Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

Based On A Myth, Republicans Risk Leading Off With A Big Tax Increase – Forbes

Based On A Myth, Republicans Risk Leading Off With A Big Tax Increase
Forbes
In seeking a reduction of the corporate tax rate, Republican strategists and legislators are talking about replacing some of the already insignificant revenues taken in through the corporate tax with a tax on imports. Worse, the introduction of a ...

and more »

Go here to see the original:
Based On A Myth, Republicans Risk Leading Off With A Big Tax Increase - Forbes

Republicans: Schumer Broke His Word on Pompeo Confirmation – The Weekly Standard (blog)

When President Donald Trump visited the CIA Saturday, he had hoped that CIA Director Mike Pompeo would accompany him. But when Trump arrived at the Langley, Virginia, headquarters of the Agency, he was instead accompanied by Congressman Mike Pompeo.

Representative Pompeo will almost certainly be confirmed as CIA Director on Monday. And the CIA will no doubt survive two days without its new leader. But the nastiness of the partisan sniping between top Republicans and Democrats that led to the delay may well have a lasting impact on the Senate - in this Congress and beyond.

According to six sources familiar with the negotiations over Pompeo's confirmation, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told Republican leaders that he would allow Pompeo to be confirmed by voice vote on Inauguration Day, along with two other Trump nominees who have national security responsibilities. But Schumer broke his promise, these sources say, and offered an insulting excuse for having done so.

"Trust is important, even between adversaries," says Senator John Cornyn, one of the Republicans involved in the discussions. "And that trust has been damaged."

The story begins in early January, before the Senate held a single confirmation hearing for any of Trump's nominees. Senate Republicans scheduled six confirmation hearings for January 11, a Wednesday. The schedule complicated the plans of Senate Democrats, who had hoped to mount challenges to several Trump nominees or at least create news by attacking them. Too many hearings would spread thin the coverage of made-for-media battles. So Democrats formally objected. "Not acceptable. I've told that to Mitch McConnell," Schumer said in an interview with Politico. "I don't think my members would find what they did appropriate or acceptable."

According to sources familiar with the discussions, Schumer asked his Republican colleagues to delay Pompeo's hearing for one day. "Democrats asked that the hearing be moved so that six hearings did not occur on one day," says a senior Democratic senate aide. "That many cabinet hearings in a single day had only happened once in American history, and it was an unfair schedule to senators on both sides. Republicans accommodated that request."

Among the reasons Schumer cited: Senator Dianne Feinstein, who had until this Congress been ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee and is currently ranking member on Senate Judiciary, complained that the schedule would prevent her from attending hearings for both Pompeo and Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions.

McConnell consulted Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, Intel committee member Tom Cotton, and the incoming Trump administration. Republicans agreed to delay Pompeo, whose team was happy to have an extra day to prepare. But the Republicans had a condition. If we agree to push back Pompeo's hearing for a day, they told Schumer, you must agree to include him in the group of national security officials who will be confirmed by a voice vote on Inauguration Day, January 20. According to these sources, Schumer agreed, with alacrity, having secured the delay he'd sought.

But on January 19, one day before Trump's inauguration, Ron Wyden said he'd seek to delay Pompeo's confirmation when the Senate convened late Friday afternoon. That evening Cotton, who is close to Pompeo from their time together in the House of Representatives, began calling his colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Wyden, seeking to avoid the delay. Some of the calls were cordial. Others were testy.

The Senate reconvened after the inaugural ceremonies on Friday, with Pompeo's nomination set to come up at 4:50pm. Cotton angrily confronted Schumer about his broken promise. According to witnesses, Schumer told Cotton to lower his voice and asked him move off of the Senate floor to an adjacent hallway for a private discussion. "We need to take this out into the hallway," Schumer said. Cotton walked with Schumer but loudly rejected his first request. "Don't tell me to lower my voice!" he shouted, with an additional salty admonition tacked on for emphasis. Burr and Cornyn were present, as was Senator Mark Warner, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and several aides.

Schumer told Cotton that the Senate had never previously confirmed a CIA director on Inauguration Day and if Cotton had been around eight years earlier, he'd know that Republicans didn't extend that courtesy for incoming president Barack Obama. "Eight years ago, I was getting my ass shot at in Afghanistan," Cotton snapped. "So don't talk to me about where I was 8 years ago."

Cotton asked Schumer why he'd gone back on his word. Schumer claimed that he'd only been speaking for himself when he promised to let Pompeo through. "I said that I would not block him," Schumer said, emphasizing the personal pronoun, according to sources who witnessed the exchange. "I never said that I could speak for 47 other Democrats."

The Republicans were stunned.

"I'm not telling Ron Wyden to do this," Schumer declared. "Why don't you go talk to Wyden?"

"That ain't my job, Chuck," said Burr.

"I know what you promised me," said Burr. "You made the deal!"

Cornyn recalls: "That's when [Schumer] started dissembling and said: 'I don't control my whole caucus.' Either he'd lost control or he was trying to make excuses for an outcome he wanted."

Burr, not known for his aggressiveness, pointedly told Schumer that Republicans had learned something important about taking Schumer at his word. "I won't make that mistake again," he said.

A Senate Democratic leadership aide disputed this version of events. "There was never a deal to confirm Rep. Pompeo on Friday. The senate has never confirmed a CIA director on inauguration day in American history, and we asked the Vice President to keep Director Brennan on the job, as Director Hayden stayed on before Director Panetta was confirmed. The incoming administration declined."

"I wish Senator Wyden had accepted our offer to conduct the debate he sought on Friday afternoon and I wish Senator Schumer had delivered on his agreement for a Friday vote," said Cotton. "But I look forward to a large bipartisan vote to confirm Mike on Monday."

Trump appeared at the CIA Saturday afternoon and gave a long, extemporaneous statement on threats to the US; intelligence community members who voted for him; Reince Priebus, a political "superstar;" the nomination of Sonny Perdue to be Secretary of Agriculture; the election and his "tremendous, tremendous success;" his strong belief in academics; the "dishonest media;" and the crowd size at the inauguration, which Trump estimated at 1.5 million.

Trump did also mention Mike Pompeo and his nomination to run the CIA. "He was approved basically but they're doing little political games with me," Trump said.

And on that, at least, he was right.

See the rest here:
Republicans: Schumer Broke His Word on Pompeo Confirmation - The Weekly Standard (blog)

Republicans Introduce Bill Proposing Withdrawal From United Nations – Jezebel

House Republicans have introduced a bill that, if passed, would set in motion the United States withdrawal from the United Nations.

According to NBC, Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers initiated this proposal, called the American Sovereignty Act of 2017 or, to be more technical, H.R. 193. It was brought to Congress at the start of the new yearJanuary 3, 2017and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that same day.

The bill articulates its purpose baldly: To end all membership of the United States in the United Nations. Doing so would mean repealing the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, enacted just months after the end of World War II.

But that, of course, is precisely the aim. The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations...The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out reads H.R. 193.

Abidingly, the U.S. headquarters for the United Nations would be shuttered as well. The bill, which methodically and antiseptically details Americas complete extrication from this global organization, moreover includes a provision repealing the United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973.

Should the bill be signed into legislation, it will come into effect exactly two years later.

Passing a bill like thisone tethered to an international, cooperative effort towards peace and security in the wake of unspeakable destruction and carnagecommunicates a grave message: Good luck, Rest of the Globe. Youre on your own.

Our withdrawal from the United Nations would, to say the least, be an egregious mistake founded in nationalist hubris and the deprecation of international fellowship. You can read the entirety of H.R. 193 here, and refer to this page to locate your representatives contact information.

Note: It is true that Congress has put forth versions of this bill before and, obviously, they have not passed. But the GOP is likely encouraged by our new xenophobe-in-chief, who has called the organization a waste of time and money. And post-January 20, does any terrible thing seem totally impossible?

More:
Republicans Introduce Bill Proposing Withdrawal From United Nations - Jezebel

Montana Republicans loathe Obamacare, but are they ready to dump it? Not so fast – The Missoulian

HELENA Back in 2015, being a Montana Republican meant despising Obamacare and your loathing of it better have been a pre-existing condition.

House Speaker Austin Knudsen qualified. He voted against the states decision to expand Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act in 2015. When he ran for re-election last year, he pilloried Obamacare, saying he didnt want Congress to delay the removal of this ill-conceived disaster of a law.

That is now a distinct possibility, with Congress having begun the process of repeal.

But this has become a conundrum for Republican state lawmakers in GOP-dominated legislatures that expressed bitter opposition to the health care reform law but nonetheless took its federal Medicaid expansion money.

Though President-elect Donald Trump has said the law wont be scuttled without a replacement very quickly, many state legislatures find themselves having to plan budgets without knowing whether theyll be stuck paying to keep their poorest citizens insured.

Medicaid was expanded under the law in 31 states, but only seven of them were states with Democratic majorities who embraced federal health care reform. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican whose state added 700,000 to the health insurance rolls, told reporters recently: I just want to know whats going to happen to all those people who find themselves out in the cold.

GOP lawmakers in North Dakota and Nevada have expressed similar worries.

Montana is in a particularly precarious position. The state is required by constitution to balance its budget based on projected revenues, but its Legislature meets only every other year meaning lawmakers who began their session this month have to peer two years into the future at the unpredictable landscape of federal health care law.

Obamacare provided health insurance to thousands of Montanans who formerly didnt have it; now, even Republicans worry that Congress may scuttle the law without funding an alternative.

I still dont think its realistic to say Well, were going to cover an additional 60,000 to 70,000 people but if the federal government takes the money away, were simply going to jerk the rug from underneath those people, Knudsen said.

Sitting in his office on a cold, snowy afternoon the first week into the legislative session, he leaned forward confidentially.

We cant afford it.

Minority Democrats in Montana tried twice to expand Medicaid coverage during implementation of the federal health care law. A slim Republican majority beat it back in 2013 but narrowly succeeded two years later with a plan to offer Medicaid coverage to all adults with incomes near the poverty level.

Rep. Rob Cook, a burly man who played running back in high school, carried the bill as the Republican sponsor and was intent on getting it to the goal line.

Cook said after he cast his vote in favor of the expansion and it passed 54-42, he looked around at the majority of his fellow Republicans on the House floor.

It was 42 faces of hate, he said.

Yet the program proved popular in the sparsely populated state, with twice the number of people expected signing up by July 2016. There are 61,233 on the program now.

Republicans in Montana, as in most frontier states, often share with their constituents a high degree of mistrust and distaste for the federal government an attitude that carries into fights over public lands, gun rights and, in recent years, Obamacare.

Washington, D.C., is seen as far away, distant, removed and not in touch with what life is like here in Montana, said Robert Saldin, associate professor of political science at the University of Montana. The popular image of the bureaucrat in some cubicle making critical decisions that affect life here in Montana without any knowledge, or having been here, or how policies affect people on the ground here, is the kind of image at work within the Republican Party here.

But with droves of outsiders moving into university towns like Missoula and Bozeman, the state isnt entirely intolerant of Democrats. As recently as 2009, the House was split 50-50; last year, they were at 61. Republicans hold a four-seat edge in the Senate. Gov. Steve Bullock is the second consecutive Democrat to lead the state.

Senate President Scott Sales, a Republican who voted against Medicaid expansion, said hes sympathetic to those who are now getting health care for the first time and has heard health success stories because of the law.

But Sales said the state cant afford to keep the program going on its own. Montana paid just about $5 million for its share of the program, while the federal government kicked in $153.6 million for six months in fiscal year 2016, according to the Legislative Fiscal Division.

The state projects its cost over the next two fiscal years to rise to about $70 million, with $847 million in federal funding.

Montana doesnt have a lot of options. Lower-than-expected oil and corporate tax revenues left the state $142 million short of expectations in the 2016 fiscal year, based on a two-year budget of $12.8 billion. Sales said most of those getting health insurance under the Medicaid expansion are capable of working and getting private insurance.

The best thing we could possibly do for people the best health care system is a good job, Sales said. They need to take ownership for themselves. There is no constitutional guarantee to health care. If there is one, Id love to have someone show it to me.

To appease Montana Republicans when the expansion law was passed, a sunset clause put it up for renewal in 2019. But Bullock said stripping recipients of health care without a plan would be irresponsible.

Governing the fractious state, Bullock, with his frequent vetoes, has come to be known as the goalie governor. But he said lawmakers of all stripes have heard the stories about people getting health care for the first time.

One man wrote the governor an email about how the new insurance had allowed him to see a doctor and get treatment for a potentially fatal adrenal crisis.

You saved my life on Feb. 10, he wrote.

While the debate over Obamacare is taking place in Washington, Bullock said, it is states that are on the front lines, and state lawmakers who will have to figure out what to do until Congress finds a solution.

Doubtless if the ground substantially shifts, well hear from people a lot more than the folks in Washington, D.C., will hear from them, Bullock said. Because we also see them in our churches, in our communities on our streets.

Cook agreed, saying congressional Republicans didnt have any real stakes in the process while former President Barack Obama was in power.

The easiest vote in any legislature is a no vote (for something) you know is going to pass, he said. I think Republicans have been negligent at the federal level in not trying to make the program work. Its been extraordinarily bad behavior and its not what you get elected to do.

Continued here:
Montana Republicans loathe Obamacare, but are they ready to dump it? Not so fast - The Missoulian

Clinton Labor Secretary: Republicans In Congress Think Trump Is A Lunatic And Will IMPEACH Him – Daily Caller

5436013

Robert Reich, the Clinton-era secretary of labor, is claiming to have inside information indicating that Republicans in Congress are clandestinely planning to impeach President Donald Trump because they think Trump is out of his mind.

Reich published his exclusive knowledge of the situation on Facebook Saturday morning.

The lowdown comes from a breakfast rendezvous with a former Republican member of Congress, Reich said.

The ex-congressman described Trump as no Republican, Reich said. Hes just a big fat ego.

Republicans in Congress will play along for a while with Trump to achieve smaller government: tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare and blame him. And hes such a fool hell want to take credit for everything.

Congressional Republicanswill then impeach Trump.

They like Pence, the unidentified former congressman told Reich, according to Reich. Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind.

Here is Reichs report of the full exchange:

Reichs Facebook page is titled Inequality Media. He has a similarly-named website: Inequalitymedia.org.

The ultra-progressive economist inasmuch as a mere law school graduate can be called an economist is currently a public policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

During the fall semester of 2014, Reich had been slated to teach just one course while raking in an impressive annual salary of $242,613 from taxpayer-funded Cal Berkeley. (RELATED: Robert Reich Sticks It To Poor People With $242,613 Salary For Teaching ONE CLASS This Semester)

The yearly salary of $242,613 $20,217 per month placed Reich squarely in the top four percent of all Americans at the time.

Follow Eric on Twitter.Like Eric on Facebook. Send story tips to[emailprotected].

See the rest here:
Clinton Labor Secretary: Republicans In Congress Think Trump Is A Lunatic And Will IMPEACH Him - Daily Caller