatic realities of political power and how it threatens vulnerable institutions whose funding is in doubt. Thats because there is no professional or social incentive in the academy to think strategically or to engage with the world beyond campus.

Instead, all of the incentives point toward affirming ones position in the aristocracy of the academy. There are no repercussions to ignoring how the university and its subsidiary departments function in our broader society, at least not in the humanities and, for the most part, not in the social sciences either.

Universities make up a powerful lobbying bloc, and they have proved to be durable institutions. I dont think youll see many flagship institutions shuttered soon. But an acceleration of the deprofessionalization of the university teaching corps through part-time adjuncts? Shuttering departments such as Womens Studies or similar? Passing harsh restrictions on campus groups and how they can organize? Thats coming, and our own behavior as academics will make it easier for reactionary power, every step of the way.

Our public universities are under massive pressure and at immense risk, and those who should be defenders of public universities still dont understand that theyve created the conditions for their destruction.

Fredrik deBoer is a writer and academic at Brooklyn College in the City University of New York.

"The Tick" cast talks about the humor behind the series and the fan pressure that comes with a cult classic.

"The Tick" cast talks about the humor behind the series and the fan pressure that comes with a cult classic.

Melissa Benoist, David Harewood, Mehcad Brooks, Jeremy Jordan, Chris Wood, Katie McGrath, Odette Annable, plus two EPs:Jessica Queller, Robert Rovner talk "Supergirl" at Comic-Con 2017.

Melissa Benoist, David Harewood, Mehcad Brooks, Jeremy Jordan, Chris Wood, Katie McGrath, Odette Annable, plus two EPs:Jessica Queller, Robert Rovner talk "Supergirl" at Comic-Con 2017.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook.

Continued here:
Republicans don't trust higher ed. That's a problem for liberal academics - Los Angeles Times