Mediaboss Marketing

Assembly Republicans will accept Gov. Scott Walker's offer to use $200 million slated for tax cuts for road projects instead, they told the governor in a letter Thursday.

The governor made the offer Wednesday during a meeting with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, in an effort to break an impasse between the two houses primarily over how to fund roads projects.

"The proposal that you outlined yesterday is a positive step forward in our desire to find a long-term solution and we believe the leadership that you have displayed has bridged the gap between our two houses," Assembly Republicans wrote.

Assembly Republicans have been fiercely against Walker's and Senate Republicans' proposals to borrow millions in the 2017-19 state budget without increasing revenue sources to pay for the projects. Senate Republicans put forward their own budget proposal this week that included $712 million in new bonding for roads.

Thursday's letter indicated Walker offered not to add any new borrowing for roads with finding a "sustainable way" to pay for the state's debt.

The Assembly's acceptance could be a breakthrough in the budget stalemate, which has caused a new state spending plan to be delayed by 20 days, but there was no word from Senate Republicans on whether they would agree to Walker's proposal.

Fitzgerald is reviewing the Assembly Republicans' letter and Senate Republicans are scheduled to discuss budget issues at 3:30 p.m., according to Fitzgerald spokeswoman Myranda Tanck.

Meanwhile, Joint Finance Committee co-chairman Rep. John Nygren, R-Marinette, sent a letter to co-chairwoman Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, asking that the committee resume its work writing the 2017-19 state budget as early as next week in light of Walker's offer.

Read the rest here:
Budget breakthrough? Assembly Republicans accept Scott Walker's offer for roads - Madison.com

Americans for Prosperity, the Koch group that will be most involved in the push, says it has spent nearly $1 million so far on lobbying and advertising efforts, including more than 500 meetings with lawmakers and their staff members on Capitol Hill and ads directed at Republicans on the Senate and House committees responsible for tax policy. By the time debate begins on a tax bill, expected later this year, the group will most likely have spent several million dollars more, its strategists said.

The American Action Network, another conservative policy group, expects to invest more than $20 million in an advertising campaign promoting tax changes, more than it spent pushing for the health care bill.

The American Action Network spent $15 million on health care reform since Jan. 1, said Corry Bliss, the groups executive director. Looking ahead to the tax initiative that were all waiting for, he added, $15 million from our perspective is the starting point.

Underlying this kind of spending on a policy, no less, that was once expected to be a relatively easy lift for Republicans is a rising sense of urgency. Republicans fear they could be looking at a worst-of-two-worlds scenario in which they have a historically unpopular president dogged by persistent legal and ethical questions, at the same time they remain unable to restore a semblance of functionality to Capitol Hill.

Watching efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act fall apart was more than just a setback for conservatives who disliked the law, which expanded the governments role in health care and created an expensive new entitlement program. For some, it was a demoralizing glimpse into a future in which Republicans have all the power in Washington but they are powerless to do anything with it.

Anytime a party is given this kind of opportunity, youre judged by the product you produce, said Josh Holmes, a Republican strategist and former aide to Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader.

The inability to produce is especially problematic for the Republican Party, which portrays itself as more capable and efficient when it comes to running an unwieldy federal bureaucracy. Where Republicans have their biggest problem, Mr. Holmes said, is when all of a sudden they look like they dont have their hand on the wheel.

In that sense it is competence and not the accusations of corruption or collusion that have led to various investigations into the Trump campaigns ties to Russia that most worries many Republicans.

A perception of ineptitude could be especially damaging for President Trump, who portrays himself as a master problem-solver and deal maker who promised voters that the country under his leadership would be run so competently, Youre going to be so sick and tired of winning.

Many conservatives brushed aside doubts about Mr. Trumps readiness to be president and his true commitment to conservatism and voted for him because he represented their best shot at pursuing an agenda that would begin rolling back what they saw as an egregious expansion of government under President Barack Obama.

And while conservatives have much to cheer under Mr. Trumps presidency so far a decidedly conservative new Supreme Court justice, a rollback of regulations on business, and plans to withdraw from the Paris climate pact he has yet to fulfill some of his biggest campaign promises.

Planned Parenthood has retained its federal funding, despite Mr. Trumps repeated vows to cut the group off, a promise that has died, for now, with the health care bill. Just this week, Mr. Trump recertified the international agreement with Iran that curtails its nuclear program, despite having repeatedly said it was the worst deal ever and that he would renegotiate it. And construction of the wall he promised along the countrys southern border has not begun.

The governing party has to govern, said John Shadegg, a Republican former congressman from Arizona. And especially when you make the case for eight years that you can do it: Give us the House; we can fix this. Give us the Senate; we can fix this. Give us the White House and we can fix this.

You cannot make a promise for eight years, he continued, and simply say, Eh, when push came to shove, our promises turned out to be wrong or too difficult.

Mr. Trumps supporters have demonstrated a tendency to forgive. But Republican lawmakers may find voters far less sympathetic. And as conservatives digested news on Tuesday of the failed health care effort, their disgust was evident.

We may well be witnessing one of the greatest political whiffs of our time, said Rich Lowry, editor of National Review.

In an editorial on Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal described the weeks events as one of the great political failures in recent U.S. history, going as far as endorsing efforts to unseat the disloyal senators. If the Obamacare Republicans now get primary opponents, they have earned them, the paper said.

As the radio host Hugh Hewitt took calls from irate listeners, he predicted political ruin for Republican senators like Dean Heller of Nevada who had opposed the bill. Boy are people mad, he said. They are mad as hell.

But banking on a tax overhaul as a springboard for a dispirited Republican Party may not be a sure thing. The issue does not have the potency and emotion of the Affordable Care Act, which also had an easily demonized antagonist in Mr. Obama. Democrats will be waiting to pounce with criticisms that the Republican plan is a big giveaway to the rich. And the conservative grass roots may find the policy lacking in populist appeal.

Either way, said Levi Russell, director of public affairs for Americans for Prosperity, Republicans need to move in unison on this issue.

Clearly thats what we lacked during the health care debate, he added. Republicans were not unified around a solution.

Read the original here:
Health Care Has GOP Down. Tax Cuts May Be the Cure. - New York Times

With each new revelation in the ongoing Trump-Russia saga, the same question inevitably gets asked: Will this be the moment Republicans in Congress finally turn on the president?

The answer, so far, has been an emphatic no. As evidence piles up pointing to the possibility that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, Republican lawmakers have largely ignored Democrats calls for urgent action and continued about their day jobs. Instead of a righteous outcry, there have been muted declarations of concern; feeble entreaties that the issue be taken seriously; careful expressions of confidence that investigators willin due timeget to the bottom of all this messy business. We know the talking points. Weve been hearing them for months.

But what do congressional Republicans actually think about the Russia controversy?And what would the investigation have to turn up for members to abandon the president and his agenda en masse? Is a breaking point of that sort even possibleand if so, what would it look like?

Over the past week, Ive put these questions to a wide range of GOP sources on Capitol Hill (granting most of them anonymity in an attempt to elicit more candor). Their answers varied, as did their relative levels of exasperation with Trumps handling of the Russia affair. As one senior Senate aide told me, the private reactions from Republican lawmakers to the most recent spate of bombshells has run the gamut. Some people are like, This is bullshit, this is just an effort to undermine Trump, then some are like, Trump needs to be removed from office. Its all over the place.

But on one point, at least, there seems to be widespread consensus: All of them believe theyre already doing everything they can within reason to hold the president accountableand they fiercely reject any argument to the contrary.

One senior GOP aide, for example, described the outrage over Russias election meddling, as well as allegations of collusion, as a lot of partisan noise generated by opportunistic Democrats. Is there a cybersecurity issue here that needs to be taken more seriously? Absolutely. But, he added with a scoff, democracy is not dying in darkness.

Like many of his colleagues, the aide expressed profound annoyance when I asked him if there would ever come a time when Republicans turn on Trump. What does that even mean? What do you expect us to do? he replied. I hear this with every little Tweet [from Trump]: Oh, when are Republicans going to put an end to this? What do you want us to do, seize his Twitter account? The best that can be hoped for from congressional Republicans, he argued, is transparency. When Trump does something we disagree with, well disagree with him. When Trumps interests align with ours, well work with him. Thats the situation were in.

Another longtime GOP aide expressed genuine bafflement at critics who say Republicans are letting Trump off the hook by working to advance the White Houses domestic legislative agenda. I dont understand that at all, the aide told me. Just because you criticize [Trump] on Russia, that doesnt mean you suddenly support Obamacare.

Plenty of Republican lawmakers have publicly condemned Russia for interfering with the 2016 electionand a few have even explicitly raised concerns about the Trump campaigns allege involvement in that effort. But Democrats and NeverTrump conservatives say lip service isnt enough. In their view, the possibility of that Trump won the presidency in part because his campaign worked with a foreign adversary to sway the election is so scandalousand such a threat to the democratic processthat it demands urgent, bipartisan action.

If Republicans wanted to take this seriously, Trumps opponents argue, there are plenty of concrete steps available to them. They could start issuing subpoenas more aggressively; stall legislation and block nominees until they get answers from the administration; support the resolutions of inquiry in the House, and hold regular press conferences updating the public on the status of their investigations.

They could, in other words, approach the Russia probe with the same dogged resolve they showed when they were investigating Benghazi. Of course, a Republican Congress waging a crusade like that against a Republican president would be extraordinary and largely unprecedented. But Democrats contend that this is an extraordinary situation that deserves an unprecedented response.

When I floated this idea to Capitol Hill Republicans, they generally found it preposterous. They were willing to allow for the possibility that some Trump campaign officials might have inappropriately cooperated with Russians, but they said the president and his team were simply too incompetent to pull off a high-level House of Cards-style conspiracy. At worst, they seemed to believe Team Trumps collusion amounted to a conspiracy of dunces (as a recent Ross Douthat column termed it)embarrassing and unseemly, sure, but certainly not so grave as to demand blowing up the entire GOP agenda to address it.

I think most of us agree that if something did happen, it wasnt anything malicious its just chalked up to [Trump and his advisers] not being very smart, one senior Senate aide told me. When people are pointing to Carter Page as someone who colluded, I dont have any problem believing that there are so many people who associate themselves with campaigns that are clowns. Even the meeting Donald Trump Jr. orchestrated with a Kremlin-linked lawyer was seen as evidence of bumbling ineptitude more than high crimes and misdemeanors.

Several Republicans relished pointing out to me the credibility gaps in their critics arguments. One congressional aide said that after years of watching Democrats dismiss and mock the GOPs warnings about Russia, it was hard to take their current indignation seriously. They discovered the Russian threat three seconds ago, and all of a sudden its the biggest threat to democracy ever, he cracked.

Another senior Hill staffer told me that national news outlets breathless search for Trump scandals had undermined their ability to serve as neutral arbiters in the Russia debate. The media is absolutely obsessed with this issue, she said. I think they make hay out of things that dont really matter Its obviously fair to cover, but theres just this outrage associated with literally everything the Trump administration [does]. Its unreasonable.

Doug Heye, a Capitol Hill veteran who worked for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, said the Republican lawmakers he hears from have taken mostly to rolling their eyes at the righteous indignation of Trumps opponents. This is going to be a long four years, could be a long eight years, and Democrats charging treason and pushing impeachment this earlytheres certainly a sense that theyre overplaying their hand, and theyre doing so very quickly.

The Republicans I talked to were unanimous in their assessment that any potential impeachment proceedings were still a long ways off, and would most likely never materialize as long as the GOP controlled Congress. But they did describe a more realistic scenario in which the chorus of Trumps conservative critics on Capitol Hill grows larger and louderespecially as the presidents approval ratings continue to erode, legislation remains hampered, and damning revelations continue to surface in the Russia probe. As one aide put it, Youd be surprised how many members are willing to go on TV and bash an unpopular president.

For now, another aide told me, most Republican lawmakers are keeping their heads down and trying to get done what they can. It may not be the most courageous approach, but she reasoned, If youre trying to push issues through that are important to your state, youve gotta work with people in your party. The decision to start speaking out against Trump is going to be a political calculation that every single Republican makes, she said. And as long as Trump has a strong base behind him, I dont think its smart for most members to go out of their way to try and undermine him.

Indeed, among GOP lawmakers there remains a widespread fear that wading too conspicuously into the Russia controversy will unleash the wrath of figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannityconservative talk radio hosts whom one senior Senate aide referred to as the modern-day party bosses.

Its tough, the aide told me. Every time you speak out against Trump on Russia, youre gonna get it.

Read this article:
What Congressional Republicans Really Think About Trump and Russia - The Atlantic

Things have gone from bad to worse for the Republican effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. On Monday night, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) lacked the votes to pass a bill that would undo much of Obamacare and replace the law with a modified system. But the majority leader's back-up plan -- repealing Obamacare entirely right away, with the goal of working out a replacement later -- appears no more likely to succeed.

The dilemma for Republicans contemplating McConnell's new strategy -- repealing the law immediately and figuring out what to do next later -- is that Democrats may be able to stop them from carrying it through. While many Republicans would like to repeal Obamacare wholesale, they can't overcomeDemocrats' opposition without keeping in place somecrucial components of Obamacare.

The GOP can't just repeal every word of Obamacarebecause, in orderto avoid a filibuster by Democratic senators, Republicans are using a special set of rules known as reconciliation. Reconciliation makes legislation easier to pass, as it would allow the GOP to move the measure with just 50 votes and Vice President Pence's tie-breaker,rather than the 60 votes typically needed to break a filibuster.

The power has its limits, however. Reconciliation is only supposed to be used for measures that directly affect the federal budget. In this case, that meansundoing some of Obamacare'staxes, fees, subsidies and safety net programs for the poor but leaving in place a series of health-insurance regulations and other features.

Republicans already did a dress rehearsal for this last year, whenthey used reconciliation to pass a bill through the Senate. That bill eventually died when it was vetoed by President Barack Obama, but now McConnell is advancing it again.

It's unlikelyMcConnell has the votes to the bill passed this time around. Short of a complete repeal, Republicanswould risk creating something nobody in either party would support. Withparts of Obamacare gone, some elements still in force and no new system to replace the law, patients and doctors would be left with a mishmash of incompatible regulationsand requirements that would threaten to destabilize the health-insurance market and leave millions without coverage.

"It would throw the marketplace into chaos," said Stan Collender, a former congressional aide to Democratic lawmakers who worked on both the House's and Senate's budget committees.

Already, three Republicans -- Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) -- have said they will not support McConnell's new strategy. Their combined opposition will probably prevent him from moving forward, although McConnell said Tuesday he plans to hold a procedural vote next week all the same.

Here's why some Republicans are skeptical.

Republicans woulduse reconciliationto eliminatetaxes on the wealthy, on insurance providers and on medical companies.

They would also strike down arequirement that all Americans maintain health-care coverage orelse pay the federal government a fee-- a controversial part of the law known as the "individual mandate." Republicans would eliminate another rule that requires majoremployers to offer an insurance program for their workers.

Republicans can also modify spending. Thebill that McConnell aims to revive from last year would eliminate Obamacare's subsidies for people attempting to buy private health insurance.

Also, Obamacare increased funding for Medicaid, the federal insurance program that covers many poor households, pregnant women and residents of nursing homes. The GOP bill would undo that expansion.

Because these provisions apply to federal taxes and spending, Republicans can eliminate them throughreconciliation. At the same time, other parts of the law would stay.

For instance,Republicans would likely be unable to remove protections forconsumers with preexisting medical conditions who are trying to buy private insurance -- a crucial component ofObamacare. Likewise, insurers would remain unableto charge people depending on where they live or whether they smoke.

Insurers wouldstill be required to offer certain benefits as part of their plans, as they are under Obamacare, andlimits on how much more they can charge older customers would remain in effect.

In short, the legislation would preserve some rules from Obamacare, while eliminating much of the rest of the law. The odd combination could result in serious problems, industry analysts warn.

Before Obamacare, for example, insurance companies were free to charge patients more if they had preexisting conditions, or to deny those customers coverage entirely. That practice existed to ensure that private insurers could break even. Without some way of discouraging the sickest patients from seeking coverage, the cost of treatment would increase uncontrollably.

Obamacare ended that practice, prohibiting insurers from discriminating against patients based on their medical histories. Instead, Obamacare required all Americans to maintain coverage and offered subsidies to encourage them to do so. The goal was to guarantee that insurers would have enough healthier customers paying monthly premiums to cover costs for sicker patients.

The bill McConnell will hold a vote on next week would get rid of that financial assistance and the requirement. Yet it would not allow insurers to examine their customers' medical histories again. Most experts believe that language undoing Obamacare's protections for patients with preexisting conditions would not qualify under reconciliation.

As a result, the only legislation Republicans might be able to pass would restore the system that existed before Obamacare, but without a crucial feature that allowed that system to function.The resulting mismatch -- between rulesDemocrats established under Obamacare and those that existed before --couldprove an embarrassing failure for GOP lawmakers.

"The market could literally disappear entirely," said Edwin Park, a vice president forhealth policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

That, in essence, is whatmany analysts are projecting for a GOP bill that partially repeals Obamacare without a replacement.

Insurers would hike premiums to cover the steeper cost of providing health care to a sicker group of patients. Only patients with serious medical problems would be willing to pay those costs, so healthier patients would cancel their policies. In turn, insurers would be forced to increase premiums even more, and so on.

In an analysisin January, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast that simply repealing Obamacare without a replacement would eventually result in 32 million more Americans going without coverage. Almost immediately, premiums would skyrocket, increasing by 20 percent to 25 percent in the first year on average.

Companies would refuse to sell insurance across swathes of the country because so few patients would be willing to pay the exorbitant premiums insurers would have to charge to turn in a profit while covering a large group of relatively unhealthy patients. In those areas, Americans would have no options for buying private insurance if they did not receive it through the government or an employer. About 10 percent of Americans would live in these areas in the first year, CBO estimated.

If Republicans failed to come up with an alternative system, that figure would eventually increase to 75 percent of thepopulation, while premiums in the individual market would double.

See the article here:
Here's what health care looks like if Republicans' Obamacare 'repeal and delay' plan succeeds - Washington Post

For decades, the Republican Party has stood for small government and pledged if given the opportunity it would safeguard the countrys financial future by cutting trillions of dollars from federal entitlement programs.

Thatchance finally came this week. The party balked.

At the heart of the failed Senate effort to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act were irreconcilable differences over the proper role of entitlements and how far the party should go to pursue its small government mantra. Both wings of the GOP revolted senators who rejected steep cuts to Medicaid, a health program for low-income Americans, and others who felt the cuts were not deep enough.

Now, with the split unresolved, the party is struggling to find a way to govern despite controlling the White House and Congress. And that may leave it at risk of failing to pass any landmark legislation.

The division is expected to spill over Wednesday when Republicans in the House Budget Committee are scheduled to vote on a long-term spending plan that projects cuts to Medicaid and changes to Medicare, a health care program for older Americans that President Trump has vowed to protect.

It really boils down to the key question of Whats the role of government? said Mike Leavitt, the former Utah governor who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services during the Bush Administration. And this is a surrogate for that larger question that we often debate.

The splintering GOP philosophy is likely to define numerous other intraparty debates in the coming months.

Do they vote to raise the debt ceiling?

How much should they cut taxes?

Do they vote to cut food stamps? Housing assistance? Health care benefits for low-income children?

The current schism is a sharp break from the unity Republicans demonstrated during President Obamas tenure, when they repeatedly voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But lawmakers made those votes knowing the proposals would be blocked by Obamas veto. Now the votes have real power to reshape programs that have been in place since the 1960s, such as Medicaid and Medicare.

Were seeing the challenges of moving from political points to governing, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that has pushed for deficit reduction. And where that is really most challenging is finding spending cuts that back up the notion of small government.

The federal government is projected to spend close to $4 trillion in 2018, and almost half of that will go to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security retirement benefits. Trump has promised to protect the Medicare and Social Security money from any cuts, and Republicans have now faltered in their efforts to cut Medicaid.

Reducing the budget deficit without cutting any of these programs or raising taxes is very difficult.

Those programs also provide benefits to between 15 percent and 20 percent of all Americans, almost all of them poor or older than 65. And its the concern about the impact of the cuts on low-income Americans that gave at least four Republican senators second thoughts about backing the Senate GOP health care bill.

Complicating matters for Republicans, the popularity of the Affordable Care Act has reached record levels in recent months as the GOP works to change the law. A Washington Post poll Monday found 50 percent of respondents preferred the current law, while only 24 percent backed the GOP plan. In April, Gallup found that 55 percent of Americans generally approved of the law, up from 42 percent in a survey taken just after the November election.

And the health law, particularly the expanded access to Medicaid, has won over numerous GOP governors who have vocally opposed the congressional GOP effort to cut the program back. Republican lawmakers have also faced furious opposition to their plan during town hall events in their home states.

Thats part of what led centrist Republican Senators from Nevada, Maine, Alaska, Ohio and West Virginia to revolt this week against years of their partys promises to cut spending on Medicaid. But by moving to protect parts of Medicaid, the members have scrambled the partys blueprint for governing.

The basic problem was Republicans got into promising something that could not be delivered, said Robert Reischauer, a Democrat and former director of the Congressional Budget Office. Talking is cheap. Action is politically very expensive.

Key Republicans were frozen by the Congressional Budget Offices forecast that the Senate GOP bill would lead more than 20 million people to no longer have health care coverage in the coming years. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), who has voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the past, said Tuesday that I did not come to Washington to hurt people.

She said she wanted to see a well-detailed plan to replace the Affordable Care Act before she could vote for anything to cull back its expanded Medicaid coverage.

But there were numerous signs that this stand by a number of Republicans had sparked fury among their colleagues.

Most of those people in our caucus - just about everybody - either voted at one time to repeal or promised to do it, said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). They ought to keep their word.

With the Republican Party divided, these fights are expected to continue, and potentially intensify. Trump has shown a ideological openness to support most any GOP bill that has a chance of passage, hoping to notch a legislative victory after experiencing numerous defeats.

The dynamic is expected to accelerate during the budget debate, where White House officials have little experience but need a compromise in order to pave the way for an overhaul of the tax code, another top Trump priority that has languished behind the faltering repeal effort.

But the House budget resolution is already headed for a showdown among GOP members. House conservatives insisted that it contain promises to cut at least $203 billion in spending on programs such as Medicaid over 10 years in order for any tax cuts to win passage, and some are pressing for even deeper cuts. House GOP centrists have complained that this could poison the process and scuttle the budget resolution.

This is a version of the same fight that felled the health bill in the Senate. It ensures that the GOPs governing agenda, which has now become Trumps legacy, will remain in the center of this intraparty tug-of-war in the months ahead.

Now, the votes are not easy, said Ron Haskins, who was a GOP congressional aide who played a central role in the welfare overhaul during the Clinton administration. They are very difficult. These impacts are real.

Mike DeBonis and Kelsey Snell contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:
Republicans' health-care split goes all the way to the party's soul - Washington Post