Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats in the House had a rare victory this week when an ugly, discriminatory amendment,backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan and pushed by Vice President Mike Pence, failed because 24 Republicans joined every single Democrat in beating it back. It was a pleasant surprise. And theres an important takeaway.

The amendment to the defense spending bill, titled Prohibition of Department of Defense Medical Treatment Related to Gender Transition and offered by Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a Missouri anti-LGBTQ Republican, would have denied medical treatment for gender transition for military personnel and their dependents. Transgender people currently serving in the military have been able to serve openly and receive the necessary medical care for transitioning since June of 2016, after the Obama administration lifted the ban on open service for current members, ending discharges and involuntary separation. Hartzlers amendment was an outright attack on transgender people promoted by the usual nasty band of homophobic, transphobic GOPers in the House whove had a stranglehold on the leadership for years. The amendment was allowed out of committee, and Ryan expected it to pass. Conservativeswerent happy about what happened.

Its a major loss for Pence and the [GOP House] leadership, Matt Thorn, executive director of OutServe-Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), one of several groups that were lobbying vigorously against it, told me regarding the narrow 209-214 vote.

And of course, it was a win for trans people. Advocates from the coalition of groups, including the American Military Partner Association, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center For Transgender Equality and the ACLU, were fully engaged and fought hard, as did Democratic leaders in the House. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer spoke out, demanding the amendment be removed.They are fighting to rip away the health care of thousands of brave service members. Pelosi said. This cowardly Republican amendment targeting transgender men and women in uniform effectively bans these patriotic Americans from serving their country.

And they actually got the help of Defense Secretary James Mattis. CNN, citing congressional and Pentagon sources, reported that Mattis called Hartzler to pressure her to drop the amendment. (Mattis, citing service chiefs who wanted more time to prepare, had last monthput off for six months a plan to allow new transgender recruits, something advocates werent happy about, though they expect him to follow through.) When that didnt work, Mattis lobbied individual GOP House members to vote against the amendment.

Mattis had far more influence here than the vice president did, Thorn notes.

Thats remarkable. In addition to exposing rifts within the administration, it reflects how, with Donald Trumps approval numbers underwater, the White House has little sway right now among key House members and it reflects how far acceptance of transgender people has come. Most of the 24 GOPers who voted against the amendment, including Representatives Darrell Issa of California, Barbara Comstock of Virginia, and Carlos Curbelo of Florida, are vulnerable, in districts that Democrats will be confidently and aggressively targeting in 2018.

Since the 2016 election, weve heard ad nauseum from a subset of Democratic activists, pundits, and strategists that one reason Trump won is because Democrats are too focused on identity politics, or what Columbia University professor Mark Lilla, in a New York Times piece, derogatorily called a fixation on diversity and identity drama. In an op-ed two weeks ago in the Times, headlined, Back to the Center, Democrats, Mark Penn and Andrew Stein warnedthat Democrats had become mired in transgender bathroom issues, among other things, ignoring white working class voters who feel abandoned. Its the same old mantra, which amounts to a call for pandering to bigotry.

But what happened this week proved, once again, that that kind of thinking isnt just offensive; its bad political strategy. The Democrats stuck together, standing up for whats right but also for their base which is a diverse and large coalition and it was the Republicans who went on the run.

In the face of the danger of a rollback not just on rights for queer people but for all minorities under attack in the Trump era, this showed that standing firm, energizing activists in the base and resisting rather than pandering and caving in is the way to win.

Follow Michelangelo Signorile on Twitter:www.twitter.com/msignorile

Here is the original post:
Vulnerable Republicans Just Showed Why Fighting For Trans Rights Is A Political Winner - HuffPost

WASHINGTON Senate Republican leaders cant seem to find the votes to repeal and replace Obamacare. Theyve had no help from Democrats, of course, who oppose what theyre doingand havent been consulted anyway. But theyve also had no help from two senators in their own party: Susan Collinsof Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Collins and Paul have been a hard no on both of the GOP health care bills unveiled over the last month. Thats made things exceptionally difficult for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),who can afford to lose only two Republican votes. Its left his latest Obamacare repeal bill hanging by a thread, as a handful of Republicans on the fence threaten to produce the fatal third vote.

Theyre an unlikely pair to ended up united against their party on something. Collins is a pro-abortion rights moderate from a state that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton carried in 2016; Paul is a libertarian-leaning conservative who regularly rails against big government. But their different ideologies explain why they are so opposed to what GOP leaders are doing.

The thrust of Collinsconcern is that Republicans are trying to repeal too much of the Affordable Care Act, to the point where people will get hurt. The GOPs latest bill, which was released Thursday, would cut overall Medicaid funding by more than 30 percent and eliminate the Affordable Care Acts expansion of that program. That would mean millions fewer people would have access to Medicaid, namely low-income and elderly people.

Collins wasted little time announcing her opposition to the bill and instead urged her colleagues to change course and work on a bipartisan fix to Obamacare.

Collins also has problems with the sheer number of people who would lose health care coverage under the bill and the plans negative effect on health care access in rural areas.

The Congressional Budget Office hasnt yet released its estimates on the revision of the health care bill, but under the original Senate version, which isnt that different from the new one,roughly 22 million people would lose coverage.

Susan Collins

Paul, meanwhile, argues that the GOP health care billswouldnt repeal enough of the Affordable Care Act. Hes complained all year about Republicans leaving too much of the law intact, and, when GOP leaders unveiled their initial health care bill in June, he ripped it as too expensive and doomed to fail.

The bill is just being lit up like a Christmas tree full of billion-dollar ornaments, and its not repeal, Paul fumed in a Fox News Sunday interviewearlier this month.

Now the Republicans are getting so weak-kneed theyre saying, Oh, were afraid to repeal the taxes, he continued. What happened to these people? They all were for repealing Obamacare. Now theres virtually no one left.

The Kentucky senator is even less happy with the revised health care bill, which includes new insurance deregulation provisions. The language was added to win support from conservatives, but it comes with more federal spending a big no-no for Paul, who fundamentally disagrees with the idea of the government subsidizing health care.

He aired his grievances in a Thursday op-ed in The Washington Times, headlined Crony Capitalism Isnt a Right, So Why Does Senate Healthcare Bill Give Insurance Companies the Right to a Bailout?

I really cant describe my level of disappointment, Paul wrote. Crony capitalism is enshrined as a right by the new GOP Obamacare bill, while that bill does little to nothing to repeal Obamacare or fix our ailing healthcare sector.

Read this article:
How 2 Republicans Ended Up At Odds With Their Party On Health Care - HuffPost

Photo: Johnathon Henninger / For Hearst Connecticut Media

Tim Herbst signs a banner for a friend after announcing his run for Governor of Connecticut at Trumbull High School on Thursday, June 8, 2017.

Tim Herbst signs a banner for a friend after announcing his run for Governor of Connecticut at Trumbull High School on Thursday, June 8, 2017.

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton attended the announcement by New Milford's Pete Bass of his candidacy for mayor on Tuesday evening, July 11, 2017, in New Milford, Conn.

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton attended the announcement by New Milford's Pete Bass of his candidacy for mayor on Tuesday evening, July 11, 2017, in New Milford, Conn.

Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti speaks after being announced as grand marshal of the 109th Bridgeport Columbus Day Parade at Port 5 Naval Veterans Hall in Bridgeport, Conn. on Monday, June 19, 2017.

Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti speaks after being announced as grand marshal of the 109th Bridgeport Columbus Day Parade at Port 5 Naval Veterans Hall in Bridgeport, Conn. on Monday, June 19, 2017.

Prasad Srinivasan, Republican

Prasad Srinivasan, Republican

Peter Lumaj of Fairfield, Republican candidate for Connecticut Secretary of the State.

Peter Lumaj of Fairfield, Republican candidate for Connecticut Secretary of the State.

Republicans torn over publicly-funded state elections

The top Republican contenders for governor find themselves at cross-purposes with lawmakers from their own party over publicly funded elections in 2018, with millions of dollars for their campaigns at stake in upcoming budget negotiations.

They have spent months trying to qualify for public funds under Connecticuts clean-elections program, a slog that requires them to raise $250,000 from individuals in $100 increments or less. Some are more than half-way toward unlocking $1.4 million for the GOP primary and $6.5 million for the general election if they become the nominee.

But GOP budget hawks want to cut the program to help close a $5 billion deficit, saying that the potential $40 million cost of subsidizing candidates up and down the ballot is too much and that there is a shortfall for the first time in the programs history.

The schism has cast a shadow of uncertainty over the wide open race going into a the special budget session, which had been scheduled for Tuesday but has been delayed by majority Democrats to build support for their plans.

Obviously, having raised almost 60 percent of the grant and being on the back nine, I hope going through this process the program will still be in place, said Tim Herbst, Trumbulls first selectman. Now youve had people give you a quarter of a million dollars for nothing.

The cost of publicly-funded elections in Connecticut

2008: $9 million

2010: $27.3 million*

2012: $10.8 million

2014: $33.4 million*

2016: $11.5 million

2018: $40 million

* denotes governors race

denotes forecast by the Office of Fiscal Analysis

Source: Citizens Election Program

Tarnished by a pay-to-play scandal that led to the resignation and imprisonment of Gov. John G. Rowland a decade ago, the state created the program to wean candidates off special-interest money and free them from the time required for fundraising.

The programs popularity has been on the rise, with $33.4 million awarded to 287 candidates for statewide office and the Legislature in 2014. Nearly half of that total $15.8 million was spent on the governors race.

GOP leaders are warning of a $10 million shortfall for 2018, however. Until now, the program has relied on proceeds from the sale of abandoned property and unclaimed bottle deposits to cover its cost.

Were broke and its kind of tough to say, Were going to cut Medicaid and were going to cut social services programs so we can fund pencils, pens and political paraphernalia, said Senate Republican Leader Len Fasano, of North Haven. I dont think anybody has an advantage or disadvantage if the system goes away.

House GOP Leader Themis Klarides, of Derby, said its about priorities.

I dont think anybodys definition is taxpayer-funded elections, Klarides said. Im sure there are people that wouldnt be happy about it.

Longtime GOP Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti, who is coming off a record-setting quarter in which he raised $145,090, said now isnt the time to abandon the program.

Its a little late in the game to be talking about that unless they have a sunset clause that gets you past the next cycle, Lauretti said. You know 15 to 20 people have started down this path. Think of the thousands of Connecticut residents that have donated. Isnt that a little disingenuous to them?

If lawmakers want to rein in the programs expenses, Lauretti said, they should look at the grant amounts for legislative candidates and the types of expenditures allowed.

I.e. golf balls and golf tees with their name on them and tee-shirts, Lauretti said.

If it wasnt for the program, Lauretti said, he probably could not afford to run for governor.

Im not independently wealthy, number one, he said. Good, bad or indifferent, the program does demonstrate to a certain degree that a candidate has support.

As a state legislator, Republican Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton voted against publicly-funded elections. Now as a potential third-time candidate for governor, he has raised $162,000 to try to qualify for the program.

Ive never believed that the government should be funding campaigns, particularly a government thats $5 billion in the hole, Boughton said. If I were governor, I would seriously look at dismantling the program.

Boughton said he is prepared for whatever outcome, including going back to his 2,000 contributors if the program and its $100 cap are abandoned.

Right now, were operating under the rules that are put in place, Boughton said.

Westport businessman Steve Obsitnik, whose exploratory committee raised $201,567 during the second quarter, said he doesnt need public funds to be viable.

These are tough financial times for Connecticut, Obsitnik said. I defer to the Legislature.

Bridgeport Republican Dave Walker, the former U.S. comptroller general, said the program needs to be reformed, but should be preserved. He would eliminate grants for House and Senate candidates, as well as do away with separate primaries and grants for lieutenant governor.

I could probably have an advantage if it was eliminated, but I think it has intellectual merit at least for the office of governor, Walker said. You want to try to encourage people who may not be wealthy to run and try to provide a level playing field.

State Rep. Prasad Srinivasan, R-Glastonbury, who has raised $205,103, said he could accept the program being suspended, but only if it is part of a comprehensive budget fix.

Obviously, its going to impact me very personally, he said. At the end of the day youve got to do whats right. I think (the program) is an equalizer. There are parts of a budget that you like and there are parts of the budget you dont like.

Fairfield Republican immigration lawyer Peter Lumaj has raised $281,130 for his exploratory committee for governor, but only $76,000 counts toward public financing because of a high percentage of out-of-state donors.

I've never believed that taxpayers should foot this bill, but unfortunately, professional politicians have created a system in which individuals cannot be competitive in Connecticut elections unless they are self-funding millionaires or participants in (the program), Lumaj said. We need to reexamine donation and expenditure limits, within reason, to fix this problem. If we address those concerns we can create an election environment that remains competitive while removing the burden off of the backs of hardworking taxpayers.

Herbst said lawmakers should consider scaling back the grants to the levels before 2010, when Democrats overrode a veto of then-GOP Gov. M. Jodi Rell and doubled the funds available to governor candidates.

Look, they wouldnt be fiscal conservatives if they werent looking at it, and, for that, I respect them, Herbst said of GOP leaders.

http://twitter.com/gettinviggy ; nvigdor@hearstmediact.com; 203-625-4436

See the rest here:
Republicans torn over publicly-funded state elections - CT Post

Senate budget rules are giving opponents of the rollback of the 2010 health care law an easy way to attack Republicans for hypocrisy.

The Senate GOP may notreally want to immunize their own member and staff health plans from their health care policy changes, but because they are seeking to bring their bill to the floor under the expedited budget reconciliation process, they have little choice.

Sen. Ted Cruz has already unveiled a fix to nullify the exemption, but that bill would take 60 votes to overcome any filibuster attempts.

While this exemption was included in the Senate health care bill out of procedural necessity, we must still be diligent in ensuring thatMembers of Congressare treated just like other Americans under this law, the Texas Republican said in a statement. This is an issue of fundamental fairness. Lawmakers are not above the laws that they pass and I believe that it is crucial that Members of Congress abide by the same laws that their own constituents follow.

The exemption has already prompted a web ad from the group Save My Care, which has been working against efforts to repeal and replace the health care law that took effect under President Barack Obama.

Senators did make the bill better for one group of Americans ... themselves, the ad says, citing a Thursday report from Vox.

It is substantively accurate to say there is a carve-out in the Senate measure, but as with much of what happens when the Senate uses the budget reconciliation process, the reasons are complicated.

As part of the implementation of the 2010 health care law, members of Congress and many staffers both on Capitol hill and in state-based offices shifted from getting health insurance benefits through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to the small-business exchange in Washington, D.C.

Matters related to the local government in D.C. fall within the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and internal operations of the Capitol are the responsibility of the Rules and Administration Committee.

Aides previously confirmed that since neither panel received reconciliation instructions in the fiscal 2017 budget resolution that was adopted earlier this year so Republicans could pass health care legislation with just 50 votes and a tie-breaker by Vice President Mike Pence.

A bill or amendment could lose its privileged status and be subject to needing 60 votes to overcoming procedural hurdles if staff and lawmaker health benefits were not exempted.

Under a decision by the Office of Personnel Management during the Obama administration, employer contributions were allowed to be used in the D.C. SHOP.

That led to a recurring saga in the Senate involving an amendment crafted by then Sen. David Vitter. The Louisiana Republican sought to end the employer benefit. OPM under President Donald Trump has not reversed course on the availability of the benefits

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Read the original post:
Why Republicans Exempted Their Own Insurance From Obamacare Rollback - Roll Call

"There's no question but that the president's naivete with regards to Russia, and his faulty judgment about Russia's intentions and objectives, has led to a number of foreign policy challenges that we face. And unfortunately, not having anticipated Russia's intentions, the president wasn't able to shape the kinds of events that may have been able to prevent the kinds of circumstances that you're seeing in the Ukraine, as well as the things that you're seeing in Syria. ... This is not Fantasyland. This is reality where they are a geopolitical adversary."

Mitt Romney, March 23, 2014, on Barack Obama

If there has been any defining trait among modern Republicans, it's their ingrained distrust of Russia. For decades, the GOP made a habit of accusing its opponents of being weak-kneed and gullible about Moscow's intentions. If Donald Trump had been elected president as a Democrat, they would be painting him as the most craven appeaser since Neville Chamberlain.

But he was elected as a Republican, which has required some reorientation in the GOP. A lot of Republican voters have simply turned their worldview upside down. One recent poll found that only 1 in 4 thinks Russia should be treated mainly as a threat with two-thirds preferring warmer ties.

GOP officeholders, caught in the middle, are generally wary of Trump's policy toward Moscow. By a 98-2 vote, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a bill to tighten the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, which the president opposes. But the measure has stalled in the House. And most of the party's members of Congress have done their best to downplay or excuse Trump's strange fondness for Vladimir Putin.

That remained true even after the revelation that Donald Trump Jr. met last year with someone he believed was a Russian government lawyer offering "sensitive information" on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

If this was not collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, it was a conscious attempt at collusion with a hostile government on the part of the candidate's son. No wonder Donald Jr. lied about it until his emails were exposed.

That the Russian failed to produce what she promised doesn't make the meeting any less incriminating for Trump. If you give money to someone you believe is a hit man to kill your spouse, you can't claim innocence when he disappears without doing the job.

But many Republicans who should have been objecting couldn't bring themselves to speak up. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan were practically mute. When asked if the news was cause for concern, Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "No."

Only a few longtime Trump critics, notably Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, were vocally disgusted by what they had learned. Many of their colleagues are just hoping Trump and those around him are not obviously guilty of major felonies.

The standard for presidents used to be higher. In 1980, Ronald Reagan accused President Jimmy Carter of "cozying up" to the Soviet Union. In 1992, President George Bush attacked Bill Clinton for traveling to Moscow as a student in 1969. Even after communism collapsed and the pro-American Boris Yeltsin was elected president, Sen. Bob Dole ran in 1996, charging that Clinton "cherishes romantic illusions about the soul of a former adversary."

Romney flayed Obama in 2012 for telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he would have "more flexibility" on policies affecting Russia after the election. "I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses," Romney vowed.

In the past, the GOP demanded that presidents recognize the threat posed by the Russian government, understand the policies needed to counter it and have the backbone to stand up to any challenge. Trump, by their own criteria, has failed each of these tests.

Obama was vilified as a Russian patsy for actions that don't remotely approach what we know Trump and his circle have done. Today, all but a few congressional Republicans avert their eyes and swallow their tongues. Most of them, however, must be appalled to see the nation's security in the hands of someone so willing to overlook Putin's malicious behavior.

It may not be clear to them that Trump should be impeached. But by now, they have to know he can't be trusted.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

Download "Recalculating: Steve Chapman on a New Century" in the free Printers Row app at http://www.printersrowapp.com.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

The rest is here:
Republicans have lost the courage to stand up to Russia - Chicago Tribune