Trump is the Biggest Failure in History As His Disapproval Rating Skyrockets to 58%
Apr 28, 2017 17:46:48 #
The White House Unveiled a Tax Reform Plan. It's Not Really a Plan
Alex Altman
Updated: Apr 26, 2017 4:44 PM ET
The White House unveiled the bare outlines of a plan to revamp the U.S. tax code on Wednesday, touting the proposal as the "biggest tax cut" in history but offering few fresh specifics about how the overhaul would work or how it would be paid for.
The proposal, which the White House promised would be the "the biggest individual and corporate tax cut in American history," was strikingly short on details, from how much the goodies President Donald Trump is dangling would cost to how his Administration plans to patch the hole it would blow in the budget. That's an especially pressing question given how zealous many Republican lawmakers have been in the recent past about keeping legislation revenue-neutral.
The cornerstones of Trump's proposal are reductions in both the individual and corporate tax rates. The number of individual income tax brackets would be trimmed from seven to three brackets of 35%, 25% and 10%. Families would see the standard deduction doubled, effectively eliminating taxes on the first $24,000 of a couple's income and receive tax relief for childcare. While most tax deductions would be scrapped, the two most popular—the mortgage-interest deduction and charitable deductions—would be preserved, Administration officials said.
Under the plan, the corporate tax rate would be slashed from 35% to 15%. Companies would also pay a special one-time tax—the amount was not specified—to repatriate foreign earnings.
Markets rose at the prospect of broad tax relief. But the enthusiasm might be misplaced if traders are expecting the one-page statement of principles the White House distributed Wednesday to become law anytime soon.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the plan could cost between $3 trillion and $7 trillion. Its base-case estimate, $5.5 trillion, would be 20% of U.S. GDP. "Even if tax cuts could generate more growth than estimated," the group wrote, "no plausible amount of economic growth would be able to pay for a substantial portion of the tax plan."
The substance of the plan—which is so skeletal that it cannot be scored yet by the Congressional Budget Office—is being hashed out in conversations with Capitol Hill Republicans, explained Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and economic czar Gary Cohn, who repeatedly parried reporters' questions about the details. Despite what Mnuchin characterized as months of work, the proposal is almost identical to the principles Trump articulated on the campaign trail last year.
Nor is it any clearer how Trump plans to pay for the tax cuts. Notably, the plan does not include the so-called border adjustment tax, a proposal that would scrap levies on U.S. exports and impose a 20% tax on imports. That tax code revamp, championed by the likes of House Speaker Paul Ryan, could have earned up to $1 trillion in revenue over the next decade, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis. Ryan used it to partially offset the revenue loss incurred by the Speaker's plan to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%. But the the idea ran a wall of opposition from powerful retailers, and Trump's team soured on it.
There's little question why the plan won a warm welcome on Wall Street, which has rallied during Trump's presidency in large part due to the prospect of corporate tax relief and repatriation. There's also plenty to like for high earners, including a repeal of the estate tax and alternative minimum tax. The current blueprint does not mention closing the carried-interest loophole used by wealthy private-equity and hedge-fund managers, which Trump often talked about on the campaign trail.
It's unclear how Trump's own finances would be affected by the proposal, since he has defied decades of presidential precedent by refusing to release his tax returns. But his recently surfaced 2005 return suggests he paid more than $31 million that year under the AMT, which he has long pushed the government to jettison.
While the proposal may be thin gruel as a policy document, there's little doubt it has political appeal, which is especially important to Trump as he looks to soften coverage of his first 100 days. Tax breaks are popular, both among the voters who put Trump in office and the corporations counting on him to ease their burdens. Even if a true tax-reform package isn't in the offing anytime soon—the last reform of the tax code took place more than 30 years ago—Trump's party has the power to simply slash rates this year. That would juice the U.S. economy as Republicans head into a difficult election cycle in 2018. Which, to Trump, may be as good a goal as any.
Alex Altman
Updated: Apr 26, 2017 4:44 PM ET
The White House unveiled the bare outlines of a plan to revamp the U.S. tax code on Wednesday, touting the proposal as the "biggest tax cut" in history but offering few fresh specifics about how the overhaul would work or how it would be paid for.
The proposal, which the White House promised would be the "the biggest individual and corporate tax cut in American history," was strikingly short on details, from how much the goodies President Donald Trump is dangling would cost to how his Administration plans to patch the hole it would blow in the budget. That's an especially pressing question given how zealous many Republican lawmakers have been in the recent past about keeping legislation revenue-neutral.
The cornerstones of Trump's proposal are reductions in both the individual and corporate tax rates. The number of individual income tax brackets would be trimmed from seven to three brackets of 35%, 25% and 10%. Families would see the standard deduction doubled, effectively eliminating taxes on the first $24,000 of a couple's income and receive tax relief for childcare. While most tax deductions would be scrapped, the two most popular—the mortgage-interest deduction and charitable deductions—would be preserved, Administration officials said.
Under the plan, the corporate tax rate would be slashed from 35% to 15%. Companies would also pay a special one-time tax—the amount was not specified—to repatriate foreign earnings.
Markets rose at the prospect of broad tax relief. But the enthusiasm might be misplaced if traders are expecting the one-page statement of principles the White House distributed Wednesday to become law anytime soon.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the plan could cost between $3 trillion and $7 trillion. Its base-case estimate, $5.5 trillion, would be 20% of U.S. GDP. "Even if tax cuts could generate more growth than estimated," the group wrote, "no plausible amount of economic growth would be able to pay for a substantial portion of the tax plan."
The substance of the plan—which is so skeletal that it cannot be scored yet by the Congressional Budget Office—is being hashed out in conversations with Capitol Hill Republicans, explained Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and economic czar Gary Cohn, who repeatedly parried reporters' questions about the details. Despite what Mnuchin characterized as months of work, the proposal is almost identical to the principles Trump articulated on the campaign trail last year.
Nor is it any clearer how Trump plans to pay for the tax cuts. Notably, the plan does not include the so-called border adjustment tax, a proposal that would scrap levies on U.S. exports and impose a 20% tax on imports. That tax code revamp, championed by the likes of House Speaker Paul Ryan, could have earned up to $1 trillion in revenue over the next decade, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis. Ryan used it to partially offset the revenue loss incurred by the Speaker's plan to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%. But the the idea ran a wall of opposition from powerful retailers, and Trump's team soured on it.
There's little question why the plan won a warm welcome on Wall Street, which has rallied during Trump's presidency in large part due to the prospect of corporate tax relief and repatriation. There's also plenty to like for high earners, including a repeal of the estate tax and alternative minimum tax. The current blueprint does not mention closing the carried-interest loophole used by wealthy private-equity and hedge-fund managers, which Trump often talked about on the campaign trail.
It's unclear how Trump's own finances would be affected by the proposal, since he has defied decades of presidential precedent by refusing to release his tax returns. But his recently surfaced 2005 return suggests he paid more than $31 million that year under the AMT, which he has long pushed the government to jettison.
While the proposal may be thin gruel as a policy document, there's little doubt it has political appeal, which is especially important to Trump as he looks to soften coverage of his first 100 days. Tax breaks are popular, both among the voters who put Trump in office and the corporations counting on him to ease their burdens. Even if a true tax-reform package isn't in the offing anytime soon—the last reform of the tax code took place more than 30 years ago—Trump's party has the power to simply slash rates this year. That would juice the U.S. economy as Republicans head into a difficult election cycle in 2018. Which, to Trump, may be as good a goal as any.
Apr 28, 2017 18:44:01 #
Trump Tax Plan Would Shift Trillions From U.S. Coffers to the Richest
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and PATRICIA COHENAPRIL 27, 2017
Mr. Trump could benefit substantially from his tax plan, with provisions such as a repeal of the alternative minimum tax and a proposal to allow owner-operated companies, including his real estate concern, to be taxed at a 15 percent rate. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s proposal to slash individual and business taxes and erase a surtax that funds the Affordable Care Act would amount to a multitrillion-dollar shift from federal coffers to America’s richest families and their heirs, setting up a politically fraught battle over how best to use the government’s already strained resources.
The outline that Mr. Trump offered on Wednesday — less a tax overhaul plan than a list of costly cuts with no price tags attached, rushed out by a president staring down his 100-day mark in office — calls for tax reductions for individuals of every income level as well as businesses large and small.
But the vast majority of benefits would accrue to the highest earners and largest holders of wealth, according to economists and analysts, accounting for a lopsided portion of the proposal’s costs.
“The only Americans who are very clear winners under the new system are the wealthiest,” said Edward D. Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California and former chief of staff of Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, which estimates the revenue effects of tax proposals.
Repealing the estate tax, for example, would affect just 5,300 or so fortunes a year. For 2017, couples can shield up to $11 million of their estates from any taxation, leaving only the largest inheritances subject to taxation. Repealing the estate tax alone would cost an estimated $174.2 billion over a decade, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center said.
Reducing the rate on capital gains, noncorporate business taxes and those in the highest bracket, as well as repealing the alternative minimum tax, would also ease the burden on wealthier Americans. So would the repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s 3.8 percent surtax on the investment income of high earners, put in place to subsidize health coverage for low-income Americans.
“These are all afflictions of the affluent,” Mr. Kleinbard said.
There is no way to know how the mathematics of the proposal would work, since the White House offered no cost estimates, no detail about which incomes would be taxed at what levels and no information about tax deductions or other breaks that might be eliminated to make up for the lost revenue.
On Thursday, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, suggested that tax benefits for retirement savings would be rolled back to mitigate the cost of the tax cuts, the kind of tough decision that makes a rewrite of the tax code so politically difficult. But within minutes, White House officials said Mr. Spicer had misspoken.
Officials instead said specifics would come later, as negotiations unfolded with members of Congress to draft legislation.
The administration’s silence on many crucial details of the proposal was by design, to leave room for what promise to be intense negotiations with lawmakers in Congress, said Rohit Kumar, the leader of PwC’s Washington National Tax Services and a former senior Republican Senate aide.
Yet without specifics, he added, “you can’t make anything but a wild guess on what the distributional effects of the proposal would be.”
“What the administration put out yesterday is all of the good news,” Mr. Kumar said. “They’ve withheld on the bad news.”
But estimates of the impacts for some of the cuts that were outlined Wednesday, such as the estate tax and alternative minimum tax repeals, can be made, and they run directly counter to the populist themes that animated Mr. Trump’s campaign. He has often stated his concern for ordinary working men and women who he contends were forgotten under previous administrations but have risen to the top of the priority list under his leadership.
Many economists who analyzed a similar plan Mr. Trump proposed during his presidential campaign found that it would have disproportionately helped the richest. William G. Gale, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington, estimated that just over 50 percent of the benefits of that proposal would have gone to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.
The new proposal “loses probably something in the neighborhood of $5 trillion in revenue over 10 years with regressive tax cuts that exacerbate the inequalities that already exist in our economy,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who was a top economist in the Obama administration.
Mr. Trump’s economic team argues that there is no disconnect; the tax reductions they are seeking, they argue, will ultimately help all Americans, including the poorest, by spurring growth that will translate into more jobs and better wages.
Still, it seems almost inevitable that the blueprint, should it eventually yield legislation, would violate the vow Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, made that the administration would provide “no absolute tax cut for the upper class.”
That axiom, uttered by Mr. Mnuchin in November and quickly named the “Mnuchin rule” by skeptical Democrats, was based on his insistence that any tax reductions at the top would be matched by the elimination of deductions and loopholes.
“It is hard to know what the overall effects would be, but a plan that is intended to reduce taxes on business income and investment income is going to provide substantial benefits to wealthier individuals, and the bulk of the benefits in this plan would go to them,” said Ed Lorenzen, a senior adviser for the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal policy education group. “It would probably work out to be a significant shift in the distribution of the tax code.”
One major reason is Mr. Trump’s idea to allow the income of owner-operated companies, including his real estate concern, hedge funds and large partnerships, to be taxed at a 15 percent rate — the same rate corporations would pay under his plan — rather than at the individual income tax rate, which now tops out at 39.6 percent and would be set at 35 percent by Mr. Trump.
That would potentially allow doctors, lawyers and others who are part of such firms to structure their compensation as business rather than personal income and effectively enjoy a substantial tax cut. The Tax Policy Center estimated last year that the proposal would cost $1.5 trillion over a decade.
Higher earners also appear likely to reap the greatest benefit from repealing the alternative minimum tax, which is set at a marginal rate of 28 percent and falls most heavily on those who earn between $250,000 and $1 million. In 2013, President Barack Obama and Congress reached agreement on a “fix” that shielded middle-class families from the tax. So any repeal now would benefit wealthier taxpayers.
Only a fifth of taxpayers who earn above $1 million were affected by the provision, a parallel tax system that limits the deductions and other tax breaks available to them, in part because interest and investment income are exempt.
A glimpse of Mr. Trump’s 2005 tax returns revealed that the alternative minimum tax cost him roughly $31 million by setting a floor that even a stack of individual loopholes could not reduce. Repealing it would cost $412.8 billion over a decade, the Tax Policy Center has estimated.
At the same time, lower- and middle-income families could be in a worse position. The White House proposes to reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to three: 10, 25 and 35 percent. But no one yet knows where the income cutoff lines are being drawn. People who end up being pushed into a lower bracket would be better off, but those kicked into a higher bracket would not be.
Families with after-tax income between roughly $19,000 and $76,000, for example, are now in the 15 percent marginal tax bracket, which is slated for elimination.
“That’s where the middle of America is,” Mr. Kleinbard said. While some may drop into the new 10 percent bracket, others could be nudged up into the 25 percent range.
Increasing the standard deduction to about $24,000 for couples might also appear to help most families, but that is not necessarily the case, Mr. Kleinbard pointed out. Larger families, which now benefit from being able to add a deduction for every additional member of their household, could lose out.
“At the bottom end, the typical family will be worse off if personal exemptions go away,” he said.
Julie Hirschfeld Davis reported from Washington, and Patricia Cohen from New York.
Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.
A version of this article appears in print on April 28, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump’s Plan Shifts Trillions To Wealthiest. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and PATRICIA COHENAPRIL 27, 2017
Mr. Trump could benefit substantially from his tax plan, with provisions such as a repeal of the alternative minimum tax and a proposal to allow owner-operated companies, including his real estate concern, to be taxed at a 15 percent rate. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s proposal to slash individual and business taxes and erase a surtax that funds the Affordable Care Act would amount to a multitrillion-dollar shift from federal coffers to America’s richest families and their heirs, setting up a politically fraught battle over how best to use the government’s already strained resources.
The outline that Mr. Trump offered on Wednesday — less a tax overhaul plan than a list of costly cuts with no price tags attached, rushed out by a president staring down his 100-day mark in office — calls for tax reductions for individuals of every income level as well as businesses large and small.
But the vast majority of benefits would accrue to the highest earners and largest holders of wealth, according to economists and analysts, accounting for a lopsided portion of the proposal’s costs.
“The only Americans who are very clear winners under the new system are the wealthiest,” said Edward D. Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California and former chief of staff of Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, which estimates the revenue effects of tax proposals.
Repealing the estate tax, for example, would affect just 5,300 or so fortunes a year. For 2017, couples can shield up to $11 million of their estates from any taxation, leaving only the largest inheritances subject to taxation. Repealing the estate tax alone would cost an estimated $174.2 billion over a decade, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center said.
Reducing the rate on capital gains, noncorporate business taxes and those in the highest bracket, as well as repealing the alternative minimum tax, would also ease the burden on wealthier Americans. So would the repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s 3.8 percent surtax on the investment income of high earners, put in place to subsidize health coverage for low-income Americans.
“These are all afflictions of the affluent,” Mr. Kleinbard said.
There is no way to know how the mathematics of the proposal would work, since the White House offered no cost estimates, no detail about which incomes would be taxed at what levels and no information about tax deductions or other breaks that might be eliminated to make up for the lost revenue.
On Thursday, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, suggested that tax benefits for retirement savings would be rolled back to mitigate the cost of the tax cuts, the kind of tough decision that makes a rewrite of the tax code so politically difficult. But within minutes, White House officials said Mr. Spicer had misspoken.
Officials instead said specifics would come later, as negotiations unfolded with members of Congress to draft legislation.
The administration’s silence on many crucial details of the proposal was by design, to leave room for what promise to be intense negotiations with lawmakers in Congress, said Rohit Kumar, the leader of PwC’s Washington National Tax Services and a former senior Republican Senate aide.
Yet without specifics, he added, “you can’t make anything but a wild guess on what the distributional effects of the proposal would be.”
“What the administration put out yesterday is all of the good news,” Mr. Kumar said. “They’ve withheld on the bad news.”
But estimates of the impacts for some of the cuts that were outlined Wednesday, such as the estate tax and alternative minimum tax repeals, can be made, and they run directly counter to the populist themes that animated Mr. Trump’s campaign. He has often stated his concern for ordinary working men and women who he contends were forgotten under previous administrations but have risen to the top of the priority list under his leadership.
Many economists who analyzed a similar plan Mr. Trump proposed during his presidential campaign found that it would have disproportionately helped the richest. William G. Gale, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington, estimated that just over 50 percent of the benefits of that proposal would have gone to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.
The new proposal “loses probably something in the neighborhood of $5 trillion in revenue over 10 years with regressive tax cuts that exacerbate the inequalities that already exist in our economy,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who was a top economist in the Obama administration.
Mr. Trump’s economic team argues that there is no disconnect; the tax reductions they are seeking, they argue, will ultimately help all Americans, including the poorest, by spurring growth that will translate into more jobs and better wages.
Still, it seems almost inevitable that the blueprint, should it eventually yield legislation, would violate the vow Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, made that the administration would provide “no absolute tax cut for the upper class.”
That axiom, uttered by Mr. Mnuchin in November and quickly named the “Mnuchin rule” by skeptical Democrats, was based on his insistence that any tax reductions at the top would be matched by the elimination of deductions and loopholes.
“It is hard to know what the overall effects would be, but a plan that is intended to reduce taxes on business income and investment income is going to provide substantial benefits to wealthier individuals, and the bulk of the benefits in this plan would go to them,” said Ed Lorenzen, a senior adviser for the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal policy education group. “It would probably work out to be a significant shift in the distribution of the tax code.”
One major reason is Mr. Trump’s idea to allow the income of owner-operated companies, including his real estate concern, hedge funds and large partnerships, to be taxed at a 15 percent rate — the same rate corporations would pay under his plan — rather than at the individual income tax rate, which now tops out at 39.6 percent and would be set at 35 percent by Mr. Trump.
That would potentially allow doctors, lawyers and others who are part of such firms to structure their compensation as business rather than personal income and effectively enjoy a substantial tax cut. The Tax Policy Center estimated last year that the proposal would cost $1.5 trillion over a decade.
Higher earners also appear likely to reap the greatest benefit from repealing the alternative minimum tax, which is set at a marginal rate of 28 percent and falls most heavily on those who earn between $250,000 and $1 million. In 2013, President Barack Obama and Congress reached agreement on a “fix” that shielded middle-class families from the tax. So any repeal now would benefit wealthier taxpayers.
Only a fifth of taxpayers who earn above $1 million were affected by the provision, a parallel tax system that limits the deductions and other tax breaks available to them, in part because interest and investment income are exempt.
A glimpse of Mr. Trump’s 2005 tax returns revealed that the alternative minimum tax cost him roughly $31 million by setting a floor that even a stack of individual loopholes could not reduce. Repealing it would cost $412.8 billion over a decade, the Tax Policy Center has estimated.
At the same time, lower- and middle-income families could be in a worse position. The White House proposes to reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to three: 10, 25 and 35 percent. But no one yet knows where the income cutoff lines are being drawn. People who end up being pushed into a lower bracket would be better off, but those kicked into a higher bracket would not be.
Families with after-tax income between roughly $19,000 and $76,000, for example, are now in the 15 percent marginal tax bracket, which is slated for elimination.
“That’s where the middle of America is,” Mr. Kleinbard said. While some may drop into the new 10 percent bracket, others could be nudged up into the 25 percent range.
Increasing the standard deduction to about $24,000 for couples might also appear to help most families, but that is not necessarily the case, Mr. Kleinbard pointed out. Larger families, which now benefit from being able to add a deduction for every additional member of their household, could lose out.
“At the bottom end, the typical family will be worse off if personal exemptions go away,” he said.
Julie Hirschfeld Davis reported from Washington, and Patricia Cohen from New York.
Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.
A version of this article appears in print on April 28, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump’s Plan Shifts Trillions To Wealthiest. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
Apr 28, 2017 18:51:59 #
Trump pushes Obamacare repeal as law's popularity improves
by David M. Drucker | Apr 28, 2017, 12:01 AM Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Email this article Share on LinkedIn
Obamacare will collapse absent repairs, leaving Americans with ever-rising premiums and few care options — leaving Trump to take the blame. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Obamacare will collapse absent repairs, leaving Americans with ever-rising premiums and few care options — leaving Trump to take the blame. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
President Trump is facing fresh political challenges on healthcare after squandering Obamacare's unpopularity on a Republican alternative the voters like even less.
Trump is pressing Republican allies in Congress to pass the American Health Care Act, encouraging them to make whatever changes are necessary to advance a package that repeals and replaces Obamacare in a bid to reduce premiums and increase choice.
But in a stark reversal after years of political advantage, the president and his party are on the defensive on healthcare with the majority of voters, public opinion polls show.
The evolving Republican bill is hampered by sharply low ratings, while appreciation for the troubled Affordable Care Act is on the rise.
That points to trouble ahead if Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill can't reset the health care debate as they head toward pushing through reform legislation on a party-line vote, as the Democrats did before them.
"Somehow, the Republicans are going to have to come back and find a way to re-introduce their health care plan," GOP pollster David Winston said Thursday in an interview with the Washington Examiner.
Dissatisfaction with former President Barack Obama's health care law, and the partisan muscle used to enact it, were crucial building blocks of today's Republican majorities in Congress. The GOP won two wave midterms after Obamacare passed, plus the 2016 contest.
The equation has changed. The Affordable Care Act is enjoying extended popularity for the first time since it was enacted in 2010, a political recovery that began after Trump assumed office and accelerated in March after repeal legislation was introduced in the House.
More Americans now approve of the troubled law (49.1 percent) than disapprove (42.4 percent), according to the RealClearPolitics polling average that stretches from late April back to early February. In a recent ABC New/Washington Post poll, 61 percent of Americans favored keeping Obamacare.
Even Republican voters, who still favor repealing the ACA, including in this new poll, expressed support for maintaining many of the coverage protections guaranteed under Obamacare, such as one that prohibits insurers from denying coverage based on a pre-existing medical condition.
The current, amended version of the American Health Care Act would allow states to decide whether to maintain those provisions. With their Obamacare experience in mind, Democrats are salivating over the political opportunity passage of the Republican bill might provide in 2018.
"I want every Republican on record in support of Trumpcare," Democratic strategist Matt Canter said.
The Trump White House — echoing the Obama administration's ultimately false reassurances about the ACA — is insistent that that GOP health care bill will grow in popularity after it is signed into law.
"We strongly believe that the American Health Care Act, which will lower costs and increase access to care, will be well received by the American people," a White House aide told the Examiner in an email exchange.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said the GOP has no choice but to take a risk and vote for it. "I think people's seats are at risk if we don't do what we said we would do," he said. "If you violate promise, if you commit the sin of hypocrisy in politics, that's the greater risk, I think, to a person's seat."
Trump is in a pickle.
Replacing Obamacare with conservative reforms was a major campaign promise that Republican voters expect him to deliver on. Abandoning the policy in favor of fixing and strengthening the current law would cause the conservative base to revolt.
Because Obamacare will collapse absent repairs, leaving Americans with ever-rising premiums and few care options — and leaving Trump to take the blame, his only option is to overhaul the system and hope it works out better for than it did for his predecessor.
A GOP strategist and veteran of campaigns while the party was winning seats because of Obamacare said that Republicans still has a chance to win the healthcare debate if they can change the way they talk about it. Republicans, this insider said, have to talk about care and how their bill would help people.
"All we have been doing is fighting and talking process," the strategist said, on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly.
This Republican consultant and others who track the polling credited GOP infighting on health care, and the poor messaging used to promote the American Health Care Act, for Obamacare's resurrection.
There's data to back that up.
In an early April Gallup poll, 52 percent of Democrats favor making significant changes to the law. Meanwhile, Republicans who have opposed the AHCA at various points over the last two months have joined Democrats in badmouthing it.
It's hard to build support for legislation when all voters here are bad news. That dynamic, still playing out as moderate and conservative Republicans debate changes to the law was magnified by the Congressional Budget Office.
The original version of the bill was scored by the CBO as leading to millions of uninsured Americans and doing nothing to lower premiums. Republicans say that narrative has to be countered, or voters will assume it's true and make the party pay.
"How hard could it be to find some families or small business owners to roll out with facts and hard numbers and provide some third-party credibility?" a Republican strategist said via email. "Under Obamacare our premiums went up by $X. Under this plan, we'll save $X per year."
by David M. Drucker | Apr 28, 2017, 12:01 AM Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Email this article Share on LinkedIn
Obamacare will collapse absent repairs, leaving Americans with ever-rising premiums and few care options — leaving Trump to take the blame. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Obamacare will collapse absent repairs, leaving Americans with ever-rising premiums and few care options — leaving Trump to take the blame. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
President Trump is facing fresh political challenges on healthcare after squandering Obamacare's unpopularity on a Republican alternative the voters like even less.
Trump is pressing Republican allies in Congress to pass the American Health Care Act, encouraging them to make whatever changes are necessary to advance a package that repeals and replaces Obamacare in a bid to reduce premiums and increase choice.
But in a stark reversal after years of political advantage, the president and his party are on the defensive on healthcare with the majority of voters, public opinion polls show.
The evolving Republican bill is hampered by sharply low ratings, while appreciation for the troubled Affordable Care Act is on the rise.
That points to trouble ahead if Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill can't reset the health care debate as they head toward pushing through reform legislation on a party-line vote, as the Democrats did before them.
"Somehow, the Republicans are going to have to come back and find a way to re-introduce their health care plan," GOP pollster David Winston said Thursday in an interview with the Washington Examiner.
Dissatisfaction with former President Barack Obama's health care law, and the partisan muscle used to enact it, were crucial building blocks of today's Republican majorities in Congress. The GOP won two wave midterms after Obamacare passed, plus the 2016 contest.
The equation has changed. The Affordable Care Act is enjoying extended popularity for the first time since it was enacted in 2010, a political recovery that began after Trump assumed office and accelerated in March after repeal legislation was introduced in the House.
More Americans now approve of the troubled law (49.1 percent) than disapprove (42.4 percent), according to the RealClearPolitics polling average that stretches from late April back to early February. In a recent ABC New/Washington Post poll, 61 percent of Americans favored keeping Obamacare.
Even Republican voters, who still favor repealing the ACA, including in this new poll, expressed support for maintaining many of the coverage protections guaranteed under Obamacare, such as one that prohibits insurers from denying coverage based on a pre-existing medical condition.
The current, amended version of the American Health Care Act would allow states to decide whether to maintain those provisions. With their Obamacare experience in mind, Democrats are salivating over the political opportunity passage of the Republican bill might provide in 2018.
"I want every Republican on record in support of Trumpcare," Democratic strategist Matt Canter said.
The Trump White House — echoing the Obama administration's ultimately false reassurances about the ACA — is insistent that that GOP health care bill will grow in popularity after it is signed into law.
"We strongly believe that the American Health Care Act, which will lower costs and increase access to care, will be well received by the American people," a White House aide told the Examiner in an email exchange.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said the GOP has no choice but to take a risk and vote for it. "I think people's seats are at risk if we don't do what we said we would do," he said. "If you violate promise, if you commit the sin of hypocrisy in politics, that's the greater risk, I think, to a person's seat."
Trump is in a pickle.
Replacing Obamacare with conservative reforms was a major campaign promise that Republican voters expect him to deliver on. Abandoning the policy in favor of fixing and strengthening the current law would cause the conservative base to revolt.
Because Obamacare will collapse absent repairs, leaving Americans with ever-rising premiums and few care options — and leaving Trump to take the blame, his only option is to overhaul the system and hope it works out better for than it did for his predecessor.
A GOP strategist and veteran of campaigns while the party was winning seats because of Obamacare said that Republicans still has a chance to win the healthcare debate if they can change the way they talk about it. Republicans, this insider said, have to talk about care and how their bill would help people.
"All we have been doing is fighting and talking process," the strategist said, on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly.
This Republican consultant and others who track the polling credited GOP infighting on health care, and the poor messaging used to promote the American Health Care Act, for Obamacare's resurrection.
There's data to back that up.
In an early April Gallup poll, 52 percent of Democrats favor making significant changes to the law. Meanwhile, Republicans who have opposed the AHCA at various points over the last two months have joined Democrats in badmouthing it.
It's hard to build support for legislation when all voters here are bad news. That dynamic, still playing out as moderate and conservative Republicans debate changes to the law was magnified by the Congressional Budget Office.
The original version of the bill was scored by the CBO as leading to millions of uninsured Americans and doing nothing to lower premiums. Republicans say that narrative has to be countered, or voters will assume it's true and make the party pay.
"How hard could it be to find some families or small business owners to roll out with facts and hard numbers and provide some third-party credibility?" a Republican strategist said via email. "Under Obamacare our premiums went up by $X. Under this plan, we'll save $X per year."
Check out topic: Donald Trump scores huge donation from unexpected group..
Apr 28, 2017 19:19:22 #
New amendment to GOP health bill effectively allows full elimination of community rating, exposing sick to higher premiums.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/04/27/new-amendment-to-gop-health-bill-effectively-allows-full-elimination-of-community-rating-exposing-sick-to-higher-premiums/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=51293224
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/04/27/new-amendment-to-gop-health-bill-effectively-allows-full-elimination-of-community-rating-exposing-sick-to-higher-premiums/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=51293224
Apr 28, 2017 20:52:10 #
G.D.P. Report Shows U.S. Economy Off to Slow Start in 2017
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/business/economy/economy-gross-domestic-product-first-quarter.html?emc=edit_na_20170428&nl=breaking-news&nlid=51247735&ref=cta
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/business/economy/economy-gross-domestic-product-first-quarter.html?emc=edit_na_20170428&nl=breaking-news&nlid=51247735&ref=cta
Apr 28, 2017 20:53:35 #
Ben Carson Is Proving To Be A Bizarre And Incompetent Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, As Expected
http://www.nationalmemo.com/ben-carson-proving-be-bizarre-and-incompetent-secretary-housing-and-urban/
http://www.nationalmemo.com/ben-carson-proving-be-bizarre-and-incompetent-secretary-housing-and-urban/
Apr 28, 2017 20:54:22 #
Noam Chomsky: The Republican Party Is the ‘Most Dangerous Organization In World History’
http://www.nationalmemo.com/noam-chomsky-republican-party-dangerous-organization-world-history/
http://www.nationalmemo.com/noam-chomsky-republican-party-dangerous-organization-world-history/
Check out topic: Populism
Apr 28, 2017 21:31:05 #
Healthcare talks done in GOP bubble
House Republicans and President Trump have shut out major players in their effort to replace Obamacare.
By Noam N. Levey
WASHINGTON — President Trump and House Republicans, in their rush to resuscitate a bill rolling back the Affordable Care Act, are increasingly isolating themselves from outside input and rejecting entreaties to work collaboratively, according to multiple healthcare officials who have tried to engage GOP leaders.
The White House and its House GOP allies are hoping to reschedule a vote on their overhaul plan in the coming days, following last month’s embarrassing retreat when the bill was pulled shortly before a vote.
But they continue to refuse to reach out to Democrats. Even Senate Republicans have been largely sidelined, though their support will be crucial to putting a measure on Trump’s desk.
And senior House Republicans and White House officials have almost completely shut out doctors, hospitals, patient advocates and others who work in the healthcare system, industry officials say, despite pleas from many healthcare leaders to seek an alternative path that doesn’t threaten protections for tens of millions of Americans.
“To think you are going to revamp the entire American healthcare system without involving any of the people who actually deliver healthcare is insanity,” said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Assn., whose members include many of the nation’s largest medical systems.
Health insurers, who initially found House Republicans and Trump administration officials open to suggestions for improving insurance markets, find it increasingly difficult to have realistic discussions, according to numerous industry officials.
“They’re not interested in how health policy actually works,” said one insurance company official, who asked not to be identified discussing conversations with GOP officials. “It’s incredibly frustrating.”
Another longtime healthcare lobbyist, who also did not want to be identified criticizing Republicans, said he’d never seen legislation developed with such disregard for expert input. “It is totally divorced from reality,” he said.
The result may be a short-term victory for House leaders and the White House as Trump nears his 100-day mark, assuming they muster the votes this time. But prospects for final passage of a healthcare overhaul bill remain dim.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump and senior House Republicans have steadfastly defended their bill, however, promising it will lower healthcare costs while preserving protections for vulnerable Americans.
“The plan gets better and better and better,” Trump said last week at the White House. “And it’s gotten really, really good. And a lot of people are liking it a lot.”
House Republican leaders are now working to win over wavering members of their caucus with a proposed amendment that would make it easier for states to drop key protections in the current law that, among other things, prohibit insurers from charging sick people more for coverage.
“What this amendment does is it gives states more flexibility and tools to reduce premiums and increase choices,” Ryan, of Wisconsin, said Thursday, explaining that states would still have to ensure coverage is available for sick consumers, even if they are priced out of the market.
But not a single major group representing doctors, hospitals or patients supported the original House legislation, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated would increase the ranks of the uninsured by 24 million over the next decade.
Opposition among those who work in healthcare has only deepened amid the current GOP efforts to win over conservative lawmakers with the new amendment, with the American Medical Assn. and the American Hospital Assn. restating their rejection of the House legislation.
The American Cancer Society’s advocacy arm — one of many leading groups representing patients with serious illnesses that have spoken out against the GOP campaign to repeal Obamacare — warned of the return of “a patchwork system of health coverage in which patients with preexisting conditions in some states would no longer be protected.”
The powerful AARP said that provisions in the House bill would push up insurance costs for older Americans while doing nothing to tackle high prescription drug costs.
And on Wednesday, a coalition of six leading physician groups representing more than 560,000 doctors — including pediatricians, family physicians and obstetricians — urged congressional leaders to put aside the House GOP legislation and work with doctors on an alternative that would not jeopardize insurance coverage for millions of Americans.
“Our members see firsthand the important role that healthcare coverage and access to affordable, high-quality care plays in people’s lives and their pursuit of better health and well-being,” the groups wrote.
“They also recall those days when patients faced discrimination based on their age, gender or health conditions, and remember when those with mental and behavioral health needs were denied coverage.”
The House legislation would dismantle Obamacare’s extensive system for expanding health insurance coverage to millions of Americans, cutting nearly $1 trillion in federal aid that has allowed states to expand Medicaid safety-net programs and scaling back tax subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income Americans buy commercial healthcare plans.
A proposed amendment to the bill that House Republicans are considering could also weaken other consumer protections in the current law, including mandates that require health insurers to cover basic benefits such as mental health and maternity care.
At the same time, the House bill would repeal major taxes that the current law imposed to fund the expansion of health coverage. That would deliver major tax breaks to the medical device and insurance industries and to wealthy Americans.
The House bill also scraps the unpopular requirement in the current law that Americans have insurance or pay a penalty.
The House bill is deeply unpopular, with polls showing fewer than 1 in 5 Americans backing the legislation.
Even many Republican senators — including conservatives such as Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — have voiced deep reservations about the legislation.
And after the bill appeared to collapse last month when GOP leaders didn’t have enough votes to bring it to the House floor, many who work in the healthcare system pleaded with the White House and congressional Republicans to undertake a new, more collaborative approach.
“This is not a problem either party can solve alone, but it is solvable with bipartisan efforts,” the Catholic Health Assn. said at the time.
Rohit Kumar, who was a senior aide to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), said that imperative remains even more crucial today.
“If you’re going to make progress, you’re going to have to bring in more stakeholders,” said Kumar, a leading tax and healthcare advisor at consulting giant PwC.
That simply hasn’t happened, according to multiple healthcare leaders.
When asked if he’d been contacted by any Republican leaders for suggestions about ways to improve the legislation that failed last month, a senior lobbyist at one leading patient advocacy group simply laughed out loud.
noam.levey@latimes.com
Twitter: @noamlevey
House Republicans and President Trump have shut out major players in their effort to replace Obamacare.
By Noam N. Levey
WASHINGTON — President Trump and House Republicans, in their rush to resuscitate a bill rolling back the Affordable Care Act, are increasingly isolating themselves from outside input and rejecting entreaties to work collaboratively, according to multiple healthcare officials who have tried to engage GOP leaders.
The White House and its House GOP allies are hoping to reschedule a vote on their overhaul plan in the coming days, following last month’s embarrassing retreat when the bill was pulled shortly before a vote.
But they continue to refuse to reach out to Democrats. Even Senate Republicans have been largely sidelined, though their support will be crucial to putting a measure on Trump’s desk.
And senior House Republicans and White House officials have almost completely shut out doctors, hospitals, patient advocates and others who work in the healthcare system, industry officials say, despite pleas from many healthcare leaders to seek an alternative path that doesn’t threaten protections for tens of millions of Americans.
“To think you are going to revamp the entire American healthcare system without involving any of the people who actually deliver healthcare is insanity,” said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Assn., whose members include many of the nation’s largest medical systems.
Health insurers, who initially found House Republicans and Trump administration officials open to suggestions for improving insurance markets, find it increasingly difficult to have realistic discussions, according to numerous industry officials.
“They’re not interested in how health policy actually works,” said one insurance company official, who asked not to be identified discussing conversations with GOP officials. “It’s incredibly frustrating.”
Another longtime healthcare lobbyist, who also did not want to be identified criticizing Republicans, said he’d never seen legislation developed with such disregard for expert input. “It is totally divorced from reality,” he said.
The result may be a short-term victory for House leaders and the White House as Trump nears his 100-day mark, assuming they muster the votes this time. But prospects for final passage of a healthcare overhaul bill remain dim.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump and senior House Republicans have steadfastly defended their bill, however, promising it will lower healthcare costs while preserving protections for vulnerable Americans.
“The plan gets better and better and better,” Trump said last week at the White House. “And it’s gotten really, really good. And a lot of people are liking it a lot.”
House Republican leaders are now working to win over wavering members of their caucus with a proposed amendment that would make it easier for states to drop key protections in the current law that, among other things, prohibit insurers from charging sick people more for coverage.
“What this amendment does is it gives states more flexibility and tools to reduce premiums and increase choices,” Ryan, of Wisconsin, said Thursday, explaining that states would still have to ensure coverage is available for sick consumers, even if they are priced out of the market.
But not a single major group representing doctors, hospitals or patients supported the original House legislation, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated would increase the ranks of the uninsured by 24 million over the next decade.
Opposition among those who work in healthcare has only deepened amid the current GOP efforts to win over conservative lawmakers with the new amendment, with the American Medical Assn. and the American Hospital Assn. restating their rejection of the House legislation.
The American Cancer Society’s advocacy arm — one of many leading groups representing patients with serious illnesses that have spoken out against the GOP campaign to repeal Obamacare — warned of the return of “a patchwork system of health coverage in which patients with preexisting conditions in some states would no longer be protected.”
The powerful AARP said that provisions in the House bill would push up insurance costs for older Americans while doing nothing to tackle high prescription drug costs.
And on Wednesday, a coalition of six leading physician groups representing more than 560,000 doctors — including pediatricians, family physicians and obstetricians — urged congressional leaders to put aside the House GOP legislation and work with doctors on an alternative that would not jeopardize insurance coverage for millions of Americans.
“Our members see firsthand the important role that healthcare coverage and access to affordable, high-quality care plays in people’s lives and their pursuit of better health and well-being,” the groups wrote.
“They also recall those days when patients faced discrimination based on their age, gender or health conditions, and remember when those with mental and behavioral health needs were denied coverage.”
The House legislation would dismantle Obamacare’s extensive system for expanding health insurance coverage to millions of Americans, cutting nearly $1 trillion in federal aid that has allowed states to expand Medicaid safety-net programs and scaling back tax subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income Americans buy commercial healthcare plans.
A proposed amendment to the bill that House Republicans are considering could also weaken other consumer protections in the current law, including mandates that require health insurers to cover basic benefits such as mental health and maternity care.
At the same time, the House bill would repeal major taxes that the current law imposed to fund the expansion of health coverage. That would deliver major tax breaks to the medical device and insurance industries and to wealthy Americans.
The House bill also scraps the unpopular requirement in the current law that Americans have insurance or pay a penalty.
The House bill is deeply unpopular, with polls showing fewer than 1 in 5 Americans backing the legislation.
Even many Republican senators — including conservatives such as Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — have voiced deep reservations about the legislation.
And after the bill appeared to collapse last month when GOP leaders didn’t have enough votes to bring it to the House floor, many who work in the healthcare system pleaded with the White House and congressional Republicans to undertake a new, more collaborative approach.
“This is not a problem either party can solve alone, but it is solvable with bipartisan efforts,” the Catholic Health Assn. said at the time.
Rohit Kumar, who was a senior aide to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), said that imperative remains even more crucial today.
“If you’re going to make progress, you’re going to have to bring in more stakeholders,” said Kumar, a leading tax and healthcare advisor at consulting giant PwC.
That simply hasn’t happened, according to multiple healthcare leaders.
When asked if he’d been contacted by any Republican leaders for suggestions about ways to improve the legislation that failed last month, a senior lobbyist at one leading patient advocacy group simply laughed out loud.
noam.levey@latimes.com
Twitter: @noamlevey
Apr 28, 2017 21:34:38 #
Racial amity, economic disparity
Most people say ethnic groups get along well in L.A., but poverty is just as pervasive as in 1992.
L.A.’S jobless rate may be half that of 1992, but Angelenos’ median income is actually lower than it was when the riots broke out. (Gary Friedman Los Angeles Times)
By Harold Meyerson
O n the 25th anniversary of the Rodney King riots, Los Angeles is glowing with racial amity — and festering with economic disparity. We all are getting along just fine, it seems, and by the way, many of us are very poor, even though we work as hard as we can.
That’s the takeaway from a remarkable poll released this week by Loyola Marymount’s Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles. Fully 76% of respondents say that racial and ethnic groups in L.A. are getting along well. In 1997, when the center first polled Angelenos, only 37% said racial and ethnic relations were good.
L.A.’s progress, however, has been strikingly uneven. As The Times noted in its report on the poll, the city’s unemployment rate may be half that of 1992, but Angelenos’ median income is actually lower than it was when the riots broke out, and the city’s poverty rate — 22% — is comparable to the level in the years preceding the riots.
The rising arc of race relations and the descending arc of broad-based prosperity illustrate the triumph and limitations of what a city can accomplish. In both 1965 and 1992, the riots that engulfed the city were provoked by a racist, brutal Police Department, and in the case of the ’92 outbreak, by a system of justice — personified by the all-white jury in Simi Valley that acquitted King’s blue-clad attackers — that all but shouted that black lives didn’t matter.
Tom Bradley, the city’s mayor from 1973 through 1993, tried repeatedly to change the culture and structure of the LAPD, but it was only after the televised airing of King’s beating that he was able to persuade city voters to enact changes, and only after the ’92 riots that he was able to prod the city’s power brokers to oust Police Chief Daryl F. Gates.
Since then, the work of transforming the LAPD into something other than an enforcer of racial oppression has been a constant challenge. But at the insistence of three successive mayors (James K. Hahn, Antonio Villaraigosa and Eric Garcetti), backed by a leftward moving electorate and with the help of federal oversight, the city has largely, if provisionally, met that challenge.
That leftward-moving electorate is partly the result of the city’s racial recomposition: The share of Angelenos-of-color has swelled since 1992, while that of whites has shrunk. But the politics and racial fears of L.A.’s whites have changed as well. In the center’s 1997 poll, a bare 27% of whites said race relations in the City of Angels were good — a figure considerably lower than those for blacks, Asians or Latinos.
Today, 81% of whites say the city’s different races are getting along swimmingly — a figure slightly higher than those for blacks, Asians or Latinos.
The post-riot white backlash that led Angelenos to elect Republican Richard Riordan (who ran on the slogan “Tough Enough to Turn L.A. Around”) as their mayor in 1993 (or, for that matter, to reelect the race-baiting Sam Yorty in 1969) isn’t really a feature of the city’s political landscape today — for good reasons (growing tolerance) but also some not so good (economic secession). Indeed, L.A.’s largely-but-not-entirely-white rich and many within the still-largely-white-but-more-diverse upper middle class have ascended to a socially liberal but economically cordoned-off world of private schools and services.
Disentangling race and class in an American city is all but impossible, but the rifts that have widened to a chasm in Los Angeles since 1992 are more those of class than of race. As in the rest of the nation, the middle class has dwindled while the working poor have become legion.
A city can work on its culture, its inter-group relations; it can reform its police and elect a racially representative leadership. Los Angeles has done all that. What a city can’t do on its own even if, like L.A., it raises the minimum wage to $15, is create a thriving middle class. That takes the resources and commitment of the federal government, and of a social movement, yet unborn, that’s powerful enough to reshape the broader economy.
We’re not rioting. That doesn’t mean all is well.
Harold Meyerson is executive editor of the American Prospect. He is a contributing writer to Opinion.
Most people say ethnic groups get along well in L.A., but poverty is just as pervasive as in 1992.
L.A.’S jobless rate may be half that of 1992, but Angelenos’ median income is actually lower than it was when the riots broke out. (Gary Friedman Los Angeles Times)
By Harold Meyerson
O n the 25th anniversary of the Rodney King riots, Los Angeles is glowing with racial amity — and festering with economic disparity. We all are getting along just fine, it seems, and by the way, many of us are very poor, even though we work as hard as we can.
That’s the takeaway from a remarkable poll released this week by Loyola Marymount’s Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles. Fully 76% of respondents say that racial and ethnic groups in L.A. are getting along well. In 1997, when the center first polled Angelenos, only 37% said racial and ethnic relations were good.
L.A.’s progress, however, has been strikingly uneven. As The Times noted in its report on the poll, the city’s unemployment rate may be half that of 1992, but Angelenos’ median income is actually lower than it was when the riots broke out, and the city’s poverty rate — 22% — is comparable to the level in the years preceding the riots.
The rising arc of race relations and the descending arc of broad-based prosperity illustrate the triumph and limitations of what a city can accomplish. In both 1965 and 1992, the riots that engulfed the city were provoked by a racist, brutal Police Department, and in the case of the ’92 outbreak, by a system of justice — personified by the all-white jury in Simi Valley that acquitted King’s blue-clad attackers — that all but shouted that black lives didn’t matter.
Tom Bradley, the city’s mayor from 1973 through 1993, tried repeatedly to change the culture and structure of the LAPD, but it was only after the televised airing of King’s beating that he was able to persuade city voters to enact changes, and only after the ’92 riots that he was able to prod the city’s power brokers to oust Police Chief Daryl F. Gates.
Since then, the work of transforming the LAPD into something other than an enforcer of racial oppression has been a constant challenge. But at the insistence of three successive mayors (James K. Hahn, Antonio Villaraigosa and Eric Garcetti), backed by a leftward moving electorate and with the help of federal oversight, the city has largely, if provisionally, met that challenge.
That leftward-moving electorate is partly the result of the city’s racial recomposition: The share of Angelenos-of-color has swelled since 1992, while that of whites has shrunk. But the politics and racial fears of L.A.’s whites have changed as well. In the center’s 1997 poll, a bare 27% of whites said race relations in the City of Angels were good — a figure considerably lower than those for blacks, Asians or Latinos.
Today, 81% of whites say the city’s different races are getting along swimmingly — a figure slightly higher than those for blacks, Asians or Latinos.
The post-riot white backlash that led Angelenos to elect Republican Richard Riordan (who ran on the slogan “Tough Enough to Turn L.A. Around”) as their mayor in 1993 (or, for that matter, to reelect the race-baiting Sam Yorty in 1969) isn’t really a feature of the city’s political landscape today — for good reasons (growing tolerance) but also some not so good (economic secession). Indeed, L.A.’s largely-but-not-entirely-white rich and many within the still-largely-white-but-more-diverse upper middle class have ascended to a socially liberal but economically cordoned-off world of private schools and services.
Disentangling race and class in an American city is all but impossible, but the rifts that have widened to a chasm in Los Angeles since 1992 are more those of class than of race. As in the rest of the nation, the middle class has dwindled while the working poor have become legion.
A city can work on its culture, its inter-group relations; it can reform its police and elect a racially representative leadership. Los Angeles has done all that. What a city can’t do on its own even if, like L.A., it raises the minimum wage to $15, is create a thriving middle class. That takes the resources and commitment of the federal government, and of a social movement, yet unborn, that’s powerful enough to reshape the broader economy.
We’re not rioting. That doesn’t mean all is well.
Harold Meyerson is executive editor of the American Prospect. He is a contributing writer to Opinion.
Apr 28, 2017 21:44:06 #
Apr 28, 2017 21:49:00 #
Trump’s tax-cut fantasy
Congressional Republicans’ plan is cruel by design, but the president’s is intellectually dishonest.
By Edward D. Kleinbard
T he Republican Party is devoted to tax reform, by which it really means tax cuts, but underneath this apparent laser-like focus lie conflicting schools of thought. The one embraced by President Trump is the Candy Land School.
The Candy Land School argues that tax cuts are always good, and that resulting government deficits are inconsequential, ostensibly because those tax cuts will trigger unprecedented economic growth that in turn will yield even higher tax revenues. It promises gifts for all today, and assumes away tomorrow.
Empirical evidence from the last several decades points to the conclusion that changes in U.S. tax rates do not map neatly onto the path of economic growth. One important reason for this is that the United States already has some of the lowest tax rates in the world — as a percentage of national income (gross domestic product), the second lowest among all large economies.
Americans already keep the lion’s share of their income, and so changes in tax rates do not radically alter economic incentives. Well-designed tax reform, particularly of the corporate tax, can improve growth prospects somewhat, and thereby mitigate the cost of reductions in rates. That is not the same as tax cuts paying for themselves.
Economic growth cannot magically be summoned through any simplistic incantation. Moreover, the U.S. today faces a fundamental demographic challenge to growth: the increasing portion of the population that is over 65. Within the next couple of decades, the number of Americans over 65 will increase by 50% compared with adults under that age. Of course, the elderly are expensive to maintain — they earn less and consume more social insurance than do younger and healthier adults.
Deficits do matter, at least when they reach the magnitudes created by Candy Land logic. The reason is simple: Deficits are funded through government borrowing. As government borrowing balloons, an ever-increasing percentage of government spending must be devoted simply to servicing the outstanding debt, which leaves less for all other government activities.
Moreover, private firms find it more and more expensive to borrow to fund their businesses, because they must compete with the government for investors’ money. This results either in a “crowding out” of businesses from the debt markets, or, for more complex reasons, an increase in U.S. trade deficits. Taken together, these consequences mean that large-scale Candy Land tax cuts actually are anti-growth moves, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly warned.
The right way to think about government debt is to compare it with our national income, because in the end it’s our income that will service our debt. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio today stands at about 77%; at the end of World War II, the highest point on record, it was a bit over 100%. According to the CBO — the official scorekeepers — we already are on a path for the debt-to-GDP ratio to hit 150% in 30 years; a $2-trillion Candy Land-style tax cut would send that ratio to something in the neighborhood of 200%.
The sad and sober truth is that Americans are undertaxed. We are undertaxed relative to the government-investment and social-insurance programs we all demand, and we are profoundly undertaxed relative to our peer countries. Today, all levels of U.S. government, combined, collect about 26% of GDP in taxes. In Germany, a reasonably successful capitalist economy, that figure is 37%.
Eleven percentage points of GDP in government revenue would translate to more than $2 trillion this year alone — $2 trillion that could go toward eliminating the deficit and funding important programs, such as better healthcare and improved infrastructure. Such a steep tax increase is unrealistic, but the problem with government lies in its systematic underfunding relative to the demands we place on it.
The competing Republican school of thought, embraced by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, has as its objective the dismantling of social insurance of all forms, with the resulting savings redistributed to the affluent through tax cuts. We can think of it as the Cruella de Vil School of fiscal policy.
The failed “repeal and replace” bill was in fact not healthcare legislation, but rather a tax bill along these lines. Its principal objective was to remove Medicaid insurance protection for millions of low-income Americans and transfer the savings to high-income taxpayers. The Cruella de Vil School is mean-spirited and inconsistent with the actual desires of most Americans, but unlike the Candy Land School, it is at least intellectually honest.
Trump’s proposed Candy Land giveaways probably are not a serious legislative proposal at all, but simply a grandstanding play to his base. Republican leadership in Congress will give it the short shrift it deserves. But the underlying theme that what this country needs is a big tax cut is seductive, politically salient and profoundly wrong. It’s time for a more honest appraisal of how to go about financing the government we actually want.
Edward D. Kleinbard is a professor at USC’s law school. He was formerly chief of staff for Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.
Congressional Republicans’ plan is cruel by design, but the president’s is intellectually dishonest.
By Edward D. Kleinbard
T he Republican Party is devoted to tax reform, by which it really means tax cuts, but underneath this apparent laser-like focus lie conflicting schools of thought. The one embraced by President Trump is the Candy Land School.
The Candy Land School argues that tax cuts are always good, and that resulting government deficits are inconsequential, ostensibly because those tax cuts will trigger unprecedented economic growth that in turn will yield even higher tax revenues. It promises gifts for all today, and assumes away tomorrow.
Empirical evidence from the last several decades points to the conclusion that changes in U.S. tax rates do not map neatly onto the path of economic growth. One important reason for this is that the United States already has some of the lowest tax rates in the world — as a percentage of national income (gross domestic product), the second lowest among all large economies.
Americans already keep the lion’s share of their income, and so changes in tax rates do not radically alter economic incentives. Well-designed tax reform, particularly of the corporate tax, can improve growth prospects somewhat, and thereby mitigate the cost of reductions in rates. That is not the same as tax cuts paying for themselves.
Economic growth cannot magically be summoned through any simplistic incantation. Moreover, the U.S. today faces a fundamental demographic challenge to growth: the increasing portion of the population that is over 65. Within the next couple of decades, the number of Americans over 65 will increase by 50% compared with adults under that age. Of course, the elderly are expensive to maintain — they earn less and consume more social insurance than do younger and healthier adults.
Deficits do matter, at least when they reach the magnitudes created by Candy Land logic. The reason is simple: Deficits are funded through government borrowing. As government borrowing balloons, an ever-increasing percentage of government spending must be devoted simply to servicing the outstanding debt, which leaves less for all other government activities.
Moreover, private firms find it more and more expensive to borrow to fund their businesses, because they must compete with the government for investors’ money. This results either in a “crowding out” of businesses from the debt markets, or, for more complex reasons, an increase in U.S. trade deficits. Taken together, these consequences mean that large-scale Candy Land tax cuts actually are anti-growth moves, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly warned.
The right way to think about government debt is to compare it with our national income, because in the end it’s our income that will service our debt. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio today stands at about 77%; at the end of World War II, the highest point on record, it was a bit over 100%. According to the CBO — the official scorekeepers — we already are on a path for the debt-to-GDP ratio to hit 150% in 30 years; a $2-trillion Candy Land-style tax cut would send that ratio to something in the neighborhood of 200%.
The sad and sober truth is that Americans are undertaxed. We are undertaxed relative to the government-investment and social-insurance programs we all demand, and we are profoundly undertaxed relative to our peer countries. Today, all levels of U.S. government, combined, collect about 26% of GDP in taxes. In Germany, a reasonably successful capitalist economy, that figure is 37%.
Eleven percentage points of GDP in government revenue would translate to more than $2 trillion this year alone — $2 trillion that could go toward eliminating the deficit and funding important programs, such as better healthcare and improved infrastructure. Such a steep tax increase is unrealistic, but the problem with government lies in its systematic underfunding relative to the demands we place on it.
The competing Republican school of thought, embraced by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, has as its objective the dismantling of social insurance of all forms, with the resulting savings redistributed to the affluent through tax cuts. We can think of it as the Cruella de Vil School of fiscal policy.
The failed “repeal and replace” bill was in fact not healthcare legislation, but rather a tax bill along these lines. Its principal objective was to remove Medicaid insurance protection for millions of low-income Americans and transfer the savings to high-income taxpayers. The Cruella de Vil School is mean-spirited and inconsistent with the actual desires of most Americans, but unlike the Candy Land School, it is at least intellectually honest.
Trump’s proposed Candy Land giveaways probably are not a serious legislative proposal at all, but simply a grandstanding play to his base. Republican leadership in Congress will give it the short shrift it deserves. But the underlying theme that what this country needs is a big tax cut is seductive, politically salient and profoundly wrong. It’s time for a more honest appraisal of how to go about financing the government we actually want.
Edward D. Kleinbard is a professor at USC’s law school. He was formerly chief of staff for Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.
Check out topic: Hertz and EV's
Apr 29, 2017 11:34:02 #
Progressive One wrote:
Ben Carson Is Proving To Be A Bizarre And Incompetent Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, As Expected
http://www.nationalmemo.com/ben-carson-proving-be-bizarre-and-incompetent-secretary-housing-and-urban/
http://www.nationalmemo.com/ben-carson-proving-be-bizarre-and-incompetent-secretary-housing-and-urban/
Because he's black???
Apr 29, 2017 16:59:12 #
At U.N., Tillerson calls for action on Korea
Hours after his speech, Pyongyang fires another missile.
SECRETARY OF STATE Rex Tillerson called North Korea “the most pressing security issue in the world” and urged additional sanctions against the country. At right is Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. (Justin Lane European Pressphoto Agency)
By Tracy Wilkinson
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday urged the United Nations Security Council to impose new economic sanctions on North Korea, warning of a “catastrophic” outcome if the world fails to block Pyongyang’s rush to develop a nuclear warhead that it can put atop a long-range missile.
In his debut speech at the U.N., Tillerson also urged Security Council members to further isolate Kim Jong Un’s government by suspending or downgrading diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, and threatened to slap penalties on third-party countries that don’t comply with existing sanctions.
Hours after Tillerson spoke, North Korea’s military launched a ballistic missile from north of Pyongyang that apparently crashed nearby or in waters just offshore. U.S. Pacific Command spokesman Cmdr. David Benham said in a statement that the missile “did not leave North Korean territory.”
The White House said President Trump was briefed on the launch. It’s not known if the missile was meant as a rebuke to the White House, or was just the latest of at least seven short- and mid-range missile tests Pyongyang has conducted this year, several of which have failed.
Either way, it served to keep nerves on edge in Washington and other capitals over North Korea’s growing nuclear capabilities, a threat that the White House considers its most immediate international concern.
“Failing to act now on the most pressing security issue in the world may bring catastrophic consequences,” Tillerson told the Security Council. “Additional patience will only mean acceptance of a nuclear North Korea.”
He said the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack on Seoul or Tokyo is real and that it is “likely only a matter of time” before Pyongyang gains the ability to launch a nuclear-armed missile at the U.S. mainland, probably California.
Tillerson’s address to foreign ministers from the 14 other nations in the Security Council was part of a U.S. campaign to ratchet up pressure on Pyongyang before it can conduct its sixth underground nuclear test or test-launch its first intercontinental ballistic missile.
He spoke a day after Trump warned that a “major, major conflict” with North Korea was possible, although he said he was seeking a diplomatic solution.
The standoff over North Korea’s determined push to expand its nuclear arsenal and to develop more powerful missiles has sparked tensions since the mid-1990s, and previous diplomatic efforts under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all ultimately failed.
U.S. arms experts believe Pyongyang is within several years of building a nuclear warhead small enough and robust enough for a missile to carry it across the Pacific, and then survive the intense heat of reentry into the atmosphere.
The Pentagon sent an aircraft carrier strike force and a nuclear submarine to northeast Asia in the last week in what U.S. officials described as a show of support for allies South Korea and Japan, as well as a warning to North Korea.
Trump’s national security team also briefed members of Congress, including an unusual briefing in a White House annex for the 100 members of the Senate.
Most Pentagon planners say Kim’s military, which has thousands of artillery pieces in range of Seoul, South Korea’s capital, could inflict significant damage on the city of 10 million if hostilities broke out. Korean missiles also can reach Japan.
The White House has sought to persuade China to do more to rein in North Korea, its neighbor and communist ally, and Trump has praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for his cooperation on the issue.
After the missile launch, Trump on Friday tweeted: “North Korea disrespected the wishes of China & its highly respected President when it launched, though unsuccessfully, a missile today. Bad!”
But Tillerson found little support at the U.N. from China and Russia when he called for new penalties on entities and individuals that support North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, and for nations to better enforce sanctions already in place, said to be among the most stringent ever used.
Tillerson called on nations to sever trade with Pyongyang, to discontinue guest worker programs involving North Koreans, and to ban imports, especially coal. China, which is the outlet for 90% of North Korea’s foreign trade, suspended all coal imports from the country in February.
The U.S. “would much prefer countries and people in question own up to their lapses and correct their behavior themselves, but we will not hesitate to sanction third-country entities and individuals supporting [North Korea’s] illegal activities,” Tillerson said.
China and Russia are both permanent members of the Security Council and thus could veto additional sanctions.
Their diplomats cautioned against Washington’s threat to use military force. China’s foreign minister called for resuming negotiations to ease the crisis.
“It is necessary to put aside the debate over who should take the first step and stop arguing who is right and who is wrong,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the Security Council. “Now is the time to seriously consider resuming talks.”
Tillerson didn’t rule out future talks, but he said North Korea had to “exhibit a good-faith commitment” to abide by existing U.N. resolutions by abandoning its nuclear program, something Kim’s government has sworn it will not do.
He repeated a recent flurry of U.S. warnings that the Trump administration is prepared to use military force, if necessary, to constrain North Korea from developing a nuclear threat.
“All options for responding to future provocation must remain on the table,” Tillerson said.
tracy.wilkinson@latimes.com
Hours after his speech, Pyongyang fires another missile.
SECRETARY OF STATE Rex Tillerson called North Korea “the most pressing security issue in the world” and urged additional sanctions against the country. At right is Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. (Justin Lane European Pressphoto Agency)
By Tracy Wilkinson
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday urged the United Nations Security Council to impose new economic sanctions on North Korea, warning of a “catastrophic” outcome if the world fails to block Pyongyang’s rush to develop a nuclear warhead that it can put atop a long-range missile.
In his debut speech at the U.N., Tillerson also urged Security Council members to further isolate Kim Jong Un’s government by suspending or downgrading diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, and threatened to slap penalties on third-party countries that don’t comply with existing sanctions.
Hours after Tillerson spoke, North Korea’s military launched a ballistic missile from north of Pyongyang that apparently crashed nearby or in waters just offshore. U.S. Pacific Command spokesman Cmdr. David Benham said in a statement that the missile “did not leave North Korean territory.”
The White House said President Trump was briefed on the launch. It’s not known if the missile was meant as a rebuke to the White House, or was just the latest of at least seven short- and mid-range missile tests Pyongyang has conducted this year, several of which have failed.
Either way, it served to keep nerves on edge in Washington and other capitals over North Korea’s growing nuclear capabilities, a threat that the White House considers its most immediate international concern.
“Failing to act now on the most pressing security issue in the world may bring catastrophic consequences,” Tillerson told the Security Council. “Additional patience will only mean acceptance of a nuclear North Korea.”
He said the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack on Seoul or Tokyo is real and that it is “likely only a matter of time” before Pyongyang gains the ability to launch a nuclear-armed missile at the U.S. mainland, probably California.
Tillerson’s address to foreign ministers from the 14 other nations in the Security Council was part of a U.S. campaign to ratchet up pressure on Pyongyang before it can conduct its sixth underground nuclear test or test-launch its first intercontinental ballistic missile.
He spoke a day after Trump warned that a “major, major conflict” with North Korea was possible, although he said he was seeking a diplomatic solution.
The standoff over North Korea’s determined push to expand its nuclear arsenal and to develop more powerful missiles has sparked tensions since the mid-1990s, and previous diplomatic efforts under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all ultimately failed.
U.S. arms experts believe Pyongyang is within several years of building a nuclear warhead small enough and robust enough for a missile to carry it across the Pacific, and then survive the intense heat of reentry into the atmosphere.
The Pentagon sent an aircraft carrier strike force and a nuclear submarine to northeast Asia in the last week in what U.S. officials described as a show of support for allies South Korea and Japan, as well as a warning to North Korea.
Trump’s national security team also briefed members of Congress, including an unusual briefing in a White House annex for the 100 members of the Senate.
Most Pentagon planners say Kim’s military, which has thousands of artillery pieces in range of Seoul, South Korea’s capital, could inflict significant damage on the city of 10 million if hostilities broke out. Korean missiles also can reach Japan.
The White House has sought to persuade China to do more to rein in North Korea, its neighbor and communist ally, and Trump has praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for his cooperation on the issue.
After the missile launch, Trump on Friday tweeted: “North Korea disrespected the wishes of China & its highly respected President when it launched, though unsuccessfully, a missile today. Bad!”
But Tillerson found little support at the U.N. from China and Russia when he called for new penalties on entities and individuals that support North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, and for nations to better enforce sanctions already in place, said to be among the most stringent ever used.
Tillerson called on nations to sever trade with Pyongyang, to discontinue guest worker programs involving North Koreans, and to ban imports, especially coal. China, which is the outlet for 90% of North Korea’s foreign trade, suspended all coal imports from the country in February.
The U.S. “would much prefer countries and people in question own up to their lapses and correct their behavior themselves, but we will not hesitate to sanction third-country entities and individuals supporting [North Korea’s] illegal activities,” Tillerson said.
China and Russia are both permanent members of the Security Council and thus could veto additional sanctions.
Their diplomats cautioned against Washington’s threat to use military force. China’s foreign minister called for resuming negotiations to ease the crisis.
“It is necessary to put aside the debate over who should take the first step and stop arguing who is right and who is wrong,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the Security Council. “Now is the time to seriously consider resuming talks.”
Tillerson didn’t rule out future talks, but he said North Korea had to “exhibit a good-faith commitment” to abide by existing U.N. resolutions by abandoning its nuclear program, something Kim’s government has sworn it will not do.
He repeated a recent flurry of U.S. warnings that the Trump administration is prepared to use military force, if necessary, to constrain North Korea from developing a nuclear threat.
“All options for responding to future provocation must remain on the table,” Tillerson said.
tracy.wilkinson@latimes.com
Apr 29, 2017 17:01:38 #
Shutdown averted – for this week
Congress approves a stopgap spending bill as Obamacare repeal effort stalls again.
“THANKFULLY FOR the American people, the president failed,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said of border wall funding. Democratic votes are needed to pass most measures to stop shutdowns. (Jim Lo Scalzo European Pressphoto Agency)
By Lisa Mascaro
WASHINGTON — Congress avoided a government shutdown Friday ahead of President Trump’s 100th day in office, but Republicans failed to serve up a decisive legislative accomplishment for the White House as party leaders shelved another attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
The House approved a temporary spending bill, 382 to 30, providing a weeklong extension of federal funding as negotiators continue to hash out a broader deal to keep government running until the end of the fiscal year this fall. The Senate unanimously followed before Friday’s midnight deadline, when funding was set to expire.
The final deal is expected to include a boost in military spending, though smaller than what Trump wanted, and other provisions, including continued federal assistance to prop up a pension fund for retired coal miners that both parties support. Talks will continue next week.
Trump orchestrated the 100-day spending showdown shortly after he won the election, insisting last year that Congress fund the government only through April 28 so he could put his stamp on federal spending once he took office.
However, the president’s demands for funds to build a border wall with Mexico and his threat to withhold some payments for Obamacare fell by the wayside as even Republicans, who have the majority in the House and Senate, panned those initiatives .
Because Republicans have stark divisions within their ranks over spending levels, they must rely on Democrats, also resistant to Trump’s priorities, for passage of most measures to prevent shutdowns.
Democrats quickly rejected Trump’s push for border wall funding.
“Americans know that $50 billion, if that’s what the wall will cost, is far better spent laying broadband throughout America, rebuilding our roads and bridges, doing things that help Americans,” said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) “Thankfully for the American people, the president failed.”
Democrats also are fighting other policy riders that Republicans want to attach to the spending bill, including those related to abortion access, regulations on financial services professionals and one to limit oversight of various flavors of electronic cigarettes, aides said.
Trump balked at including funds for Puerto Rico, which is seeking federal aid for its struggling Medicaid program, but that money is likely now to be included in the final deal as talks continue.
Congressional leaders hope to reach a consensus in the days ahead so they can avoid another standoff next week, with the just-passed temporary funding for government operations set to expire Friday.
A late push to salvage the Republican promise of dismantling Obamacare also was delayed when it became clear there still were not enough votes of support from rank-and-file lawmakers, many of whom are concerned their constituents will lose their health insurance.
Lawmakers left town for the weekend frustrated after making only halting progress on either issue.
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) said he expected the House to vote “as soon as possible” on the latest version of the Obamacare repeal. A vote last month was shelved amid similar dissent .
“We’re close, but we have some work to do,” said a GOP leadership aide who was granted anonymity to discuss the ongoing situation.
The GOP healthcare bill continues to face stiff headwinds, particularly from centrist Republicans, after leaders embraced an amendment designed to appease the most conservative lawmakers.
The provision would allow states to waive many of the regulations Obamacare slapped on insurers, which are some of the most popular parts of the law, including mental-health coverage, maternity coverage and a ban on charging higher rates for patients with preexisting conditions.
While the changes generated new support from GOP lawmakers in the conservative House Freedom Caucus, they are driving away others in more centrist districts, like Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, who is now leaning against supporting the bill.
Fellow Florida GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen remains opposed, saying, “The proposed changes to this bill would leave too many of my constituents with preexisting conditions paying more for health insurance coverage, and too many of them will even be left without any coverage at all.”
The White House sent mixed signals. Trump wanted to move on to other issues after the March vote was abandoned, but then made a push for this latest version. But it did not appear that administration officials were heavily engaged in efforts to round up votes this week.
There were few signs of shuttle diplomacy between the White House and Capitol Hill as leaders struggled to find votes. GOP aides say they ended the week having made a net gain in votes, but still not enough for passage amid a wall of opposition from Democrats.
lisa.mascaro@latimes.com
Congress approves a stopgap spending bill as Obamacare repeal effort stalls again.
“THANKFULLY FOR the American people, the president failed,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said of border wall funding. Democratic votes are needed to pass most measures to stop shutdowns. (Jim Lo Scalzo European Pressphoto Agency)
By Lisa Mascaro
WASHINGTON — Congress avoided a government shutdown Friday ahead of President Trump’s 100th day in office, but Republicans failed to serve up a decisive legislative accomplishment for the White House as party leaders shelved another attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
The House approved a temporary spending bill, 382 to 30, providing a weeklong extension of federal funding as negotiators continue to hash out a broader deal to keep government running until the end of the fiscal year this fall. The Senate unanimously followed before Friday’s midnight deadline, when funding was set to expire.
The final deal is expected to include a boost in military spending, though smaller than what Trump wanted, and other provisions, including continued federal assistance to prop up a pension fund for retired coal miners that both parties support. Talks will continue next week.
Trump orchestrated the 100-day spending showdown shortly after he won the election, insisting last year that Congress fund the government only through April 28 so he could put his stamp on federal spending once he took office.
However, the president’s demands for funds to build a border wall with Mexico and his threat to withhold some payments for Obamacare fell by the wayside as even Republicans, who have the majority in the House and Senate, panned those initiatives .
Because Republicans have stark divisions within their ranks over spending levels, they must rely on Democrats, also resistant to Trump’s priorities, for passage of most measures to prevent shutdowns.
Democrats quickly rejected Trump’s push for border wall funding.
“Americans know that $50 billion, if that’s what the wall will cost, is far better spent laying broadband throughout America, rebuilding our roads and bridges, doing things that help Americans,” said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) “Thankfully for the American people, the president failed.”
Democrats also are fighting other policy riders that Republicans want to attach to the spending bill, including those related to abortion access, regulations on financial services professionals and one to limit oversight of various flavors of electronic cigarettes, aides said.
Trump balked at including funds for Puerto Rico, which is seeking federal aid for its struggling Medicaid program, but that money is likely now to be included in the final deal as talks continue.
Congressional leaders hope to reach a consensus in the days ahead so they can avoid another standoff next week, with the just-passed temporary funding for government operations set to expire Friday.
A late push to salvage the Republican promise of dismantling Obamacare also was delayed when it became clear there still were not enough votes of support from rank-and-file lawmakers, many of whom are concerned their constituents will lose their health insurance.
Lawmakers left town for the weekend frustrated after making only halting progress on either issue.
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) said he expected the House to vote “as soon as possible” on the latest version of the Obamacare repeal. A vote last month was shelved amid similar dissent .
“We’re close, but we have some work to do,” said a GOP leadership aide who was granted anonymity to discuss the ongoing situation.
The GOP healthcare bill continues to face stiff headwinds, particularly from centrist Republicans, after leaders embraced an amendment designed to appease the most conservative lawmakers.
The provision would allow states to waive many of the regulations Obamacare slapped on insurers, which are some of the most popular parts of the law, including mental-health coverage, maternity coverage and a ban on charging higher rates for patients with preexisting conditions.
While the changes generated new support from GOP lawmakers in the conservative House Freedom Caucus, they are driving away others in more centrist districts, like Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, who is now leaning against supporting the bill.
Fellow Florida GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen remains opposed, saying, “The proposed changes to this bill would leave too many of my constituents with preexisting conditions paying more for health insurance coverage, and too many of them will even be left without any coverage at all.”
The White House sent mixed signals. Trump wanted to move on to other issues after the March vote was abandoned, but then made a push for this latest version. But it did not appear that administration officials were heavily engaged in efforts to round up votes this week.
There were few signs of shuttle diplomacy between the White House and Capitol Hill as leaders struggled to find votes. GOP aides say they ended the week having made a net gain in votes, but still not enough for passage amid a wall of opposition from Democrats.
lisa.mascaro@latimes.com
Apr 29, 2017 22:11:07 #
Economic growth stumbles to worst rate in two years
CONSUMER SPENDING grew just 0.3% in the first quarter, down from 3.5% the previous quarter. The slowdown was driven by a steep drop-off in purchases of long-lasting durable goods such as automobiles. (Gene J. Puskar Associated Press)
By Jim Puzzanghera
The economy stumbled at the start of 2017, expanding at its slowest pace in two years in a demonstration of the difficulty that President Trump will have in boosting growth to a much stronger sustained level.
Total economic output, also known as gross domestic product, increased at just a 0.7% annual rate from January through March as consumer spending posted its worst performance in more than seven years, the Commerce Department said Friday in its first of three official estimates.
The economy grew at a 2.1% annual rate in the fourth quarter of last year.
“Growth of less than 1% means the wheels are up but the economy’s engines cannot gain any altitude,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group in New York.
“Trump’s economics team needs to step up their game as the economy is starting out the year in a hole,” he said.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the report showed that the economy needed help tax cuts and regulatory reductions promised by Trump.
“Business and consumer sentiment is strong, but both must be released from the regulatory and tax shackles constraining economic growth,” Ross said.
Analysts had forecast a first-quarter slowdown, but the 0.7% growth was below expectations. It was the worst since the first quarter of 2014, when unusually bad weather in much of the country and a West Coast port dispute caused the economy to contract at a 1.2% annual rate.
In unveiling a tax overhaul plan this week that would slash business rates, Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said the administration hoped it would lead to sustained growth of 3% a year.
But economists said an aging U.S. population and unhealed scars from the Great Recession made that a stretch.
Friday’s data highlighted the difficulties. Although consumer confidence has improved significantly since Trump’s election in November, that didn’t lead Americans to open their wallets after he took office.
Consumer spending grew just 0.3% in the first quarter, down from 3.5% the previous quarter.
The slowdown was driven by a steep drop-off in purchases of long-lasting durable goods, such as automobiles, appliances and electronics. After an 11.4% increase in the fourth quarter, those purchases declined 2.5% in the first three months of this year.
The last time consumer spending was weaker was the fourth quarter of 2009, six months after the Great Recession officially ended.
Overall growth also took a hit from a decline in spending by federal, state and local governments. And unseasonably warm weather appeared to cause spending on utilities to drop.
There were some positive signs in an otherwise downbeat report.
Business investment, which has been sluggish the last couple of years, increased sharply. The 9.4% increase was more than 10 times the previous quarter’s number and the best since the fourth quarter of 2013.
And U.S. exports increased 5.8% in the first quarter, reversing a 4.5% decline the previous quarter.
jim.puzzanghera@latimes.com
CONSUMER SPENDING grew just 0.3% in the first quarter, down from 3.5% the previous quarter. The slowdown was driven by a steep drop-off in purchases of long-lasting durable goods such as automobiles. (Gene J. Puskar Associated Press)
By Jim Puzzanghera
The economy stumbled at the start of 2017, expanding at its slowest pace in two years in a demonstration of the difficulty that President Trump will have in boosting growth to a much stronger sustained level.
Total economic output, also known as gross domestic product, increased at just a 0.7% annual rate from January through March as consumer spending posted its worst performance in more than seven years, the Commerce Department said Friday in its first of three official estimates.
The economy grew at a 2.1% annual rate in the fourth quarter of last year.
“Growth of less than 1% means the wheels are up but the economy’s engines cannot gain any altitude,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group in New York.
“Trump’s economics team needs to step up their game as the economy is starting out the year in a hole,” he said.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the report showed that the economy needed help tax cuts and regulatory reductions promised by Trump.
“Business and consumer sentiment is strong, but both must be released from the regulatory and tax shackles constraining economic growth,” Ross said.
Analysts had forecast a first-quarter slowdown, but the 0.7% growth was below expectations. It was the worst since the first quarter of 2014, when unusually bad weather in much of the country and a West Coast port dispute caused the economy to contract at a 1.2% annual rate.
In unveiling a tax overhaul plan this week that would slash business rates, Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said the administration hoped it would lead to sustained growth of 3% a year.
But economists said an aging U.S. population and unhealed scars from the Great Recession made that a stretch.
Friday’s data highlighted the difficulties. Although consumer confidence has improved significantly since Trump’s election in November, that didn’t lead Americans to open their wallets after he took office.
Consumer spending grew just 0.3% in the first quarter, down from 3.5% the previous quarter.
The slowdown was driven by a steep drop-off in purchases of long-lasting durable goods, such as automobiles, appliances and electronics. After an 11.4% increase in the fourth quarter, those purchases declined 2.5% in the first three months of this year.
The last time consumer spending was weaker was the fourth quarter of 2009, six months after the Great Recession officially ended.
Overall growth also took a hit from a decline in spending by federal, state and local governments. And unseasonably warm weather appeared to cause spending on utilities to drop.
There were some positive signs in an otherwise downbeat report.
Business investment, which has been sluggish the last couple of years, increased sharply. The 9.4% increase was more than 10 times the previous quarter’s number and the best since the fourth quarter of 2013.
And U.S. exports increased 5.8% in the first quarter, reversing a 4.5% decline the previous quarter.
jim.puzzanghera@latimes.com
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.