Mediaboss Marketing

PHILADELPHIA Republican leaders laid out an aggressive legislative agenda Wednesday that would have Congress repeal major portions of the Affordable Care Act, pass replacement measures and embark on a major tax code overhaul, all within the first 200 days of blanket GOP control in Washington.

In an afternoon session at an annual GOP policy retreat, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) unveiled plans that put repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act as the first order of business, with the target date for action within the next three months. Lawmakers also plan to move quickly on a broad rewrite of the tax code that is expected to include deep cuts in tax rates. The agenda sets a vigorous pace in an attempt to make good on key campaign promises made by President Trump.

The leaders laid out a three-pronged plan one that would start with a special reconciliation bill that could skirt a Senate filibuster but accomplish only some of the GOPs health-care goals. Meanwhile, the Trump administration would be using its executive and regulatory powers to undermine the Obama-era law, while lawmakers started work on more thorough replacement legislation that would need some Democratic support.

In recent days, Trump has pledged to pursue the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act at roughly the same time. The same day or the same week could be the same hour, Trump told the New York Times this month. Lawmakers pressed leaders for more details on how quickly Ryan and McConnell would be able to move on replacement measures and how far those early efforts would go.

Leaders left key details of that plan for a more in-depth session on health care that has been scheduled for Thursday morning.

Tax reform would follow on an ambitious schedule, members who attended the briefing said, with an eye toward passing that major overhaul before Congress breaks for its summer recess in August. Again, details were left for a subsequent session, although Ryan told members that they would work toward a tax reform plan that would cut rates while roughly maintaining current revenue levels.

He laid out a very ambitious agenda, said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.). Were on an aggressive timetable; it was almost like a construction chart the way he laid it out.

Aides warned that it is possible that the Senate will need more time to complete its work on tax reform, but leaders were eager to set an aggressive target.

A senior House appropriator, Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), announced plans to pass a special appropriations bill funding a Mexican border wall sometime in the spring, and Congress would act to undo several major Obama-era regulations in the meantime. Also on the agenda: drafting the first all-Republican budget in a decade, funding the government and avoiding a debt-ceiling crisis.

One point of tension between Trump and lawmakers was on an infrastructure bill. Leaders told the crowd that the initial draft of their legislative agenda did not include any measure to boost transportation projects, but that Trump himself has insisted on it. No details, such as a price tag or structure, were discussed, multiple members said.

Without the presidents input, that would not have been the case, said Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), who advised the Trump transition.

McConnell also stressed that legislation typically moves much slower in the Senate than it does in the House. Dent said McConnell explained that most major legislation needs 60 votes to pass under long-standing Senate rules. There are 52 Republicans in the Senate, meaning any significant bill would need the support of at least eight Democrats.

Some House members worried that the legislative agenda relies too heavily on a quirk in the Senate rules that allows budget-related legislation to pass with a simple majority, according to several lawmakers who were present for the panel but requested anonymity to speak candidly about the private meeting. Republican leaders plan to use that loophole to repeal major portions of the Affordable Care Act and pass some elements of a replacement. Most other measures will be subject to the 60-vote requirement.

The speakers message was:None of this is going to be easy, Collins said.

Leaders hope to kick-start the agenda next week when the House is scheduled to start voting to halt Obama-era regulations, including measures related to mining and methane gas emissions from oil and gas production.

More:
Republicans set aggressive agenda on health care, regulations and tax reform - Washington Post

January 25, 2017 In an Inauguration Day picture, it appears crowd size is in the eye of the voter.

Those are the findings of a new study that asked Americans which of the two images President Trumps inauguration ceremony on Friday or Barack Obamas 2009 swearing in was better attended.

To the researchers, the answer was visibly clear. It was Mr. Obamas inauguration ceremony in 2009. But one in seven Trump voters disagreed, a conclusion the researchers say could be the result of expressive responding, a kind of partisan cheerleading. In surveys, respondents sometimes provide answers that aren't factual, but that show support for a politician or party.

Those people are basically saying, I know there are not more people in that photo, but I also know the context of the question,' says Brian Schaffner, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who performed the study with Samantha Luks, managing director of scientific research for YouGov. 'Im choosing to basically lie in order to support Trump.'

At first blush, the survey results offer a bleak view of partisan perceptions. Republicans and Democrats cant even agree on photographic evidence, let alone policies, says Dr. Schaffner.

But the survey also offers insights into the motivations behind these factual disagreements. Political scientists and political psychologists agree the gears driving this discord are complex. They say its likely a combination of multiple factors: this partisan cheerleading, a mistrust of the media and how they present (or distort) facts, and a lack of knowledge about a political debate, but a willingness to provide an answer that supports your political team anyway.

In the survey, the 1,388 respondents, all American adults, were shown two pictures side-by-side. On the left was a view during Trumps inauguration of the National Mall from the observation level near the top of the Washington Monument. On the right was a picture from the exact same spot eight years earlier, during Obamas swearing in. The side-by-side was, of course, the image that went viral on Friday, and which the Trump administration said the next day was deliberately false reporting by the dishonest media.

The respondents, some of whom likely knew about the spat between Trump and the press, were asked on Sunday and Monday one of two questions about the photos. Half of respondents were asked which of the photographs was taken at Trumps inauguration and which was taken at Obamas. Forty-one percent of Trump voters gave the wrong answer, compared to 8 percent of Clinton voters, and 21 percent of nonvoters.

The other half of the survey participants were asked a simpler question: Which photo had more people? Fifteen percent of Trump voters, or about 1 in 7, gave the wrong answer, compared to 2 percent of Clinton voters and 3 percent of nonvoters.

Schaffner says Trump voters likely supplied the wrong answer for one or two reasons. Some might actually see more people in the 2017 photo. The other reason, he says, is expressive responding.

In the question we asked, the truth was obvious and so right in front of people. They really couldnt believe there were more people in the left-hand photo, he says. The only explanation is the 15 percent would have known what theyre saying is wrong. They have to choose what theyre saying anyway to support Trump.

This political cheerleading applies to Democrats as much as to Republicans. In a 1988 survey, the University of Michigans American National Election Study, 30 percent of Democrats said unemployment worsened under the Ronald Reagan presidency. It didnt. Unemployment actually decreased.

In other words, when you ask people about the economy, the answers are less a statement of objectivity and more like what theyd say ifyoud asked which pro football teamwas the best, wrote Neil Irwin for the New York Timess Upshot in 2014.

But Howard Lavine, a political psychologist at the University of Minnesota, says theres another wrinkle in this discussion. In addition to answering out of ignorance or allegiance to your political team, respondents could also be confused between the verified facts about the crowds presented to them by the press and the unverified assertions presented by the Trump administration.

Now, I think were entering a realm, sadly, in which people really are confused, says Dr. Lavine, director of the universitys Center for the Study of Political Psychology, and who was not involved in the study. Populist-oriented Republicans have been saying for quite some time, Dont trust the mainstream media. Theyre lying to youIts possible that [respondents] believe that thats true that theyre being lied to. What that amounts to, then, is that they actually believe the response theyre giving you.

While the pictures of the two inaugurations went viral, they were snapped by only a few news outlets. According to the Reuters editor in charge of his outlets photo, there were three camera operators on the observation level of the Washington Monument. One was from Reuters, one from CBS, and one from the National Park Service. PBS NewsHour also posted a time-lapse video of the crowd throughout Inauguration Day.

But Trump said at CIA headquarters on Saturday that the dishonest media showed pictures of empty spaces at the mall, while White House press secretary Sean Spicer accused some of the media of deliberately false reporting.

In addition to a growing body of research that has shown politicians and political elites can effectively spread conspiracy theories among supporters, Trump and Mr. Spicers accusations come as trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low.

How do these two images, then, fit into the bigger picture of the partisan divide?

Its not good, say political science and psychology experts. Patrick Miller, a political scientist at the University of Kansas, also not involved in the study, says it shows how Democrats and Republicans live in two completely different worlds, with different news and different facts. Dr. Lavine adds voters have become increasingly less motivated by getting behind policies and politics that are good for them, and more about whether their team is winning or losing.

But he adds that in the 1950s, the American Political Science Association bemoaned the opposite, that parties were too non-ideological. There were a great many conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, they said. Today, it appears the the opposite is true.

More:
Why Republicans and Democrats see two different things in an inauguration photo - Christian Science Monitor

Republicans want to make sure the Federal Communications Commission doesnt continue with plans to shake up the set-top box market.

In a letter to newly appointed FCC chairman Ajit Pai, Republicans on the Houses Energy and Commerce Committee which monitors the agency urged the commission to close its set-top box proceeding, killing the proposed rules once and for all.

The rules stalled last year, but the proceeding was never closed

The rules were proposed last year and would require cable providers to make their TV streams more accessible to other devices. The proposal initially would have let any company make a set-top box that could receive any cable providers TV stream, which could have led to a flurry of far more interesting ways to interact with TV than we have now. That proposal received too much pushback, so a later proposal would have only required cable providers to provide streaming apps to major platforms.

The proceeding stalled when then-chairman Tom Wheeler realized he didnt have the votes for it. But Wheeler didnt close the proceeding, meaning that the FCC could at some point in the future pick up the cause again and have an easier time pushing it through, because much of the administrative work has already been done.

Thats part of why Republican committee members want it closed. They also argue that closing the proceeding will provide reassurance and stability to the cable industry and content producers two groups of companies that had rallied against the rule changes since they would know that the status quo will be maintained.

Pai called the proposal misguided and unfair

Republicans called the proceeding an unnecessary regulatory threat to the content creation and distribution industries and claimed it would limit investment in high-quality video programming.

In the letter, committee members also urged the FCC to engage in the healthy practice of regularly closing proceedings on any item that was no longer being debated.

It goes without question that the set-top box overhaul wont happen on Pais watch. Hes called the proceeding misguided and unfair, and he wrote in August that it was long past time for the FCCs leadership to walk away from its deeply flawed set-top box scheme.

Killing the proceeding wouldnt be much of a hurdle given that hes chairman now. But the bigger story here is Congressional Republicans getting behind Pai. This is an early and fairly simple case Pai hasnt acted on the letter yet, either but it goes to show that Pai will likely have vocal Republican support for the reforms he wants to push through. And thatll make life easier for him whenever he wants to get something done.

Read the original here:
Republicans want the FCC to shut down potential set-top box overhaul - The Verge

Forbes

Warning Republicans (Part 2) On Presidential Expectations Forbes Donald Trump is now President of the United States so let the expectations games begin in earnest! Of course, every new presidency brings a great deal of hope for the future. Historically, they also bring more expectations than could not possibly be ... and more »

See the article here:
Warning Republicans (Part 2) On Presidential Expectations - Forbes

In the same week as the March for Life and the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide, congressional Republicans are presenting strikingly different messages on the issue. While the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved legislation (H.R. 7) that would prohibit federal funding of abortions, with all House Republicans present voting for the bill, on Monday four Republican senators introduced a bill that would allow direct taxpayer funding of abortions.

That legislation, the Patient Freedom Act (the PFA, Senate Bill 191), introduced by senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), would go further than Obamacare in funding abortion coverage. Whereas Obamacare provides federal funding for insurance plans that cover abortion, the Patient Freedom Act would allow for direct federal funding of abortion procedures themselves.

The PFA (text here, and a summary here) gives states a choice of three options regarding the health care system within their borders. They can:

The text of the legislation indicates a clear bias towards option two. If a state does not choose any of the three options, that state will automatically be placed in the second.

If a state chooses the second option, most of the provisions of Title I of Obamacare would not apply. That repeal would include the individual and employer mandates, and some (but not all) of the federal benefit mandates included in Obamacare.

Crucially, for states that select the second option (or the third, for that matter), the PFA would repeal Section 1303 of Obamacare, which imposes some restrictions on federal funding of abortion plans. Section 1303 permits states to prohibit abortion coverage on their insurance exchanges, and requires insurers to set up a segregation mechanism intended to keep federal insurance subsidies separate from funds that pay for abortion procedures.

Pro-life groups have attacked the Section 1303 restrictions as an accounting sham because money is fungible, and therefore the segregation scheme meaningless. Further, a September 2014 Government Accountability Office report noted that many insurers had not even followed the segregation regime.

However, Obamacare made an attempt, albeit a largely meaningless one, to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. By contrast, the PFA makes no such attempt to do so.

Because the PFA itself includes no restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion, its critical to examine the source of funding for the new state-based allotments. While the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion, it does so only for appropriations provided through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spending bill. Other agencies covered through other spending bills must explicitly prohibit funding of abortion coverage, otherwise federal funding of abortion would be permittedand potentially required by courts as a necessary medical service.

The Patient Freedom Act includes only one new appropriation, for a population health initiative created by Section 103(c) of the bill. Therefore, the bill relies on Obamacares existing funding streamthe insurance subsidies provided in the form of refundable tax creditsto finance the allotments to individuals Roth HSAs. Because that funding stream goes through the Department of the Treasury via the Internal Revenue Code, the Hyde Amendment restrictions do not applymeaning that federal funds can, and will, finance abortion coverage.

The legislation the House passed on Tuesday (H.R. 7) included an explicit ban on using Obamacare subsidies to fund abortion, or plans that cover abortion. (The ban is in Section 201(a) of the bill.) Because the Patient Freedom Act uses the exact same funding stream to finance its allotments, the sponsors needed to include an explicit ban on abortion funding in their legislation. They did not.

Not only would the Patient Freedom Act provide federal funds to insurance plans that cover abortion, it would allow individuals to fund their abortions directly with federal funds. The federal allotments would be directly provided (using a state-based formula developed by the Department of Health and Human Services) to eligible individuals using the new Roth Health Savings Account option. Recipients can use Roth HSA funds to fund health insurance premiums, provided those premiums are for plans that meet several federal mandates, or they can use their account to fund qualified medical expenses.

The definition of qualified medical expensesavailable at Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code hereincludes no prohibition on abortion as a medical expense. Because the Internal Revenue Code is not subject to the Hyde Amendment, that laws restrictions would not apply. Therefore, individuals could use federal dollars deposited into their Roth HSA to fund abortion procedures.

Current law does permit some tax breaks for abortion coverage. The tax code exempts employer-provided health insurance premiums from income and payroll taxes. Because some employer plans cover abortion, individuals receive a tax benefit for abortion coverage. Likewise, individuals can currently use their HSA funds to pay for abortions, given the definition of qualified medical expenses.

However, in both those cases, individuals and employers are using their own money to fund abortion procedures, and receiving a tax break from the federal government for doing so. By contrast, the Patient Freedom Act goes further, allowing the direct use of the federal governments money to cover abortions, and plans that cover abortions.

That is a significant expansion of federal abortion funding that exceeds anything in Obamacare. And its a strikingly odd message for the senators to send on a week when many conservatives are focusing on protecting innocent life, not using taxpayer funds to destroy it.

Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, a policy consulting firm based in Washington. He's on Twitter @chrisjacobshc.

Go here to see the original:
Four Senate Republicans Want To Make Taxpayers Pay For Abortions - The Federalist