Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

Make the Republicans Go Nuclear – New York Times


New York Times
Make the Republicans Go Nuclear
New York Times
WASHINGTON Senate Republicans are in the middle of pulling off one of the great political heists in American history: the theft of a seat on the United States Supreme Court. And this theft, if successful, will have an enormous impact on the ...
Republicans close to dominating all government branchesAljazeera.com
It's time to make Republicans pay for their supreme hypocrisyWashington Post
Senate Republicans Can Break a SCOTUS Filibuster Without Using Nuclear OptionCNSNews.com
Vanity Fair -Washington Times -Democracy Now!
all 5,796 news articles »

See the original post:
Make the Republicans Go Nuclear - New York Times

Trump’s relationship with Hill Republicans is thawing, at least for now – Washington Post

The icy relationship between President Trump and congressional Republicans showed signs of thawing on Thursday after the White House spent days trying to assuage GOP lawmakers distressed and surprised by controversial moves the administration made during its tumultuous first week.

At the start of the week, Republican senators were outwardly annoyed with the White House for failing to consult them before issuing a temporary ban on refugees and foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries. But by Thursday, some of the same Republicans were heartened after meetings and conversations with administration officials and the president, as well as his nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Ive been feeling pretty good. I had a good day over there yesterday, said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

Corker, who was not happy with the lack of communication from the White House earlier in the week, said he met with national security adviser Michael Flynn about Iran and other topics and ended up wandering down the hallway to see President Trump. Flynn was on Capitol Hill on Thursday and told senators he planned to visit regularly.

Vice President Pence visited a closed-door lunch meeting of Republican senators on Tuesday to deliver a conciliatory message about the White Houses mistakes rolling out the executive order banning refugees. Well do better, Pence told them, according to senators in attendance. In addition, senior administration officials have stepped up their outreach to lawmakers.

The damage control underscored the increasingly tense dynamic driving a wedge between Congress and Trumps White House. But it was unclear to some Republican lawmakers whether the breakthrough heralded a new phase in the so-far rocky relationship or a short-lived detente. It remains to be seen how well the president and Republicans can work together on issues such as health care, tax restructuring and foreign policy as Trumps turbulent first fortnight as president neared its conclusion.

The tone and substance of Corkers comments in particular marked a stark turnabout from Monday, when he stood just outside the Senate chamber and told reporters he received no heads-up on Trumps executive order banning refugees and that it was not well done.

On Thursday, Corker warned that things could return to a more bitter state. Today, feeling pretty good talk to me next week, he said.

In addition to the headaches the refugee ban caused Hill Republicans, Trump has complicated life for them in other ways. He has applied public pressure on Senate Republican leaders to go nuclear to confirm Gorsuch if Democrats do not cooperate. Trumps chief spokesman stirred confusion with remarks about how to finance the U.S.-Mexico border wall, and the presidents comments about quickly replacing the federal health-care law after repeal have upped the pressure on lawmakers to quickly deliver an alternative.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), an outspoken Trump critic, said his interactions with the administration have improved in recent days.

Ive talked to Mike Pence a couple of times, Ive had the legislative liaison, people have reached out on executive orders, so yeah, its good. Much more collaborative, Graham said. He added that the administration asked him for advice this week on a forthcoming cybersecurity executive order.

Pence and other administration officials have intensified their efforts to brief lawmakers and their staffs ahead of major decisions or actions by Trump, such as executive orders.

Two senior White House aides deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn and legislative affairs director Marc Short have been reaching out personally to key GOP lawmakers to foster more trusting relationships on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Aside from behind-the-scenes outreach, Trumps nomination of Gorsuch also went a long way toward healing the early wounds, several Republicans said.

That was good, said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who was among the many Republicans critical of Trumps refugee ban.

Gorsuch was on Capitol Hill on Thursday for the second straight day, accompanied by former Republican senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who is spearheading the effort to win him confirmation.

Still, there remains skepticism among Republicans both about what Trump is doing and how little Congress has been consulted, particularly on national security and foreign policy matters.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for example, placed a call to Australias ambassador to the United States on Thursday following a Washington Post report about Trumps tense phone call with the countrys prime minister.

Of course not, McCain responded when asked whether he was satisfied with the level of input the Trump administration has given Congress in major foreign-policy directives.

Democrats have been even more vocal in criticizing some of the decisions the Trump administration has made, including the refugee ban and the executive order calling for the construction of the border wall.

These are broad-ranging actions, some of which are of dubious legality and constitutionality that are being taken with little legal input and certainly little to no congressional input, said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

But so far, Republicans have shown little willingness to cross over and join forces with Democrats in using the levers of power to exert influence on the administration.

Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) is hoping to turn bipartisan frustration at top White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon joining the National Security Council into support for legislation to restrict the bodys membership. But Republicans seem skeptical about his approach.

We should be very cautious about ever trying to micromanage from here, said Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), despite his assertion that trying to preclude political people from the National Security Council seems like pretty prudent structure to me.

Trumps open invitation to Bannon to attend all NSC meetings, and his addition of Bannon as a permanent member of the Principals Committee where he was seemingly given a more integral role than even the director of national intelligence or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has struck many lawmakers as an inappropriate and unprecedented move.

Im hoping that my Republican colleagues wake up to the fact that the country is more important than the party. To let Trump put somebody whos completely unqualified and ideologically driven on the NSC look, we can disagree on some things, but that is too far, said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn).

Warner and a group of Democrats introduced a bill Thursday that would designate the director of national intelligence and chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as permanent NSC members and require congressional consent for any administration official not already subject to Senate confirmation.

The national security adviser, homeland security adviser, certain assistants to the president and vice president and their deputies would be exempt from that requirement.

Last year, the Senate Armed Services Committees decided to shrink the size of the NSC from 400 to 200 members. The committees ranking Democrat, Jack Reed (R.I.), said that sets a precedent for the committee to get involved in dictating the NSCs members.

Its within the purview of the defense committee, said Reed, who is alarmed that Trumps changes effectively lose the military nonpartisan professionals, and youre gaining someone whos more of a political operative.

But so far, Republicans disagree.

Thats executive-branch business, said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.), when asked whether Congress should have a role in how the president organizes the NSC.

David Weigel and Ed OKeefe contributed to this report.

Read more at PowerPost

Visit link:
Trump's relationship with Hill Republicans is thawing, at least for now - Washington Post

Senate Republicans suspend committee rules to approve Scott Pruitt, Trump’s EPA nominee – Washington Post

At his confirmation hearing, President-elect Trump's Environmental Protection Agency administrator nominee Scott Pruitt outlined his plan for the agency. (Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)

Senate Republicans on Thursday again used their majority to suspendcommittee rules and push through another Trump administration nominee, Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency,bypassing Democrats who for the second day had refused to show up for a vote on his nomination.

Elections have consequences, and a new president is entitled to put in place people who will advance his agenda, said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.), who chairs the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We took this extraordinary step because the minority members of the committee took the extraordinary step of boycotting.

Committee Republicans approved Pruitts nomination 11-0 on a roll call vote and sent it on to the full Senatedespite the objections of Democrats, who had alreadyboycotted a Wednesday session in a show of solidarity against someone who has repeatedly sued the EPA in recent years.

The committees move comes a day after Republicans used similar tactics to advance the nominations ofTrumps treasury nominee, Steven Mnuchin, and his selection for health and human services secretary, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.).

The committees proceduralrules allow them to be changed or suspended by vote of a majority of committee members at a business meeting if a quorum is present. Barrasso said the Senate parliamentarian had ruledThursdaysprocedure proper under those rules, though the Senator added that the Democrats boycott had put us inuncharted waters.

Democrats specific objections to Pruitt turn not only on his anti-regulatory bent but on their concerns that he did not adequately answer the written questions they sent him following his confirmation hearing. From the outset of this confirmation process, Scott Pruitt has consistently misrepresented his environmental record and denied us the information we require to perform our duty to advise and consent, chargedDelaware Sen. Tom Carper, the committee ranking Democrat.

After the committee majoritys action, Carper responded: We cannot advise the full Senate on whether Scott Pruitt will lead the EPA in a manner that will protect the publics heath in the absence of critical information about his record. And we cannot consent to move his nomination forward until the Committee does its job and gets those answers.

Pruitts written responsesalsoreflected a more detailed and specific expression of doubt about the science of climate change, compared with the vaguer statements he made in his confirmation hearing.

I am also aware that warmest year ever claims from NASA and NOAA are based on minimal temperature differences that fall within the margin of error, Pruitt asserted in one response. In actuality, however, NASA expressed a more than95 percent certainty that 2016 was the warmest year on record (dating back to 1880) and NOAA gave a 62 percent certainty.

The League of Conservation Voters reacted scathingly to the committees action Thursday morning.

Its all too fitting that on Groundhog Day wed wake up to the same egregiously irresponsible tactics by Senate Republicans to ram through an EPA nominee who refuses to answer vitally important questions, Tiernan Sittenfield, senior vice president of government affairs, said in a statement shortly after the vote. Everything about Pruitt is antithetical to the vitally important mission of the EPA, and we call on the full Senate to reject his nomination.

Read more:

Congress and Trump have begun reversing multiple Obama rules on the environment and more

A new battle over politics and science could be brewing. And scientists are ready for it.

Reports on climate change have disappeared from the State Department website

For more, you can sign up for our weekly newsletterhereand follow us on Twitterhere.

Read more here:
Senate Republicans suspend committee rules to approve Scott Pruitt, Trump's EPA nominee - Washington Post

Republicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants – The Hill

Republican lawmakers are frustrated with mounting dissent from civil servants over President Trump's policies.

Amidunusually public tension between federal employees and the new administration including Trumps firing of the acting attorney general, State Department dissent and frequent leaks to the media some of Trump's allies in Congress want federal employees to either do their jobs or get out.

When someone works full time for the government, it should be no surprise to them that they serve at the pleasure of the [president], Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), chairman of the powerful Rules Committee, told The Hill.

Im not interested in politics by an agency employee.

But others in the GOP are looking to tamp down the tension and go back to business as usual.

I know this was a hotly contested election and we do not all feel the same way about the outcome. Each of us is entitled to the expression of our political beliefs, but we cannot let our personal convictions overwhelm our ability to work as one team, he said.

Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) told The Hill that things will ultimately calm down once the new administration gets settled in.

Im an optimistic person, any time you see a big change, folks are going to react to it when their livelihoods are at stake, she said.

Its going to be a long, bumpy ride, and eventually everything will shake out.

Trump came into office having made few friends among the career employees who staff government agencies in Washington.

His drain the swamp mantra and immediate freeze on federal hiring was undoubtedly a tough sell among those who count on the bureaucracy for their livelihoods. Voters in the District of Columbia responded by delivering Democrat Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonTrump was right: Media is the 'opposition party' 'South Park' creators say they'll 'back off' Trump Republicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants MORE an 89-point victory over Trump, and she won handily in nearby Maryland and Virginia districts, too.

But the expected clash between Trump and the civil service reached a new level late last week, when Trump signed an executive order freezing the refugee program and banning citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.

The secrecy involved in the orders production, prompted in part by a White House staff worried about media leaks, created confusion in federal agencies trying to implement the order. And on Monday, Trump fired acting attorney general Sally Yates, an Obama administration holdover,after she refused to defend his executive order in court.

Along with the pink slip, the White House said Yates had "betrayed" the government in a statement.

That same day, White House press secretary Sean Spicer dismissed an internal State Department dissent document that pushes back against Trumps immigration executive order.Nearly 1,000 diplomats reportedly signed the memo.

They should either get with the program or they can go, Spicer said. He followed upon Wednesdayby explaining that while all Americans have a right to speak their mind, its their job to help the president enact his agenda.

Democratic Rep. Gerry ConnollyGerry ConnollyRepublicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants Lawmakers join women's marches in DC and nationwide GOP, Dems hear different things from Trump MORE, whose Northern Virginia district includes a significant number of civil servants, told The Hill that concerned federal employees are reaching out to his office.

Dozens of social media accounts purporting to belong to spurned agency staffers have popped up to muddy the administrations message.The unverified accounts appeared after Trump administration clamped down on multiple agencies social media activity in response to the National Park Service retweeting a photo comparison showing that Trumps inaugural crowd was smaller than former President Obamas.

This week, a Washington Post reportdescribeda civil servant support group in Washington, noting that 180 employees are expected to attend a workshop where experts will offer advice on workers rights and how they can express civil disobedience.

For all the talk about civil servants and their consciences, though, Rep. Bill FloresBill FloresRepublicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants Republicans who oppose, support Trump refugee order Overnight Tech: Trump meets Alibaba founder | Uber to make some data public | GOP Lawmakers tapped for key tech panels MORE (R-Texas) thinks the issue is simple.

I dont think its rocket science. All they have to do is do their job, Flores said.

If they dont want to do their jobs, they should get another job.

GOP lawmakers say that civil service dissent isntabout free speech.

We should have more debate in this country. Now thats a different thing than if you have a job to serve the president in the executive branch and advance his responsibilities, which are to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.),a frequent Trump critic during the campaign, told The Hill.

We need toreinin these independent agencies and make them accountable to the president again, regardless of who the president is.

Some Republicans floated questions about whether dissenting employees could be violating the federal Hatch Actby using their official positions for political action. But while there were sporadic calls for punishment, most lawmakers wouldnt speculate as to what the best form of recourse should be.

To express political overtones by a government employee I would think violates the Hatch Act, and I would think that anyone who has begun this process should go through a procedure consistent with a violation of the Hatch Act, Sessions,the Texas lawmaker,said.

It concerns me, and I think it should be looked at and adjudicated as necessary to the rules of the department.

Democratic lawmakers that spoke to The Hill were united around the dissenting civil servants, framing their opposition to Trumps policies as protected speechthats about less about politics and more about protecting the missions of federal agencies.

People in civil service are committed to what they believe the mission of their agency isthey have a conscience and they have the ability to speak up, said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), a longtime member of Democratic leadership.

We have free speech in this national and they are, from the depths of their own conscience, talking about what they thing is the right thing.

When asked by The Hill what she thought of Republican worries that dissent could set a dangerous precedent for employees looking to frustrate a presidents agenda, DeLauro responded, Generally, this White House worries me.

Read more:
Republicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants - The Hill

Another Warning Sign For Republicans Trying To Repeal Obamacare – Huffington Post

Republicans trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act have a new problem on their hands: The AARP isnt happy.

The nations most famous retiree organization, which represents 38 million older Americans, has fired off letters critical of two proposals that have figured prominently in GOP discussions about replacing the Affordable Care Act. One of those proposals would relax the laws age bands. The other would transform Medicaid into a so-called block grant.

And its not just letters the AARP is sending. A spokesperson for the organization confirmed that it is asking its members to call lawmakers who sit on the health subcommittee for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which took up these ideas in a hearing Thursday.

The AARPs objections alone arent enough to stop Republicans from including versions of these ideas in health care legislation, of course. But the organization represents a demographic that happens to be an essential part of the Republican voting coalition.

Taken together, the groups warnings constitute one more reminder of the difficult policy trade-offs, and equally difficult politics, that Republicans are sure to confront as their effort to repeal Obamacare moves forward.

The creation of age bands was among the more important changes that the Affordable Care Act introduced for insurers selling directly to individuals. Previously, insurers in most states could adjust premiums based on the expected medical needs of new customers which meant, inevitably, charging older customers a lot more than younger ones.

The Affordable Care Act put a stop to that, by stipulating that insurers could charge their oldest customers no more than three times what they charge their youngest ones. This requirement is a big reason why many younger people pay more for insurance now than they did before the health care law came along.

Republicans love to talk about how relaxing or eliminating the age bands would mean lower premiums for younger people. And thats true, even if the benefits for young consumers would beless dramatic than Republicans sometimes suggest.

What Republicans dont mention is that, as a consequence, premiums for older people would go back up again. And in Wednesdays letter, the AARP warned that such a change could hurt people just as theyre getting to the age when medical problems become more common. Such a change, the group warned, would severely limit, not expand, access to quality, affordable healthcare.

As for Medicaid, Republicans have been talking about converting it into a block grant since long before Obamacare. The idea is to give states much more control over the program and, more importantly, to reduce the programs funding perhaps by a dramatic amount. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the most recent budget from House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would mean 33 percent less spending within the decade.

Republicans boast about these savings for the federal Treasury, along with the control it would give governors who bristle under Washingtons oversight. But with less money to spend, states wouldnt be able to finance as many benefits for as many people.

Theyd have to make cuts of their own some of which would almost surely fall on older people, particularly since the majority of spending in Medicaid goes to elderly and disabled people who use it to supplement Medicare. Among other things, Medicaid is the nations largest payer of nursing home care.

Predictably, the AARP has noticed this too.

Disabling conditions that affect older adults include Alzheimers disease, stroke, and chronic and disabling heart conditions, the organization said in its letter. Individuals may have low incomes, high costs, or already spent through their resources paying out-of-pocket for [long-term care], and need these critical services. For these individuals, Medicaid is a program of last resort.

The AARP has a broad policy agenda, including two other items protecting Medicare and Social Security from cuts that are generally higher institutional priorities. But changes to the health care law and Medicaid are bound to affect millions of its members negatively. The AARP isnt going to stay quiet about that. Its safe to assume the group will also be reminding Republicans that older Americans voted for President Donald Trump and GOP candidates by large margins.

And its not like the AARP is the only group that is going to take a very active interest in what happens to the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans talk a lot about financing their schemes with changes to the tax treatment of employer health insurance. Thats bound to raise screams from both businesses and unions (just like a similar provision of the Affordable Care Act has).

Most Republican ideas for replacing the law involve some combination of fewer people insured and weaker coverage for those who have insurance. That doesnt sit well with hospitals, which end up taking losses when people who need care cant pay for it.

And then there are the proposed changes to Medicaid, which would be sure to alienate not just the AARP but a whole bunch of other constituencies, not least among them Republican governors who presided over expansion in their states.

Republicans can negotiate with these potential critics to win their consent, or at least mute their concerns. But trade-offs in health policy are inevitable, and every accommodation that Republicans offer to a group like the AARP, employers, hospitals or GOP governors will show up as a cost for somebody else.

Meanwhile, the negotiations themselves are bound to take time and effort, and create plenty of embarrassing news stories again, just as they did for Democrats in 2009 and 2010, when President Barack Obama and his allies were crafting the legislation Republicans now seek to erase.

Democrats were willing to endure that bad publicity and, more broadly, to stick with a politically difficult process, even as it dragged out for over a year because making health care available to everybody had been one of the partys most important priorities for something like three-quarters of a century.

Recent news suggests Republicans can expect a similarly difficult experience if they proceed. Already, lawmakers are getting flooded with calls and hearing from protesters worried about losing insurance. And if the polls are correct, the public suddenly feels more favorably about the ACA than it did before perhaps because the prospect of losing the program is making people think about the parts they like.

At last weeks party retreat in Philadelphia, during a private meeting recorded and leaked to the press, Republican lawmakers talked openly of their inability to deliver promises of better care at lower costs. Over the weekend, Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) practically begged his supporters to start speaking out, because town halls have gotten so difficult.

And on Tuesday, in an interview with Vox, Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) admitted that rolling back the Medicaid expansion is going to be a little harder than I thought because so many people, in so many states, have come to depend on the program.

Republicans still have the votes in Congress to pass repeal legislation, and in Trump they have a president who would sign that bill into law. Having invested so much time in the cause, having made such concrete promises to their voters and the many people unhappy with how Obamacare has worked for them, GOP leaders would find it difficult to walk away.

But seeing repeal through the legislative process would require an enormous investment of political capital and time leaving less of each for tax reform, spending bills and other priorities. And thats to say nothing of how people would feel about a world in which the Affordable Care Act were gone to be replaced, maybe, with a system in which people face even greater exposure to medical bills.

Thats a high political price to pay. Republicans will have to decide if its worth it.

This story has been updated with further details about the AARPs outreach efforts.

Want more updates on policy & politics from Jonathan Cohn? Sign up for his newsletter, Citizen Cohn, here.

Continued here:
Another Warning Sign For Republicans Trying To Repeal Obamacare - Huffington Post