Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

Republicans make first move targeting Planned Parenthood funding – The Hill

Republicans are taking their first shot of 2017 at Planned Parenthood.

The House is expected this week to vote on a resolution that would rescind an Obama-era regulation barring states from defunding the organization for political reasons.

Because the measure is being moved through a law that allows Congress to rescind recently finalized rules, the bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate, raising its odds for success.

Republicans framed the move to rescind the regulation as a way to give back to the states the power to determine how federal funds should be spent on women's healthcare.

But Democrats call the move a thinly shrouded attack on abortion providers.

Its really about getting at Planned Parenthood, and this is the first salvo in doing so, said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.)

The House Rules Committee passed the resolution Tuesday along a party-line vote, 7-4, and the full House will likely vote on it later this week.

Now that Republicans have majorities in both chambers and a GOP president, theyre facing increased pressure from anti-abortion groups to move quickly on their promises to cut funds to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Republicans are also considering whether language defunding abortion providers will be included in a bill that repeals ObamaCare.

Anti-abortion protesters have gathered outside Planned Parenthood clinics across the country over the past week to call for an end to federal funding for the organization.

Obamas rule specifically requires that state and local governments distribute federal Title X funding for services related to contraception, fertility, pregnancy care and breast and cervical cancer screeners to health providers, regardless of whether they also perform abortions.

It was issued by the Obama administration after a string of states tried to block funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliated clinics.

Supporters of Planned Parenthood argue that it provides essential services to low-income women, including birth control, STD tests and preventive care that could be at risk if defunded.

Democrats at Tuesday's hearing also accused Republicans of trying to make womens healthcare decisions for them.

Politicians shouldnt be making decisions about womens health for them, and states shouldnt be either, said Rep. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee.

Its high time we recognize that women can make decisions for themselves. For more than 40 years, men in blue suits have been trying to determine what women can and should do when it comes to their own health.

While Planned Parenthood doesnt use federal funds for abortion, Republicans argue any money given to the organization still supports the procedure.

We should invest in womens health, not abortion. Abortion is not healthcare, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said Tuesday during his testimony at the hearing.

The federal government should not incentivize the practice by undermining the authority of states.

See the original post:
Republicans make first move targeting Planned Parenthood funding - The Hill

Four key Republicans could vote against Puzder for labor secretary – Washington Post

Andrew Puzder, the fast-food executive whom President Trump nominated to be labor secretary, emerged Monday as Democrats last, best hope of defeating one of Trumps Cabinet choices as four key Republicans are on the fence about his nomination.

The unenthusiastic reception from the Republican lawmakers comes after weeks of intense criticism from Democrats and liberal groups over workplace violations at Puzders restaurants Hardees and Carls Jr., sexually suggestive ads featuring bikini-clad models eating burgers, and his opposition to wage regulations. Puzder has also been accused of domestic abuse an accusation that was later recanted and has acknowledged hiring an undocumented worker for his home.

Puzder, 66, has faced the most early skepticism of any nominee besides Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who won confirmation. The Republican senators who were noncommittal about Puzders nomination on Monday Susan Collins (Maine), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Tim Scott (S.C.) sit on the committee that will hold his confirmation hearing Thursday. If they oppose him, his nomination is all but certainly dead.

Even if Puzder makes it out of committee, his final status may come down to a tiebreaker vote from Vice President Mike Pence similar to what happened last week for Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. It is the latest reminder of the paradox of Trumps Cabinet nominees they have struggled for confirmation more than the nominees of any other administration in recent history, but criticism that might have in the past doomed a candidates chances may no longer prove decisive.

Some Republicans say they are willing to overlook issues related to undocumented workers or unpaid taxes for the opportunity to have a business-minded leader in the Labor Department. But the racy ads and domestic violence allegations may test some conservatives and womens groups.

Collins said Monday that she has reviewed footage of an Oprah Winfrey Show interview with Puzders ex-wife, Lisa Fierstein, who once appeared in disguise on the program to discuss the multiple times, she says, that Puzder physically assaulted her in the 1980s. Fierstein retracted the allegations, and he has always denied that he abused her.

Im going to wait until the issues that have arisen are fully explored at his hearing, Collins told reporters. I am reviewing the other information that has come to light, and Im sure all of this will be explored thoroughly, she added, without specifying what information is of concern.

Collinss revelation that senators have seen footage of Fiersteins interview with Winfrey is notable, because Democrats and other organizations have been desperately seeking the footage for weeks in hopes of airing it and derailing Puzders nomination.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who chairs the health committee, told reporters Monday that he worked with Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the committees top Democrat, to arrange for senators to view a tape of the episode. Alexander said he has not seen the segment himself but he does plan to vote to approve Puzders nomination.

His former wife has said it was all not true, Alexander said. She has reiterated that in a heartfelt letter to members of the committee and has been willing to talk to members of the committee, so I dont think thats an issue.

Puzders personal wealth has also earned scrutiny that has delayed his nomination for several weeks. Federal disclosure forms delivered to the Senate last week show that most of his wealth is tied to CKE Restaurants and that he plans to divest those holdings within six months if he is confirmed to lead the Labor Department.

The White House is standing by Puzder, declaring last week that he would be confirmed. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters that he is enthusiastically supporting the nominee.

Some business groups are also joining top Republicans in fighting the criticism by urging senators to back the nomination. A coalition of trade groups, including the International Franchise Association, the National Restaurant Association and the National Retail Federation, sent a letter to senators Monday praising Puzders business experience and policy acumen. Statewide restaurant associations in Maine and Alaska sent separate letters to Collins and Murkowski asking for their support.

If confirmed, Puzder would be the first labor secretary since the Reagan era to come to the role without any public-service experience.

Puzder got his start in the fast-food industry working as a personal attorney for Carl Karcher, the founder of the Carls Jr. restaurant chain. He helped Karcher avoid bankruptcy and in 1997 became executive vice president and general counsel for CKE. He then became president and chief executive of CKE in 2000, and he currently oversees 75,000 workers in 3,750 locations.

Puzder has spent much of his career promoting the idea that businesses thrive better when the government doesnt interfere. In interviews, speeches and op-eds, he has long argued that rules substantially increasing the minimum wage or expanding the number of people who qualify for overtime pay, for example, could drive up the cost of labor and decrease the number of jobs.

In an opinion piece for Forbes, he said that the Obama administrations overtime rule would force employers to cut costs elsewhere and limit some workers schedules. During a Business Insider interview last year, Puzder said that because of rising labor costs, he would consider investing in machines to replace some workers, because they never take a vacation, they never show up late, theres never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.

Labor groups and other critics say they are concerned about Puzders pure capitalist mind-set, noting that if confirmed, he may end up tilting the scales in favor of corporations.

But George Thompson, a spokesman for Puzder, said that if confirmed, Puzder would recuse himself from any business related to CKE and would remain impartial when it comes to rulemaking and enforcement.

Opponents also cite stories from employees at Hardees and Carls Jr. who allege they have had to work through breaks, not been paid for sick leave or been harassed on the job.

Hes going to be essentially responsible for enforcing the same laws that hes been breaking for years, said Kendall Fells, national organizing director of the Fight for $15, a group advocating for a higher minimum wage that organized lunchtime protests Monday at CKE offices in St. Louis and Anaheim, Calif., as well as restaurant locations throughout the country.

Womens groups, such as the National Womens Law Center, and labor advocates question whether he will defend female workers, citing what they say are demeaning ads that feature models eating burgers in skimpy outfits. Puzder, however, has defended the campaign as American and characterized it as a strategy for luring young, hungry guys.

On Tuesday, the Campaign for Accountability, a nonprofit watchdog, will head to a Missouri state court for a status update on its efforts to unseal Puzders divorce records, arguing that the domestic violence allegations raise serious concerns about his fitness to be labor secretary.

Yet some businesses and Republicans say they look forward to having someone in the Labor Department who understands that regulations can force businesses to make tough calls.

We dont want our workers to feel like theyre not being paid a fair wage, but we want people to understand the ramifications of it, said Peter Riggs, president of Pita Pit USA, a quick-service sandwich chain with about 600 locations in the United States and Canada. He understands what were going through.

Puzders fate will ultimately depend on whether his opponents can sway more than two Senate Republicans to vote against him.

The Republicans hesitating to publicly support him said they will make up their minds after the hearing.

No real story here, said a spokeswoman for Scott, noting that the senator hasnt been commenting on nominees until their confirmation hearing, with the exception of fellow South Carolina Republicans Nikki Haley, nominated to serve as United Nations ambassador, and Rep. Mick Mulvaney, nominated to lead the Office of Management and Budget.

Consistent with his policy on other nominees, Senator Isakson will make a final decision after Mr. Puzders confirmation hearing on Thursday, a spokeswoman said via email.

Murkowski said she will be working to learn more about Mr. Puzder leading up to and during the upcoming hearing, as well as through additional one-on-one conversations with him, a spokeswoman said.

Kelsey Snell contributed to this report.

Original post:
Four key Republicans could vote against Puzder for labor secretary - Washington Post

Congressional Republicans have finally come up with a strategy to deal with Trump. It won’t work. – Washington Post

Congressional Republicans have developed a foolproof two-step plan to deal with President Trump in the White House. Step one: Have their cake. Step two: Eat it too.

Here's how Jonathan Martin and Matt Flegenheimer described that strategy in the New York Times on Monday:

After three weeks in the White House, Mr. Trump has made clear that he is going to continue promulgating conspiracy theories, flinging personal insults and saying things that are plainly untrue. And the Republican-controlled House and Senate seem to have made a collective decision: They will accommodate not confront his conduct as long as he signs their long-stalled conservative proposals on taxes, regulations and health care into law.

That reflects something similar to what Speaker Paul Ryan told PBS's Judy Woodruff in an interview earlier this month. "I reject the premise of this notion that the head of the legislative branch of government should just reject the duly elected head of the executive branch of government," said Ryan. "That makes no sense to me."

Down this road lies real danger for Republicans. Here's why.

At the core of this strategy is the idea that the average voter will differentiate between Trump and congressional Republicans. Or, even more unlikely, that people will separate Trump's words from their actions.

If the last two midterm elections 2010 and 2014 have taught us anything, it's that the president's party goes as the president goes. In 2010, Democrats lost 63 House seats; four years later they lost 23. In each of those elections, Democratic House members did everything they could to run from Obama and some of his less popular policies like the Affordable Care Act.

Now consider that Trump is, at least according to early polling, one of the most divisive and unpopular presidents in modern history. And that the Democratic base has been activated by the early days of the Trump presidency.

Given that, it's very hard to imagine that (a) the election will be anything but a referendum on Trump's first two years in office and (b) voters will separate their feelings about Trump from their feelings about congressional Republicans.

Imagine it's the fall of 2018. An endangered Republican say, California's Darrell Issa goes on TV with ads touting the accomplishments of the Republican Congress, making no mention of Trump. His Democratic opponent responds with ads highlighting all of the various controversial things Trump has said in the first two years of his presidency.

The idea that voters would distinguish between Issa's accomplishments as part of a Republican-led Congress and their view of Trump is nonsensical. The average voter will make no such distinction. If Trump is popular or not that unpopular then the likes of Issa can win. If Trump is unpopular, Issa likely loses.

This is a strategy built of necessity for congressional Republicans. Confronted with the prospect of President Trump, they had only two options: Turn against him each time he says something outlandish/untrue or try to ignore most of what he says and stay focused on the policies he can help get enacted.

They chose the latter. Which keeps them from being blasted day in and day out by the head of their party, who is also sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. What it doesn't do no matter what they think today is allow them to effectively distance themselves or run away from Trump at the ballot box in November 2018.

The 2018 election will be a referendum on Trump. Period. Congressional Republicans just have to hope what he accomplishes outweighs what he says in voters' minds. It's a very risky gamble.

View post:
Congressional Republicans have finally come up with a strategy to deal with Trump. It won't work. - Washington Post

Do Republicans Have A Death Wish? – Forbes


Forbes
Do Republicans Have A Death Wish?
Forbes
Just when you thought things couldn't possibly get better for the Republican party, a startling thought is cropping up on Capitol Hill and on K Street. It's being reinforced by the ugly reception Republicans are getting at town hall meetings around the ...
Robert Reich: The Real Reason Republicans Want to Repeal ObamacareAlterNet
Are Republicans in Congress About to Betray Pro-Lifers While Fixing Obamacare?Townhall
During Visits to Districts, Austin's Republican Congressmen Are Forgoing Town HallsKUT
Care2.com
all 35 news articles »

View original post here:
Do Republicans Have A Death Wish? - Forbes

Republicans railed against Clinton’s ‘extremely careless’ behavior. Now they’ve got a Trump problem. – Washington Post

Update: At least one Republican is now speaking out against Trump's handling of sensitive information -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Republicans got religion on information security during the 2016 campaign. But will they apply the same scrutiny to President Trump as they did to candidate Hillary Clinton and her email server?

As The Post's Philip Bump notes, there are now several examples of Trump playing fast-and-loose with potentially sensitive information the latest being the open-air situation room he conducted with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at a Mar-a-Lago on Saturday night, which David Fahrenthold details here. Trump has also left a key to classified information out in a secured bag as people without the proper security clearance were in the Oval Office. And then there's the viewing of documents at Mar-a-Lago usingcellphone flashlights, which Bump notes can be used like portable television satellite trucks when they are compromised.

The Post's David A. Fahrenthold looks at how President Trump's approach to national security compares with his campaign rhetoric. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

It's not clear whether any of it actually provided sensitive or classified information to people who shouldn't have seen or heard it, but there does seem to be a pretty casual attitude toward this stuff and at least a case to be made that this behavior is negligent. And that's pretty much exactly what Republicans warned against with Clinton.

At the time, Republicans highlighted FBI Director James B. Comey's statement that Clinton's handling of sensitive information was extremely careless.Though Comey recommended against criminal charges, he said individuals who did what she did would often be subject to security or administrative sanctions.

Republicans pounced, with some arguing that Clinton shouldn't be provided the intelligence briefings usually given to presidential nominees.

Leading that charge was House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who wrote in The Washington Post in July:

The consequences for the safety of our nation are grave. Clintons actions may have allowed our enemies to access intelligence vital to our national security. The FBI found that hostile actors could very well have gained access to classified information sent and received by Clinton, her staff and their contacts.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said it's impossible to see how Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. can believe Clinton or any of her implicated staffers should ever again be provided access to classified information.

The most outspoken critics of Clinton included Trump's now-CIA director, Mike Pompeo, who was then a congressman from Kansas. We can't run the risk of more intelligence that puts Americans at risk of being exposed, Pompeo said on his Facebook page. (The post and a tweet to that effecthave been deleted by Pompeo, though it's not clear when.)

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) also focused on Clinton's reckless behavior. It is already outrageous that our secretary of state was extremely careless with classified information during her service and recklessly put our national security at risk, he said. It is equally shameful and dangerous that this individual is now seeking to occupy the world's most powerful office, the American presidency.

No two situations are completely analogous. We know, for instance, that classified information did cross Clinton's server. It's not so clear that classified information was discussed out in the open at Mar-a-Lago or that classified documents were illuminated by those cellphone flashlights.

Republicans would also point out that Clinton took great pains to set up her email server in a certain way. Ryan said at the time that her actions do not seem careless at all. In fact, Clintons actions seem quite careful careful to place her own interests before our national security. There is no such evidence of deliberateness when it comes to what Trump's doing.

And then there's the matter of Trump being the president. You can't really call for a president to be deprived of his intelligence briefings. Ryan said in his op-ed thatClinton should be deprived of the briefings absent the voting publics explicit permission in November. Trump was given that explicit permission Nov. 8.

But there is still no evidence that Clinton's email server ever resulted in classified documents falling into the wrong hands. It was always an argument based upon negligence and the possibility of what might have happened.

Which seems to be at least somewhat applicable to what we've seen in recent days with Trump.

Read the original here:
Republicans railed against Clinton's 'extremely careless' behavior. Now they've got a Trump problem. - Washington Post