Mediaboss Marketing

Senate Republicans and the White House are facing down an increasingly daunting challenge to secure the votes necessary to pass legislation before the July 4 congressional recess that would make dramatic changes to President Barack Obama's signature health care law.

At least five Republicans have already come out against their party's bill which can afford to lose only two votes and over the weekend more began expressing serious reservations and skepticism about the proposal, saying they would like more time to debate and tweak the plan.

A key moment will arrive early this week when the Congressional Budget Office releases an analysis of the bill estimating how many people could lose coverage under the Republican plan, what impact it might have on insurance premiums and how much money it could save the government.

The stalled Republican effort to pass a sweeping rewrite of the Affordable Care Act was further threatened Sunday when Republican senators from opposite sides of the party's ideological spectrum voiced their disapproval, imperiling hopes for a Senate vote this week and President Donald Trump's desire to fulfill a core campaign pledge.

The mounting dissatisfaction leaves the White House and Senate Republican leaders in a difficult position. In the coming days, moves to narrow the scope of the overhaul could appeal to moderates but anger conservatives, who believe the legislation does not go far enough to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on Sunday expressed deep concerns about how the bill would cut expanded Medicaid funding for states, a key pillar of the Affordable Care Act that several centrists in the Senate are wary of rolling back, saying on ABC's "This Week" that she worries about "what it means to our most vulnerable citizens."

Collins also said she is concerned about the bill's impact on the cost of insurance premiums and deductibles, especially for older Americans.

"I'm going to look at the whole bill before making a decision," she said, later adding, "it's hard for me to see the bill passing this week."

Underscoring the challenge facing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaking on the same Sunday show, also voiced concerns with the bill but for entirely different reasons.

Paul who, along with fellow Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Mike Lee of Utah have already said they cannot support the current bill rejected the Republican plan for not being more fiscally austere, but said that in the face of an impasse, he could support legislation that simply repeals Obama's health care law.

"I've been telling leadership for months now I'll vote for a repeal," Paul said on ABC's "This Week." "And it doesn't have to be a 100 percent repeal. So, for example, I'm for 100 percent repeal, that's what I want. But if you me 90 percent repeal, I'd probably vote for it. I might vote for 80 percent repeal."

But simply repealing Obamacare or large parts of the law without making any other changes to the nation's health care system is not a realistic political possibility at the moment.

McConnell and his team remain convinced they must call a vote soon to avoid having health care discussions dominate the summer, when they aim to move on to tax reform legislation. In their circle, further talks are also seen as an opening for others to bolt.

"It's not going to get any easier," Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters on the sidelines of a three-day seminar organized by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch in Colorado Springs, Colo. "And yes, I think August is the drop deadline, about Aug. 1st."

As senators took to the airwaves Sunday, there were developments behind the scenes as GOP leaders made calls and worked to cobble together votes. But no firm decisions on changes were made.

There was new talk among key GOP figures about winning over moderates by altering the bill's Medicaid changes, according to two people involved who would not speak publicly. By tweaking how federal funding is determined for Medicaid recipients and linking aspects to the medical component of the consumer price index, there is a belief that some moderates could be swayed, since they want assurances of funding should the cost of care rise, the people said.

Then would come the tightrope: If some senators can be convinced to support revisions to the Medicaid portion of the bill, several conservatives are warning that unless their amendments are included, they are unlikely to support the legislation. The hope is that there is a combination of those Medicaid changes and amendments from conservatives that could pave way to passage.

Progress in these conversations could postpone a vote for a couple of weeks until after July 4 holiday, the people said, but Senate leadership and the White House want to move this week if they can.

The administration itself, meanwhile, is sending mixed signals. An allied leadership PAC is launching an intensive advertising campaign against Sen. Dean Heller, R.-Nev., currently a no vote, to pressure him to support the bill. And on CNN's "State of the Union," Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, said that Trump "is working the phones, he's having personal meetings, and he's engaging with leaders."

Still, the president's own support for the legislation has at times been lukewarm. Over the weekend, he acknowledged he once called the initial Republican bill, which originated in the House, "mean" in a private meeting, but also urged senators on Twitter to pass it.

Trump's aides have seemed to signal that the White House is more likely to support the final Senate proposal over the original House bill going forward, and speaking this weekend on "Fox & Friends," Trump said, "I want to see a bill with heart."

Conway added that "the president and the White House are also open to getting Democratic votes," and asked, "Why can't we get a single Democrat to come to the table, to come to the White House, to speak to the president or anyone else about trying to improve a system that has not worked for everyone?"

But Democratic support seems unlikely. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on "This Week," said Democrats would only sit down with Republicans if they stop trying repeal Obamacare. And in an interview with The Washington Post, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., spoke of trying to postpone a vote on the bill to mount a stronger fight against it.

"One of the strategies is to just keep offering amendments, to delay this thing and delay this thing at least until after the July 4 break," Sanders said. "That would give us the opportunity to rally the American people in opposition to it. I think we should use every tactic that we can to delay this thing."

On Sunday, there was also some confusion or misdirection about what exactly the Senate bill would do. Speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, R.-Pa., claimed that Republican plan "will codify and make permanent the Medicaid expansion," and added, "No one loses coverage." His comments echoed those by Conway, who told "This Week," "These are not cuts to Medicaid."

In fact despite Trump's campaign promise that he would not cut Medicaid the Senate bill includes deep cuts to projected spending on the program, deeper even than the House bill over the long run, and is expected to leave millions without or unable to afford health insurance.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who surprised some Republicans by co-signing a letter asking for more changes to the bill, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that there was no hurry to vote before the end of June.

"There's no way we should be voting on this next week. No way," Johnson said. "I have a hard time believing Wisconsin constituents or even myself will have enough time to properly evaluate this, for me to vote for a motion to proceed."

At the same time, Johnson said he was not a pure "no" on the bill.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who had criticized the process by which the new bill was crafted and had preferred his own compromise to extend most of the Affordable Care Act, struck a similar tone on CBS' "Face the Nation." After saying he was "undecided," he clarified that small changes could win his vote.

"There are things in this bill that adversely affect my state, that are peculiar to my state," said Cassidy. "If those can be addressed, I will. If they can't be addressed, I won't. So right now, I am undecided."

Progressive activists spent the weekend warning that Republicans like Johnson and Cassidy could vote for the bill with minor tweaks. In Columbus, Ohio, at the second of three rallies Sanders and MoveOn.org organized to pressure swing state Republican senators, MoveOn's Washington director Ben Wikler warned a crowd of at least 1,000 activists that the protests of Senate Republicans might amount to Kabuki theater.

"This is the week when Mitch McConnell and Republicans are going to introduce these tiny amendments, and Republicans are going to say oh, the bill is fixed! Oh, I can vote for it now!" Wikler said. "Are we going to let him get away with that?"

And looming over the discussions is another challenge: the Republican-controlled House, where any revised Senate bill would head and its ultimate fate would be decided. According to a White House official, Trump advisers are keeping in close touch with the conservative House Freedom Caucus which helped tank the White House's initial health care push as the Senate considers the bill, making sure that whatever ends up passing could pass muster with House conservatives.

Weigel reported from Columbus, Ohio, and The Washington Post's James Hohmann reported from Colorado Springs, Colo.

Read the original:
Senate Republicans face key week as more lawmakers waver in support for health care bill - Chicago Tribune

By Brendan FarringtonThe Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE Florida has more registered Democrats than Republicans, but the balance of power in government doesn't even come close to reflecting that.

Despite a 2010 constitutional amendment aimed at preventing political gerrymandering, Republicans dominate Florida politics. Democrats only hold 41 of 120 state House seats, 15 of 40 Senate seats and are outnumbered in in the U.S. House 16-11.

While it would be easy to say Republicans built their power because they draw the political boundaries for Congress and the Legislature, it's not as simple as that. Yes, observers note, it has contributed to the lopsided political numbers in a state where presidential elections are often seen as a tossup. But they point out Republicans are at this point just better at raising money, recruiting candidates and winning races in districts that should be more competitive.

The Associated Press analyzed all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly elections last year using a statistical method of calculating partisan advantage designed to detect potential gerrymandering. Florida was found to be one of the states with the largest Republican tilts in the state House. While it also showed Florida Republicans' advantage in Congress was slightly more than should've been expected, it wasn't to the point that clearly indicated gerrymandering.

The analysis examined the share of votes cast for Republican and Democratic candidates in each district and projected the expected number of seats each party would gain if districts were drawn so that neither party had an overall advantage. In Florida, Republicans had about 11 more seats in the state House than would be expected, one of the largest margins in the country.

Political maps are redrawn every 10 years after a new U.S. Census. Republicans helped gain dominance in Florida by controlling that process in 2002. Democrats controlled it in 1992 when they commanded the Legislature. Then Republicans flipped enough seats to take control by the time Republican Gov. Jeb Bush was elected in 1998.

"Republicans really put their foot on the gas when Bush got elected," said Steve Schale, a Democratic political consultant.

The state House went from a 71-49 Democratic majority in 1994 to an 81-39 Republican majority after the 2002 election when districts were redrawn by Republican lawmakers. Schale said Republicans drew maps with highly concentrated Democratic districts so that they could create more Republican-strong districts that weren't as concentrated.

As a result, Schale said, districts seen as competitive still have a slight Republican edge: "Even the places that are competitive aren't truly like jump balls."

Republicans acknowledge the 2002 rewrite favored their party.

Former Republican state Rep. Jeff Kottkamp sat on the House committee that redrew House maps. Kottkamp, who later served as lieutenant governor, said lawyers warned lawmakers that there were still rules that had to be followed. "You knew that the district had to be as compact as possible, contiguous. You tried to keep communities of interest all together. It just wasn't always possible," he said.

But he said every legislator tried to push for districts that increased their chances for re-election.

"Obviously if you're the party in power and your members wanted to draw districts that helped themselves get elected, to a certain extent that's naturally going to benefit the majority," Kottkamp noted.

The 2010 "fair districts" constitutional amendment was aimed at preventing that practice. It requires lawmakers to draw maps that don't benefit incumbents or political parties and to try to keep communities from being divided for political purposes.

Those behind the amendment successfully sued to have U.S. House and state Senate maps redrawn because they didn't meet constitutional muster, but state House maps went unchallenged.

So, if the maps are fair, why do Republicans still dominate the state House? University of Florida political science professor Dan Smith said Republicans are better at fielding candidates and running campaigns particularly in about 30 truly competitive districts.

"Republicans have done a good job of targeting those areas and getting good candidates and putting a lot of money into marginal districts, which they tend to win," he said.

Likewise, he said state Senate maps are drawn fairly, but Democrats underperform in districts they should win.

Part of the problem with Democrats is institutional, said Schale. He said the party has no discipline and doesn't recruit candidates as aggressively as it should.

"Too often we've settled for the first person who raised their hand, and that was not always the best option," Schale said.

See the rest here:
Republicans rule Florida politics - Gainesville Sun

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks after Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 22, 2017. Photo by Joshua Roberts/Reuters

WASHINGTON (AP) Why are Republicans struggling mightily to reach a consensus on how to overhaul the nations tax system?

The GOP is supposed to be really good at cutting taxes. President George W. Bush cut taxes. So did President Ronald Reagan, though he also raised them.

Why is President Donald Trump, who has promised the largest tax cut ever, having so much trouble accomplishing one of his main initiatives?

Some questions and answers about why tax overhaul is hard and why Republicans have been unable to reach a consensus.

Whats the holdup?

After weeks of private negotiations, the White House and congressional Republicans still dont agree on exactly what they want to accomplish.

House Republican leaders are firm that they want to completely overhaul the tax system for businesses and individuals. They want to make the tax law simpler and more efficient, and they want the changes to endure beyond the next decade.

They want to cut tax rates, but they dont want the changes to add to the federal governments long-term debt. That means Congress would have to eliminate a lot of exemptions, deductions and credits, and probably come up with a new source of revenue.

The White House is all about tax cuts. Administration officials have talked about simplifying the tax system and getting rid of deductions, but have offered few specifics.

Why not just cut taxes?

A growing number of Republicans say they would rather cut taxes than tackle the difficult task of overhauling the tax system. House Speaker Paul Ryan vehemently opposes this approach.

Heres why:

Republicans are working to pass a tax plan under a procedure that requires only a simple majority in the Senate, preventing Democrats from blocking it. But to use this procedure, the package cannot add to the governments long-term debt.

That means simple tax cuts would have to be temporary, like the ones passed under Bush.

Every expert agrees that temporary reforms will only have a negligible impact on wages and economic growth, said Ryan, R-Wis. Businesses need to have confidence that we will not pull the rug out from under them.

Why is Ryan pushing for a tax on imports?

Ryan is pushing a plan that would increase taxes on imports and cut taxes on exports. Its called a border adjustment tax.

One reason Ryan likes it is because it would raise enough revenue about $1 trillion over the next decade to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent without adding to the governments debt.

The tax would provide strong incentives for U.S.-based companies to keep their operations in the United States and perhaps persuade companies to move overseas operations to the U.S.

The tax, however, has no support in the Senate because senators fear it would increase the cost of consumer goods.

How would Ryans tax work?

The border adjustment tax is a cash-flow tax in which corporations could deduct business expenses immediately instead of depreciating them over time. But interest on debt would no longer be deductible, though current debt would be grandfathered.

A U.S. company that makes a product and sells it domestically would pay a 20 percent tax on the profit. A U.S. company that makes a product and exports it would pay no taxes on the proceeds from the sale.

Both of these companies could deduct the cost of making their products as a business expense.

The tax is often described as a tax on imports because companies that import goods would also pay the tax, but they could not deduct the cost of imported goods as a business expense.

For example, if a U.S. retailer imports a product from China for $5 and sells it for $10, the retailer would have to pay tax on the entire $10.

If a U.S. retailer buys a domestically-produced good for $5 and sells it for $10, the retailer would only pay tax on the $5 profit.

Retailers that rely on imports hate the proposed tax. U.S. exporters love it.

Why not just cut loopholes?

A popular idea on Capitol Hill is to cut tax rates for everyone individuals and corporations and make up the lost revenue by eliminating special-interest loopholes.

The numbers, however, dont add up.

On the corporate side, if Congress eliminated just about every tax break enjoyed by corporations, it would raise only enough revenue to lower the corporate tax rate to 28.5 percent, according to an analysis by Scott Greenberg, a senior analyst at the conservative Tax Foundation.

Ryan wants to lower the tax rate to 20 percent; Trump wants to lower it to 15 percent.

Greenberg modeled the effects of eliminating 54 different tax breaks enjoyed by corporations, including the widely used domestic production credit and the popular credit for research and development.

If lawmakers are interested in paying for a large corporate rate cut solely by closing corporate loopholes or repealing special preferences, then they will be greatly disappointed, Greenberg wrote.

View post:
Why Republicans are struggling mightily to overhaul tax code - PBS NewsHour

Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., threw himself off a political cliff last week when he declared full-throated opposition to the Senate version of the Obamacare repeal bill and it remains to be seen if Heller is hanging by a limb out of sight and can climb back to electoral sanity or has hit rock bottom in his public career.

Individual Senate Republicans face different political realities but the caucus must somehow get the votes necessary to return the revised Obamacare repeal and replace bill to the House. To fail to do so is to condemn not only Heller and Arizonas Sen. Jeff Flake to certain doom but probably others among the eight GOP senators up for reelection. The grass roots disgust with this betrayal will be so deep as to endanger every senator, even in deep red states such as Mississippi, Texas and Utah.

To fail this week almost certainly forfeits the House majority in next years midterm elections but perhaps also the Senates, and with the latter, the ability to confirm Supreme Court justices and lower court judges, pass budgets under reconciliation, have any chance at serious tax reform and of course approve the crucial repeal of the Defense Department sequestration.

This is of course an imperative vote on saving American health care. Next year, for example, there potentially will be at least 18 counties in Ohio without even a single option for individuals seeking coverage. The swaths of America where there is only one provider are large and growing. Choice for consumers is a delusion and soaring deductibles have made health care an illusion to millions more.

Obamacare is a catastrophe on its own terms but the consequences of not passing its repeal are worse even beyond those awful health-care outcomes. It will forfeit every other Republican goal because failing to deliver on the central promise of eight years of debates and campaigns will shatter the credibility every Republican, not just those who block the bill. The party as a whole will be gravely wounded, perhaps beyond healing for a generation or more.

I dont have to guess about this. I have been talking to the center-right of the country for three hours a day Monday through Friday for the past 17 years. I know the central argument of the conservative activists everywhere in the United States is that Beltway Republicans cannot be trusted to do anything hard. That argument was dented by the discipline with which the GOP put up with the mainstream media and Democrats slings and arrows in the fight over replacing Justice Antonin Scalia. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) rightly calculated that to surrender that hill would be to lose not just a political battle but the political war stretching long into the future. It was that big of a deal to the base.

The same is true of Obamacare. To vote no on whatever compromise arrives is to express contempt for the Republican Party as a whole and its grass-roots activists and base voters and for those ideas it stands for on all major matters, from a strong defense to low taxes to an originalist Supreme Court.

Thus Heller seemed to declare himself a hollow man when he said he could not vote for it, a man without any core beliefs because with his rambling statement he endangered all alleged core GOP beliefs, and thus the GOP will not support him. It isnt about primaries; primary opponents need not materialize. It is about millions of conservatives who will simply give up on politics.

This is a make-or-break moment for Senate Republicans and the party itself. Sadly, for this conservative, the tone-deafness of Heller may not be unique. It may not even turn out to be particularly rare. We will know in a week. And not one GOP senator will be able to say he or she wasnt warned.

Hugh Hewitt is a radio talk-show host. He wrote this for the Washington Post.

Read the original:
A make-or-break moment for Republicans - The Mercury News

INDIANA A new study from the Associated Press shows that Republicans won a greater share of seats than they did votes in many 2016 congressional and state races, a possible result of gerrymandering.

The study, which used a version of a mathematical formula created by University of Chicago law professor Nick Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee, a researcher at the nonpartisan Public Policy, also showed that Indiana Republicans enjoyed a partisan advantage in their races, although that isnt necessarily an indication of gerrymandering, McGhee said.

Gerrymandering is the drawing of electoral boundaries to give a particular political party an unfair advantage in elections.

Stephanopoulos and McGhee devised a score, called the efficiency gap, to measure how much of an advantage political parties are receiving in their races. The farther away the efficiency gap is from zero, the more of an advantage a political party enjoys.

The APs study, which McGhee said was conducted with his help, found that the efficiency gap for the 2016 Congressional races was 10.6 percent in favor of Republicans, while the efficiency gap for the state senate races was 4.76 percent.

While seemingly high, McGhee said that he prefers using an excess seat number, or the additional number of seats a party would win even if all parties were on equal vote footing, for Congressional races. McGhee and Stephanopoulos have settled on two or fewer excess seats as an acceptable advantage for a political party to hold in an election.

In Indianas case, less than one excess Republican seat, .95 of a seat, was possible in the 2016 Congressional election.

In the state races, however, McGhee cautioned against the 4.76 percent efficiency gap that the AP reported. While 8 percent is considered a worrisomely high efficiency gap by the researcher, McGhee has calculate Indianas state race efficiency gaps before and has found them to be much higher than what the AP found.

At the request of the state legislature, McGhee determined that Indiana had an efficiency gap of 13 percent in favor of house Republicans and 17 percent for senate ones in 2012. In 2014, he found that the efficiency gap was 7 percent in favor of house Republicans and 13 percent in favor of senate ones.

To make any claims about whether thats a problem requires more evidence, McGhee said.

States need to show that they cant redraw their district lines to ensure a fairer advantage for all political parties before their efficiency gap can be used as proof of gerrymandering, he said.

McGhee has not evaluated that side of Indianas districting situation.

Tom Sugar, a member of the special interim study committee on redistricting in Indiana is hopeful that using the efficiency gap as a marker could affect the future of partisan districts The U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal in October following a federal appeals court verdict that found Wisconsin Republicans were unconstitutional in their partisan gerrymandering.

The efficiency gap mechanism provides the test to show that the district, territories, land are being sliced and diced to ensure a particular partisan outcome, he said.

He said population and geography, not voter registration and political participation from areas should be used.

As a side project, Sugar has created a series of maps that show how the districts would look in Indiana compared to the districts drawn in 2011. They can be found on his website http://www.leadorleave.org.

Is this state more Republican than Democratic for the most part? Sure Indiana is a conservative state, he said. But it isnt 80 percent Republican.

He said the current districting system is not a fair picture of the people of Indiana.

It means that youre represented by a legislature that does not accurately affect the interest and needs of Hoosiers. It has become an out-of-whack, politically corrupt system.

He said the same is true in states where Democrats have drawn partisan districts.

The people dont pick their politicians now the politicians pick them, he said.

When you take the politics out and use population and geography and keep communities together you also enhance competitiveness. That means the people who represent those districts ... have to pay attention to something other than their primaries.

Read more:
Do Republicans in Indiana have an unfair advantage? - Newsandtribune