Mediaboss Marketing

New Jersey Republican Rep. Tom MacArthur, author of the waiver that exempts Congress from the elimination of Obamacare protections for pre-existing conditions, at the Capitol on March 23.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Update, 5:55 p.m.: Both the AHCA and the bill repealing the AHCA's exemption for Congress passed the House today. The AHCA, however, could be passed through the Senate with only 50 votes because it's part of the budget reconciliation process; the exemption repeal would require 60 votes. So Republicans will need Democratic votes to eliminate an embarrassing loophole that they created themselves.

Original post, 10:34 a.m.: Last week House Republicans took a PR hit when Vox reported that the portion of the American Health Care Act that revokes Obamacare's guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions includes a section that requires insurers to continue guaranteeing pre-existing condition coverage to members of Congress. The representative who'd proposed that section of the bill, New Jersey's Tom MacArthur, subsequently claimed that he planned to eliminate the Congress loophole. Now it's a week later, and what would you knowa vote on the AHCA is scheduled for Thursday, but the congressional loophole is still in it.

"The version of the bill the House will vote on Thursday still contains the exemption for legislators," Vox's Sarah Kliff writes, adding that a proposal that would eliminate the exemption does exist but is separate from the AHCA:

The 60-vote issue is relevant because the AHCA itself could be passed with 50 Senate votes through the budget reconciliation process. So, maybe the loophole will be closed, maybe it won't. But right now it sure looks like Republicans in Congress are about to pass, on a party-line vote, a bill that would revoke health care protections for most Americans but protect them for Republicans in Congress.

More here:
Republican Bill Still Exempts Republicans in Congress From Repeal of Obamacare Protection (Updated) - Slate Magazine (blog)

Republicans touted their own victories in a bipartisan spending agreement Tuesday amid concerns that negotiators had given up too much to Democrats.

Many Republicans argued that $21 billion in military funding, $1.5 billion in new money for border security and several unrelated policy provisions are major steps toward fulfilling President Trumps agenda.

The positive framing comes as Democrats have tried to declare victory over obtaining $5 billion in domestic spending increases and blocking other measures, such as funding to begin construction of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Trump touted the spending deal Tuesday at a ceremony honoring the Air Force Academy Football team. After years of partisan bickering and gridlock, this bill is a clear win for the American people, he said.

Turning to the team members, who were standing behind him, Trump said, This is what winning looks like, something that you folks really know a lot about.

Democrats boasted Tuesday they had bested Republicans in the negotiations by blocking many GOP policy provisions and securing $5 billion in new domestic spending. Republicans leaders argued that some of their members supported and benefited from that money, including additional resources to help fight wildfires in the West and provide health care for coal miners.

Republicans argued that their wins were most evident in trims and changes to more than 150 government programs and defense spending increases secured from an off-budget war fund without an equal bump for domestic programs that Democrats traditionally request. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) argued this spending measure marks the first time in years that Republicans garnered those increased funds.

This forced parity that we lived under the Obama years really constrained our ability to rebuild our military for this century, Ryan told reporters Tuesday. No longer are the needs of our military going to be held hostage for increases in domestic spending.

But some top Republicans on defense issues argued that parity between domestic and military spending was not truly achieved because $15 billion of the defense money came from an off-budget war fund.

The money from the war fund would not be automatically renewed if Congress decides to simply extend spending levels in upcoming budget fights. The funds would also not be included in calculating the starting point for future negotiations over defense spending.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he believes the war fund has been abused and said he plans to vote against the measure as a result.

It has become nothing but a fancy slush fund, Corker said. That type of spending doesnt give the military a view into the future.

Democrats argued they have always been willing to approve extra defense money from the war fund, pointing to a 2015 budget agreement that included nearly $58 billion in defense funds and $15 billion for nondefense spending. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), one of the architects of the previous bipartisan budget agreement with Ryan , said arguing otherwise mischaracterizes the negotiation.

Moving forward parity isnt an issue, Murray said.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) said in a statement on Monday that he fully backs the defense increase and that it represents a clear break from previous policies

It is good that the defense needs in this measure do not appear to be tied to any other issue, Thornberry said. For too long, some in both parties have attempted to use our military as leverage to pursue other political objectives.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he was torn about voting for the spending bill over concerns about the war fund and worried it contains several unrelated measures, like a ban on using money to transfer detainees out of the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba . Nonetheless, McCain said that he was pleased that GOP negotiators got some military spending increases.

There is more [defense] spending than just war funds, McCain said. Im upset about a lot of provisions.

Some appropriators dismissed concerns, arguing the bill is more conservative than similar legislation negotiated under President Barack Obama.

Appropriations Committee member Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.) said the measure included some GOP concessions to win Senate approval, where Republicans have a slim 52 to 48 majority and must turn to Democrats to get the 60 votes necessary to pass most legislation.

Rooney said it could be difficult to get future defense spending increases through the Senate but that doesnt mean Republicans wont try.

I hate trying to figure out what the Senate is going to do, Rooney said. Its a fight between us and the Democrats and were in control of the committee.

Mick Mulvaney, Trumps director of the Office of Management and Budget, appeared in the White House briefing room early Tuesday afternoon, arguing that the GOP won plenty of victories in the spending bill

Mulvaney expressed frustration with Democrats in Congress, whom he accused of a spike the football celebration of the deal. In reality, Mulvaney said, Trump and the Republicans were very pleased with the measure.

Theyre walking around trying to make it look like they pulled one over fast on the president. I just wont stand for it, Mulvaney said, referring to the Democrats.

Despite a tweet earlier Tuesday from Trump suggesting a shutdown could be good for the government this fall, Mulvaney said it was Democrats who were pushing for a shutdown this time and, he asserted, Trump prevailed by not letting that happen.

Among the procedural wins, Mulvaney said, was a deal that broke an unwritten rule that Republicans could secure $1 in new defense spending for every $1 Democrats get in nondefense spending.

Mulvaney said the ratio in the spending measure was about $1 to 20 cents, favoring Trump.

We didnt go dollar-for-dollar, Mulvaney said. Thats a tremendous development for this president and a huge win from a negotiating standpoint.

Mulvaney said Trump also got a much better deal on border funding than most people realized. While its been widely reported there was no funding for the bricks and mortar of a wall on Mexicos border, the deal does allow the administration to replace existing fencing.

Not all Republicans were happy with the deal. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said in an interview with CNN that despite the military increases, Democrats were able to stave off many GOP demands and exact new domestic spending in the process.

I think the Democrats cleaned our clock, Graham said in the interview. There are things in this bill that I just dont understand. This was not winning from the Republican point of view.

The conservative group Heritage Action also urged members to reject the spending bill over the concessions to Democrats, calling the measure a rebuke to President Trumps agenda.

While Trump fell short of his rhetoric, some analysts suggested the outcome was about what he reasonably could have expected.

This is what a bipartisan spending bill looks like, said Michael Steel, a former senior aide to former House speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). You have some wins on both sides.

Republicans say that the domestic spending increases are among those mutual wins. Democrats generally have been the ones demanding domestic spending in exchange for military increases. Republicans were also able to scale back Democrats requests in areas like funding to help Puerto Rico make up a shortfall in Medicaid payments.

In some cases, Mulvaney also argued, wins being touted by Democrats were actually triumphs for Trump, too. He cited health-care benefits for miners as an example.

While there has been grumbling about the spending deal from some conservatives, Mulvaney said they, too, will realize its a win upon closer inspection.

Id be happy to convince anybody on the right that this is a great deal, he said.

As part of the White Houses push to change the narrative over the spending bill, Trumps legislative affairs director, Marc Short, held a conference call with conservative media on Monday night to talk up the deal.

I hear that the budget will be regarded as very depressing news by many conservatives, one journalist said on the call. Im wondering because, well, from what Ive heard already, just chatter from friends.

Short sought to assure him that wasnt the case, saying there was certainly things in there that many conservatives were excited about.

Read more at PowerPost

Go here to see the original:
Republicans argue they won plenty in spending deal, too - Washington Post

House Republican leaders are working feverishly to find a few members to support a bill to roll back the Affordable Care Act, and they could use some help from some in Californias GOP delegation who haven't taken a position on it.

News outlets that have polled the entire GOP caucus say they've found 19 to 22 Republicans who will vote against it. Thats focused attention on roughly two dozen undecided members. Eight of them are Californians.

Democrats have lined up pretty firmly against the bill, meaning the GOP can only lose up to 22 members.

Republican leaders say they are getting close to collecting enough support, but are loath to put the bill up for a vote until they know they have the votes to pass it.

A vote scheduled on an earlier version of the bill in March was canceled at the last minute. Changes in the new version made to placate more conservative Republicans, like allowing states to scrap protections for people with preexisting conditions, have driven away moderate GOP members.

If Republicans dont have a healthcare vote this week, itll probably get even more difficult to pass an overhaul bill because congressional rules mean theyll have extra hurdles to overcome.

When we checked in last week, more than two-thirds of the 14 California members hadn't decided how to vote on the bill. Here is where the Republican members stand now:

The eight members who are still undecided include four who represent districts that Hillary Clinton won in November, and are being targeted by Democrats in 2018.

Rep. David Valadao (Hanford), who hails from one of those districts, was undecided on the first bill, and said the changes havent helped his original concerns. Hes hearing a lot of worries from people back home.

Its the Medicaid. Medicaid is the issue, Valadao said Tuesday.

The bill would gradually end federal funding for millions of people who qualified for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Valadao represents one of the California districts whose residents benefited the most from the expansion.

Rep. Steve Knight (Palmdale) said hes worried people with preexisting conditions will have a hard time finding coverage under the new bill.

Were still talking about preexisting conditions; were still talking about several of the issues that have us concerned with the healthcare bill, Knight said, adding that hes hearing from constituents who support the bill as well as those who oppose it. We're trying to listen to everyone, but in the end were also trying to see whats going to be the better plan.

Reps. Ken Calvert (Corona) and Dana Rohrabacher (Costa Mesa) both supported the earlier version of the bill, but havent signed on to the changes.

Reps. Ed Royce (Fullerton), Paul Cook (Yucca Valley) and Doug LaMalfa (Richvale), who were undecided on the previous version, are also still weighing this one.

It seems like a moving target, so Im still considering what all the latest pieces are here, LaMalfa said. I'm just being deliberate about it. Im not going to put my name out on it yes or no because why not wait until all the informations in at the final moment?

Some, like Rep. Darrell Issa, were less forthcoming.

The Vista Republicans staff told the Los Angeles Times hes still undecided.

Just one Republican in the delegation, Rep. Jeff Denham (Turlock), has said he plans to oppose the bill. He hasnt given a reason.

Denham is in one of the districts that backed Clinton in 2016, and had said he also was undecided on the original version of the bill.

Five Republican members of the California delegation support the bill.

Among those trying to sway other GOP members is House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Bakersfield), who told colleagues in a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning that it is time to vote on the bill, several news outlets reported. He said a vote could happen before the end of the week, when the House leaves for another recess.

Other supporters are Reps. Tom McClintock (Elk Grove), Mimi Walters (Irvine), Duncan Hunter (Alpine) and Devin Nunes (Tulare). They all approved of the original bill.

Walters, whose staff said she would have supported the original bill, is the only one in a district being targeted by Democrats to come out in favor of this version of the bill.

HERES WHERE THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICANS STAND

Go here to read the rest:
California's House Republicans are crucial to this week's healthcare push. Here's where they stand - Los Angeles Times

If you asked any working parent, theyd tell you how valuable their time is, said Representative Martha Roby, an Alabama Republican and sponsor of the bill to expand pay options for employers.

WASHINGTON House Republicans took up a bill Tuesday to allow companies to offer employees compensatory time rather than time-and-a-half pay, an overhaul of New Deal-era employment law that supporters say would enhance workers scheduling options but opponents warn would erode protections.

This bill would ensure workers have less time, less flexibility, and less money, Maryland Democratic Congressman Anthony Brown said in a floor speech opposing the proposal.

Advertisement

Republicans control of the White House and both chambers of Congress gives the comp time proposal which passed the House in 1996, 1997, and 2013, only to fail to get through the Senate its best chance in years of becoming law. It was approvedApril 26 by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on a party-line vote.

The legislation is likely to again face hurdles in the Senate. Majority leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican whose office declined to comment, hasnt indicated whether he plans to take up the measure.

Get Talking Points in your inbox:

An afternoon recap of the days most important business news, delivered weekdays.

If he does, its likely to face opposition from Democrats. Republicans, who hold 52 Senate seats, would need the support of eight Democrats to overcome a filibuster if all Republicans support the measure. Otherwise, the bill would stall once again in the Senate.

Senator Alexander hopes to see the bill taken up by the Senate when time allows,Taylor Haulsee, a spokesman for Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican and chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said in an e-mail.

Under current law, eligible private-sector employees must be paid at least time-and-a-half for any hours beyond 40 that they work in a week. Under the Republican proposal, companies and individual employees could agree that their overtime work would instead be rewarded with comp time.

Advertisement

In lieu of getting paid any wages right away for their extra hours in a week, employees would instead accrue an hour and a half in a comp time bank for each extra hour they worked, which they could then request to use at a future date as paid time off. The House bill has a sunset provision that would make it expire five years after enactment unless a future law extended it.

Supporters say the proposal would help workers take care of children or aging parents without forfeiting their pay.

If you asked any working parent, theyd tell you how valuable their time is, said the bills sponsor, Representative Martha Roby, an Alabama Republican. Congress, of course, cannot legislate another hour in the day. But we can give men and women more choice and flexibility in how they choose to use their time.

Republicans say the bill has plenty of worker protections, including a ban on coercing employees into choosing comp time; a guarantee that they be paid for any unused comp time within thirteen months after accruing it; and a requirement that workers who asked to utilize their comp time get to do so within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.

That doesnt satisfy opponents, who see the bill as a Trojan horse that undermines existing protections for workers without creating any new ones.

Its a complete and total fraud, said Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

Nothing under current law prevents companies from offering paid sick days or family leave to their workers, opponents of the proposal say or short of that, from granting requests for unpaid leave. Because workers right now could take paid overtime and then use the money to make up for unpaid leave taken later, they argue, theres no benefit to them in letting them instead work unpaid overtime and then make up for it by taking paid leave.

It forces the employee to give the employer a loan unsecured, interest-free of the overtime pay, in order to have the hope not a guarantee, but the hope of having some time off later on, said Eisenbrey. Either way, he said, employers still get to decide whether to actually grant their workers requests for time off.

The difference, Democrats say, is that if Republicans get their way, companies will get away with not paying overtime by pressuring workers to choose comp time or by only giving excess hours to those staff whove done so.

Given the prevalence of wage-and-hour violations and Trumps proposal to slash the Department of Labors budget, workers who are illegally coerced out of time-and-a-half would be unlikely to get made whole, said Ellen Bravo, founder of the coalition Family Values at Work.

It plays into the hands of bad actors who are already engaging in wage theft it gives them another tool, Bravo said.

Such fears are unfounded, said Representative Bradley Byrne, anAlabama Republican who chairs the Workplace Protections subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Its a very bad business decision to go out there and try to intimidate or coerce an employee in this environment, he said.

Read the rest here:
GOP again tries to alter overtime pay law - The Boston Globe

Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel made an emotional plea to lawmakers to fund health-care spending for preexisting conditions on May 1. Kimmel teared up while discussing his newborn son Billy's heart condition on his show. (Amber Ferguson/The Washington Post)

Its easy to assume in the moment that moments from pop culture will bear more resonancein national politics than is warranted. But if a moment were to affect the political conversation, this seems like a good candidate:

ABCs Jimmy Kimmel has, in the past, been willing to engage in politics in a sincere way. But its exceptionally rare for a late-night host to offer the depth of emotion that Kimmel displayed Monday night, a natural function of how deeply the issue affects him. There are few more sympathetic characters in the human imagination than sick children; Kimmels personal story makes this exploration of the idea even more affecting.

That is one side of the debate over health-care reform in the United States; a side that, it seems safe to say, is meant to run at odds with the current plan offered by congressional Republicans. What, by contrast, is the rhetoric clincher on the Republican side, the side thats calling to overhaul the Affordable Care Act? Heres the GOPs explanation of how their legislation, the American Health Care Act, will improve health care.

What were proposing will decrease premiums and expand and enhance health care options so Americans can find a plan thats right for them.

We also make sure Americans can save and spend their health care dollars the way they want and need not the way Washington prescribes.

Its worth reiterating that one way the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office foresees premiums falling is by pricing out of the market those at higher risk of health issues, like older Americans.

President Trump promised on April 30 that new GOP health-care legislation will preserve coverage for people with preexisting medical conditions but critics say that's at odds with his promise to lower premiums. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

The Republican website promoting their plan from which thetext above wastaken hasnt been updated since the proposal of anamendment that has revived the partys hopes of passage.

Americans should never be denied coverage or charged more because of a preexisting condition, the site reads. The amendment from Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), however, would allow insures to do just that: charge more if theres a lapse in coverage.

Taken by itself, take control away from Washington is a tough sell against my kid would die if I cant afford this.

The wan outreach to the public at large hasnt spurred broad support for the bill; a Quinnipiac University poll found that only 17 percent of Americans backed the proposal and that was before preexisting conditions were put at risk. Support for mandating coverage of preexisting conditions is broad, with even more than half of Trump voters backing a requirement that such conditions be covered. Republican lawmakers have repeatedly been confronted with angry constituents at town hall meetings; before the initial vote on the American Health Care Act was postponed, calls to members of Congress ran 50-to-1 in opposition to the measure.

So whats the motivating argument being offered by Republican leaders to their members in support of their proposal? Arguments about government control are no doubt more effective on Capitol Hill than outside the Beltway, with 57 percent of the country now saying that the government should do more, versus 39 percent who say its doing too much. Arguments about reducing taxes are also resonant, though the effects of that tax reduction will heavily fall on wealthier Americans. An estimated 40 percent of the benefit will go to the 1 percent of America at the top of the income ladder.

In effect, the argument seems to come mostly down to partisanship: Do this because the party said we would. Do this because we want to show that we can govern, now that we have control over Capitol Hill and the White House. Do this because President Trump wants a win.

That last point seems to loom large. The reason the push for reform was renewed when it did was, in no small part, because Trump was nearing his 100-day-in-office mark and he was looking for a success to which he could point. Trumps arm-twisting during the first push on the bill was rarely nuanced, often coming down to you need to do this. It even going so far as to threaten Republican members with primary challenges if they balked.

They balked anyway. Why wouldnt they? Republican voters and Democratic voters are certainly motivated by partisanship at the ballot box, meaning that standing in opposition to the party might hold electoral risks. But whats the alternative? How do you ask someone to stand by a president whos repeatedly expressed indifference about or unfamiliarity with the contents of the bill and who displays loyalty to neither its focus or its proponents?

Why, if youre a Republican member of the House, would you stand behind a president who is both inconsistent and unpopular? He cant be trusted to have your back and, even if he does, its not clear it would do you much good. Trump is popular with Republicans now, but unusually unpopular with both independents and the opposition. If youre in a district thats anywhere close to competitive, youre no doubt very aware of that fact.

Theres an outside chance, floating on the distant horizon, that Trumps unpopularity and disinterest in partisan loyalty might actually break down some of the partisan unanimity thats guided Washington in recent years. A far outside chance, mind you, but Trumps political fumbling may make choices easier for a number of Republicans in the House.

Whats the better bet for a moderate Republican: Buck the party and its leader or go along with a House bill that faces huge hurdles in the Senate?

When next years campaign rolls around, which ad would you like to see run in your district: one with Jimmy Kimmel crying as a narrator explains that you voted to weaken preexisting conditions, or one that shows a frustrated Trump railing against your opposition to the bill he decided to champion?

If youre House Speaker Paul Ryan, how, without simply insisting on partisan loyalty, do you make the case that the former is the cost of doing business?

Continue reading here:
The simplified choice for moderate Republicans: Jimmy Kimmel or Donald Trump - Washington Post