Trump is the Biggest Failure in History As His Disapproval Rating Skyrockets to 58%
Apr 30, 2017 10:46:21 #
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
Facts are a bitch, aren't they?
WOW!! Donald must be like Hitler - he has 2 arms.
Apr 30, 2017 14:41:24 #
The beginning of fking off the economy as always:
Washington Secrets
Pence: 'Short term' deficit growth possible under Trump tax plan
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pence-short-term-deficit-growth-possible-under-trump-tax-plan/article/2621703
Washington Secrets
Pence: 'Short term' deficit growth possible under Trump tax plan
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pence-short-term-deficit-growth-possible-under-trump-tax-plan/article/2621703
Apr 30, 2017 14:43:05 #
Analysis
‘Sanctuary’ cities’ odd allies
Conservative legal opinions from years past may bring victory to liberal localities.
PROTESTERS gather outside a San Francisco courthouse this month where a federal judge later blocked enforcement of President Trump’s “sanctuary” city executive order, resting his ruling on high court decisions. (Haven Daley Associated Press)
By David G. Savage
WASHINGTON — Liberal “sanctuary” cities in California and elsewhere may well win their legal battle against President Trump thanks to Supreme Court rulings once heralded by conservatives, including a 2012 opinion that shielded red states from President Obama’s plans to expand Medicaid coverage for low-income Americans.
On Tuesday, a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily blocked enforcement of Trump’s sanctuary city executive order, resting his ruling on high court decisions that protected states and localities from federal meddling.
In the 2012 case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said it was unconstitutional for Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress to demand that GOP-led states expand Medicaid or face the threat of losing federal Medicaid money. That is akin to “a gun to the head,” he said, leaving the states no choice but to comply.
The same is true with Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick said in Tuesday’s decision. Trump’s Jan. 25 order declared that jurisdictions that do not fully comply with federal immigration enforcement laws “do not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law.”
It was not clear what funds would be withheld, but Trump in a TV interview said he could use “defunding” as a “weapon” to force the cities to get in line.
Orrick said San Francisco and Santa Clara County took the threat of a funding cutoff seriously, just as the Republican states said they feared a cutoff of their Medicaid money. This threat is “unconstitutionally coercive,” he said. “The executive order threatens to deny sanctuary jurisdictions all federal grants, hundreds of millions of dollars on which the counties rely.”
Orrick, an Obama appointee, quoted from a 1997 opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia that shielded county sheriffs from conducting background checks on new gun buyers. The Brady Act required local police chiefs to check to see whether new buyers were eligible to own a handgun, but county sheriffs in Montana and elsewhere refused, arguing that the federal government could not force them to comply.
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court agreed. “The federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program,” Scalia said. It may not “command the states’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”
Scalia’s words about federal background checks apply equally to the federal government’s effort to arrest and detain immigrants who are subject to deportation, Orrick said. Although cities and counties may choose to aid federal immigration officers, “the executive order uses coercive means in an attempt to force states and local jurisdictions to honor civil detainer requests,” he wrote. He said this violates the 10th Amendment, which leaves some power “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University in Arlington, Va., described Orrick’s decision as “an important victory for both federalism and separation of powers. Some conservative Republicans may not like the outcome of this specific case,” he wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog. “But they will have reason to celebrate it the next time a liberal Democratic president tries a similar move.”
On Wednesday, Trump called the decision “ridiculous” in a tweet. “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities — both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court,” he wrote.
Lawyers for the administration say it is simply trying to enforce a provision of federal law that says a state or local government “may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
The executive order pledges to enforce this provision to the “fullest extent of the law.” However, the order did not carefully define what is a sanctuary city and what officials must do to be in compliance with the federal law.
Because Orrick is a district judge in San Francisco, the administration will appeal first to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If it loses there, it can appeal to the Supreme Court.
Next month, the 4th Circuit Court in Virginia and the 9th Circuit in California will hear the administration’s appeals of a pair of judges’ rulings that blocked Trump’s revised travel ban on people coming from six mostly Muslim countries. There, the administration can argue that the Constitution and federal law give the executive broad power to restrict who enters the country.
By contrast, the dispute over sanctuary cities turns on the president’s power over states and localities. The administration may face an uphill fight.
In Orrick’s courtroom, administration lawyers tried to save the executive order by arguing that it was legally meaningless and would not threaten funds going to San Francisco or Santa Clara.
Somin said the administration will face a stiff challenge.
“If the case gets to the Supreme Court, which I am not at all sure would happen, I think it’s likely that either the court would rule along the same as lines as Judge Orrick,” he said, or perhaps opt for the administration’s view that the order is exceedingly narrow and “largely meaningless.”
david.savage@latimes.com
‘Sanctuary’ cities’ odd allies
Conservative legal opinions from years past may bring victory to liberal localities.
PROTESTERS gather outside a San Francisco courthouse this month where a federal judge later blocked enforcement of President Trump’s “sanctuary” city executive order, resting his ruling on high court decisions. (Haven Daley Associated Press)
By David G. Savage
WASHINGTON — Liberal “sanctuary” cities in California and elsewhere may well win their legal battle against President Trump thanks to Supreme Court rulings once heralded by conservatives, including a 2012 opinion that shielded red states from President Obama’s plans to expand Medicaid coverage for low-income Americans.
On Tuesday, a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily blocked enforcement of Trump’s sanctuary city executive order, resting his ruling on high court decisions that protected states and localities from federal meddling.
In the 2012 case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said it was unconstitutional for Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress to demand that GOP-led states expand Medicaid or face the threat of losing federal Medicaid money. That is akin to “a gun to the head,” he said, leaving the states no choice but to comply.
The same is true with Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick said in Tuesday’s decision. Trump’s Jan. 25 order declared that jurisdictions that do not fully comply with federal immigration enforcement laws “do not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law.”
It was not clear what funds would be withheld, but Trump in a TV interview said he could use “defunding” as a “weapon” to force the cities to get in line.
Orrick said San Francisco and Santa Clara County took the threat of a funding cutoff seriously, just as the Republican states said they feared a cutoff of their Medicaid money. This threat is “unconstitutionally coercive,” he said. “The executive order threatens to deny sanctuary jurisdictions all federal grants, hundreds of millions of dollars on which the counties rely.”
Orrick, an Obama appointee, quoted from a 1997 opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia that shielded county sheriffs from conducting background checks on new gun buyers. The Brady Act required local police chiefs to check to see whether new buyers were eligible to own a handgun, but county sheriffs in Montana and elsewhere refused, arguing that the federal government could not force them to comply.
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court agreed. “The federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program,” Scalia said. It may not “command the states’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”
Scalia’s words about federal background checks apply equally to the federal government’s effort to arrest and detain immigrants who are subject to deportation, Orrick said. Although cities and counties may choose to aid federal immigration officers, “the executive order uses coercive means in an attempt to force states and local jurisdictions to honor civil detainer requests,” he wrote. He said this violates the 10th Amendment, which leaves some power “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University in Arlington, Va., described Orrick’s decision as “an important victory for both federalism and separation of powers. Some conservative Republicans may not like the outcome of this specific case,” he wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog. “But they will have reason to celebrate it the next time a liberal Democratic president tries a similar move.”
On Wednesday, Trump called the decision “ridiculous” in a tweet. “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities — both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court,” he wrote.
Lawyers for the administration say it is simply trying to enforce a provision of federal law that says a state or local government “may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
The executive order pledges to enforce this provision to the “fullest extent of the law.” However, the order did not carefully define what is a sanctuary city and what officials must do to be in compliance with the federal law.
Because Orrick is a district judge in San Francisco, the administration will appeal first to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If it loses there, it can appeal to the Supreme Court.
Next month, the 4th Circuit Court in Virginia and the 9th Circuit in California will hear the administration’s appeals of a pair of judges’ rulings that blocked Trump’s revised travel ban on people coming from six mostly Muslim countries. There, the administration can argue that the Constitution and federal law give the executive broad power to restrict who enters the country.
By contrast, the dispute over sanctuary cities turns on the president’s power over states and localities. The administration may face an uphill fight.
In Orrick’s courtroom, administration lawyers tried to save the executive order by arguing that it was legally meaningless and would not threaten funds going to San Francisco or Santa Clara.
Somin said the administration will face a stiff challenge.
“If the case gets to the Supreme Court, which I am not at all sure would happen, I think it’s likely that either the court would rule along the same as lines as Judge Orrick,” he said, or perhaps opt for the administration’s view that the order is exceedingly narrow and “largely meaningless.”
david.savage@latimes.com
Apr 30, 2017 14:46:08 #
The elusive immigration fix
P resident Trump’s immigration enforcement initiatives, such as they are, have had a rough run in the courts. First came a series of injunctions against both the original and the revised moratoriums he’d declared on refugees and visitors from a number of predominantly Muslim countries — a policy that Trump recently referred to in a tweet as a “ban” despite the White House’s insistence that it was not. Now a federal judge in San Francisco has temporarily blocked another objectionable Trump policy: his threat to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities, local jurisdictions where officials refuse to do the federal government’s job of enforcing federal immigration laws.
Rather than articulating a defense of his policies, Trump let his itchy Twitter finger take over. “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities — both ridiculous rulings,” Trump wrote. “See you in the Supreme Court!” That followed a noxious broadside on the courts from Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who said that “the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation.”
No, a federal judge looked at the administration’s bullying threat to withhold funds that it had no statutory authority to withhold and declared it unconstitutional. That’s the very definition of upholding the rule of law. And once again the Trump administration unleashed a campaign-style attack, trying to undermine the judiciary just because the president didn’t get his way. Somebody needs a time-out.
The nation has a significant illegal immigration problem, and while Trump rode that issue to victory in November, it’s clear he still has no good ideas for what to do about it.
The wall? An expensive and ludicrous proposal that is losing appeal even among Trump’s supporters in Congress — and that targets a problem that has been waning for more than a decade. Last year, 409,000 migrants were caught at the Southwest border, down from 1.2 million in 2005.
Adding 5,000 Border Patrol and 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to hunt down immigrants here illegally? The last time the government went on such a hiring binge — 2006 to 2009 — it failed to properly vet the recruits, sparking a 44% increase in civil rights violations, incidents of corruption and off-duty crimes by border agents. Besides, Congress has shown little interest in appropriating the funds — about $5 billion a year — to make the hires.
And while Border Patrol agents have reported a drop in illegal border crossings, that’s the outcome of a campaign of fear — arising from the administration’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and executive orders empowering immigration agents to seek the removal of anyone without legal status — not the result of a coherent and just policy framed with the nation’s best interests in mind. The benefits to law and order are speculative, but the disruption to American communities and industries is real.
Most of the 11 million people living in the country illegally have been here for more than a decade, and have become entwined in the fabric of communities despite their illegal status. They are longtime neighbors and friends, the parents of American children, and workers who fill a significant percentage of the jobs in the agriculture, construction and service industries. Kicking them all out creates more problems than it solves. So rather than rousting those who established themselves here years ago without permission and otherwise have not broken significant laws, the administration should work with Congress to revive the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill and tackle this issue in a humane, pragmatic and forward-looking manner that emphasizes what is
best for the country. In fact, most Americans support immigration and immigration reform , and want a path for legalization for those who have been longstanding, productive members of American society.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, immigration — despite society’s occasional surges of xenophobia — made this country. Not only does it define the nation’s past, it will define the future. Yes, it needs to be orderly and controlled, which is why responsible national leadership is crucial. Instead, we get bellicosity and fear-mongering. With Republicans controlling both Congress and the White House, the immigration system is theirs to fix. They need to get to it, rather than pursuing draconian, legally unsound and disruptive enforcement strategies.
P resident Trump’s immigration enforcement initiatives, such as they are, have had a rough run in the courts. First came a series of injunctions against both the original and the revised moratoriums he’d declared on refugees and visitors from a number of predominantly Muslim countries — a policy that Trump recently referred to in a tweet as a “ban” despite the White House’s insistence that it was not. Now a federal judge in San Francisco has temporarily blocked another objectionable Trump policy: his threat to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities, local jurisdictions where officials refuse to do the federal government’s job of enforcing federal immigration laws.
Rather than articulating a defense of his policies, Trump let his itchy Twitter finger take over. “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities — both ridiculous rulings,” Trump wrote. “See you in the Supreme Court!” That followed a noxious broadside on the courts from Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who said that “the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation.”
No, a federal judge looked at the administration’s bullying threat to withhold funds that it had no statutory authority to withhold and declared it unconstitutional. That’s the very definition of upholding the rule of law. And once again the Trump administration unleashed a campaign-style attack, trying to undermine the judiciary just because the president didn’t get his way. Somebody needs a time-out.
The nation has a significant illegal immigration problem, and while Trump rode that issue to victory in November, it’s clear he still has no good ideas for what to do about it.
The wall? An expensive and ludicrous proposal that is losing appeal even among Trump’s supporters in Congress — and that targets a problem that has been waning for more than a decade. Last year, 409,000 migrants were caught at the Southwest border, down from 1.2 million in 2005.
Adding 5,000 Border Patrol and 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to hunt down immigrants here illegally? The last time the government went on such a hiring binge — 2006 to 2009 — it failed to properly vet the recruits, sparking a 44% increase in civil rights violations, incidents of corruption and off-duty crimes by border agents. Besides, Congress has shown little interest in appropriating the funds — about $5 billion a year — to make the hires.
And while Border Patrol agents have reported a drop in illegal border crossings, that’s the outcome of a campaign of fear — arising from the administration’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and executive orders empowering immigration agents to seek the removal of anyone without legal status — not the result of a coherent and just policy framed with the nation’s best interests in mind. The benefits to law and order are speculative, but the disruption to American communities and industries is real.
Most of the 11 million people living in the country illegally have been here for more than a decade, and have become entwined in the fabric of communities despite their illegal status. They are longtime neighbors and friends, the parents of American children, and workers who fill a significant percentage of the jobs in the agriculture, construction and service industries. Kicking them all out creates more problems than it solves. So rather than rousting those who established themselves here years ago without permission and otherwise have not broken significant laws, the administration should work with Congress to revive the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill and tackle this issue in a humane, pragmatic and forward-looking manner that emphasizes what is
best for the country. In fact, most Americans support immigration and immigration reform , and want a path for legalization for those who have been longstanding, productive members of American society.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, immigration — despite society’s occasional surges of xenophobia — made this country. Not only does it define the nation’s past, it will define the future. Yes, it needs to be orderly and controlled, which is why responsible national leadership is crucial. Instead, we get bellicosity and fear-mongering. With Republicans controlling both Congress and the White House, the immigration system is theirs to fix. They need to get to it, rather than pursuing draconian, legally unsound and disruptive enforcement strategies.
Apr 30, 2017 14:52:52 #
They are already showing how the trump tax plan will cut the taxes of those making 45-50k a year and give them a 1000 dollar check but cut the programs that benefit them more than their check....in the rural and appalachia areas.....once again....dumb people are given racism to get votes, give them crumbs and then get screwed......but they are okay with that as long as they are feeling that Muslims, Blacks and Mexicans are getting punished...
Apr 30, 2017 14:57:28 #
The scandal that won’t just go away
DOYLE McMANUS
L ast week, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, a loyal Republican, disclosed that President Trump’s former national security advisor probably broke the law when he accepted money from an arm of the Russian government. That’s a big deal — and not only because of what it says about the advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. As happens so often, the cover-up may be worse than the crime.
Here are the facts: In 2015, before he joined Trump’s presidential campaign, Flynn accepted $33,750 from Russia Today, a Russian government television network, to give a speech in Moscow. As a retired Army general, Flynn needed to get formal permission from the Defense Department before working for a foreign government agency. There’s no evidence that he did so; the Pentagon has launched an investigation.
Even worse, Flynn apparently failed to disclose his Russian income when he renewed his U.S. government security clearance in 2016. If that omission was willful, it could be a felony.
Trump fired Flynn after only 24 days on the job — not because of his Russian income, but because he lied to Vice President Mike Pence about another set of contacts with Russia.
But this is about more than the president’s bad judgment in choosing his first top foreign policy advisor. Flynn is one of the key subjects of several investigations of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. His once-secret contacts with the regime of Vladimir Putin are a matter of public record; the question is whether anything more nefarious occurred. Now Flynn faces a Pentagon investigation that could lead to criminal charges.
So what did the White House do when the House committee asked for documents about the general’s foreign contacts?
It rejected the inquiry entirely, saying most of its records were none of the committee’s business. White House spokesman Sean Spicer called the request “outlandish.”
To use a word from an earlier scandal, the White House resorted to stonewalling — in defense of a disgraced aide whom the president fired more than two months ago. It makes the White House look as if it’s trying to protect Flynn — or, worse, persuade him not to talk. By doing so, it has gotten crosswise with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who until now was one of Trump’s staunchest defenders.
In an odd way, that’s good news. It’s one of several signs that the GOP-led congressional probes aren’t as somnolent as they look.
The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation nearly collapsed last month when its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare), made a fool of himself defending Trump’s bizarre charge that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.
Now that probe has a new leader, Rep. K. Michael Conaway, a Texas Republican who’s highly respected in both parties.
“We’re back on track,” said Adam B. Schiff of Burbank, the top Democrat on the panel.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is moving slowly ahead, too. After news organizations revealed that it has only seven staff members working part-time on the case, its embarrassed chairman quickly announced that he’s hiring more. Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has launched a mini-investigation in another committee, just in case the intelligence panel slows down.
So it looks as though the Trump administration has stimulated healthy competition among members of Congress to see who can run the best investigation.
What’s really going on, though, is that Republicans are hedging their bets. Nobody wants to be the next Nunes. Even loyalists like Chaffetz are unwilling to defend the White House on all fronts, because they don’t know what else may be out there.
In that sense, Nunes unwittingly performed a public service with his Keystone Kops counter-investigation: He showed his GOP colleagues what not to do.
The congressional probes still need bigger staffs. Even with the new hires, the main Senate investigation will still have only nine people, most of whom will also be working on other issues.
That’s why it would be a better answer to set up a special committee on foreign interference with the 2016 election. A special panel could devote more investigators to the job. (The House special committee on Benghazi, for example, had 46 staff members.)
Meanwhile, the FBI is still investigating, and its director, James B. Comey, has a reputation to salvage.
And an outside watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is pressing a lawsuit against Trump for deriving income from foreign governments through his private businesses.
Could anything more go wrong for the Trump clan? Sure: Ivanka just announced that she’s launching an Ivanka Fund to promote female entrepreneurship. The White House had to scramble to say the first daughter doesn’t plan to solicit donations or run the project herself, which — since she’s a federal employee — might have been illegal.
It’s still sensible to worry that the unanswered questions about foreign interference in the 2016 election will be swamped by other issues — or that loyalist Republicans will be tempted to drag their feet. But the last week suggests that while the investigations aren’t moving very fast, they’re increasingly serious — even, in some measure, bipartisan. Trump’s scofflaw habits are keeping them alive.
doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com
Twitter: @DoyleMcManus
DOYLE McMANUS
L ast week, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, a loyal Republican, disclosed that President Trump’s former national security advisor probably broke the law when he accepted money from an arm of the Russian government. That’s a big deal — and not only because of what it says about the advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. As happens so often, the cover-up may be worse than the crime.
Here are the facts: In 2015, before he joined Trump’s presidential campaign, Flynn accepted $33,750 from Russia Today, a Russian government television network, to give a speech in Moscow. As a retired Army general, Flynn needed to get formal permission from the Defense Department before working for a foreign government agency. There’s no evidence that he did so; the Pentagon has launched an investigation.
Even worse, Flynn apparently failed to disclose his Russian income when he renewed his U.S. government security clearance in 2016. If that omission was willful, it could be a felony.
Trump fired Flynn after only 24 days on the job — not because of his Russian income, but because he lied to Vice President Mike Pence about another set of contacts with Russia.
But this is about more than the president’s bad judgment in choosing his first top foreign policy advisor. Flynn is one of the key subjects of several investigations of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. His once-secret contacts with the regime of Vladimir Putin are a matter of public record; the question is whether anything more nefarious occurred. Now Flynn faces a Pentagon investigation that could lead to criminal charges.
So what did the White House do when the House committee asked for documents about the general’s foreign contacts?
It rejected the inquiry entirely, saying most of its records were none of the committee’s business. White House spokesman Sean Spicer called the request “outlandish.”
To use a word from an earlier scandal, the White House resorted to stonewalling — in defense of a disgraced aide whom the president fired more than two months ago. It makes the White House look as if it’s trying to protect Flynn — or, worse, persuade him not to talk. By doing so, it has gotten crosswise with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who until now was one of Trump’s staunchest defenders.
In an odd way, that’s good news. It’s one of several signs that the GOP-led congressional probes aren’t as somnolent as they look.
The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation nearly collapsed last month when its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare), made a fool of himself defending Trump’s bizarre charge that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.
Now that probe has a new leader, Rep. K. Michael Conaway, a Texas Republican who’s highly respected in both parties.
“We’re back on track,” said Adam B. Schiff of Burbank, the top Democrat on the panel.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is moving slowly ahead, too. After news organizations revealed that it has only seven staff members working part-time on the case, its embarrassed chairman quickly announced that he’s hiring more. Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has launched a mini-investigation in another committee, just in case the intelligence panel slows down.
So it looks as though the Trump administration has stimulated healthy competition among members of Congress to see who can run the best investigation.
What’s really going on, though, is that Republicans are hedging their bets. Nobody wants to be the next Nunes. Even loyalists like Chaffetz are unwilling to defend the White House on all fronts, because they don’t know what else may be out there.
In that sense, Nunes unwittingly performed a public service with his Keystone Kops counter-investigation: He showed his GOP colleagues what not to do.
The congressional probes still need bigger staffs. Even with the new hires, the main Senate investigation will still have only nine people, most of whom will also be working on other issues.
That’s why it would be a better answer to set up a special committee on foreign interference with the 2016 election. A special panel could devote more investigators to the job. (The House special committee on Benghazi, for example, had 46 staff members.)
Meanwhile, the FBI is still investigating, and its director, James B. Comey, has a reputation to salvage.
And an outside watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is pressing a lawsuit against Trump for deriving income from foreign governments through his private businesses.
Could anything more go wrong for the Trump clan? Sure: Ivanka just announced that she’s launching an Ivanka Fund to promote female entrepreneurship. The White House had to scramble to say the first daughter doesn’t plan to solicit donations or run the project herself, which — since she’s a federal employee — might have been illegal.
It’s still sensible to worry that the unanswered questions about foreign interference in the 2016 election will be swamped by other issues — or that loyalist Republicans will be tempted to drag their feet. But the last week suggests that while the investigations aren’t moving very fast, they’re increasingly serious — even, in some measure, bipartisan. Trump’s scofflaw habits are keeping them alive.
doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com
Twitter: @DoyleMcManus
May 1, 2017 13:39:31 #
Mixed signals on Trump’s priorities
PRESIDENT Trump’s focus is on North Korea, healthcare and taxes. (Tracie Van Auken EPA)
By Laura King
WASHINGTON — President Trump pushed past his first tumultuous 100 days in office by calling for action Sunday on three of his administration’s top priorities — North Korea, healthcare and tax reform — but gave mixed signals on each of them.
Trump described North Korea’s mercurial leader, Kim Jong Un, as a “pretty smart cookie.” Undercutting a key campaign pledge, Trump suggested possible cuts to Medicare by curbing “abuses.” And he declared that the top Democrat in the Senate, who has derided Trump’s tax proposal as a boon for the wealthy, was “making a fool of himself.”
Vice President Mike Pence separately acknowledged on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that a sweeping White House proposal to slash individual and corporate tax rates would increase the national debt “maybe in the short term.”
The White House previously has argued that improved economic growth would pay for the loss of revenue. Critics have said the Trump tax blueprint could add trillions of dollars to the deficit if enacted.
The day’s developments thus suggested little change from the head-snapping turmoil that marked the first part of Trump’s tenure. Senior aides scrambled in some cases Sunday to ease the sting of the president’s comments or even to contradict him.
The president also courted fresh controversy when the White House announced late Saturday that Trump had made a “very friendly” call to President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and had invited him to visit the White House.
Since taking office in June, Duterte has presided over a bloody anti-drug crackdown that human right groups say has left more than 7,000 people dead in what appears to be a campaign of extrajudicial killings by police and unidentified death squads.
It was not the first time Trump’s dealings with a foreign strongman have raised questions.
Trump earlier in April hosted Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Sisi at the White House and praised him for doing a “fantastic job” despite his jailing of thousands of political opponents after he took power in a military coup.
Also in April, Trump was alone among Western leaders in making a congratulatory phone call to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after he claimed victory in a referendum that vastly enhanced presidential powers.
Critics called the Turkish referendum, whose results have been disputed by the leading opposition party, a blow to democracy.
Trump, who spent Sunday at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had celebrated Saturday’s 100-day milestone with a full-throated attack on the news media and other perceived enemies at a raucous nighttime rally in Harrisburg, Pa.
The president had skipped the annual White House correspondents’ dinner, long a presidential staple. Surrounded by his wildly cheering supporters, Trump mocked the black-tie event as Washington and Hollywood elitists “consoling themselves” over the loss of the 2016 election.
On North Korea, Trump said in an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he didn’t know whether he would authorize military action if Pyongyang conducted a sixth nuclear test, as is widely expected.
“I don’t know,” he said when asked whether he would order a military response. “I mean, we’ll see.”
The president appeared to offer grudging praise for North Korea’s leader, noting that Kim took over when he was 26 or 27 after his father died and has consolidated power despite challenges from several members of his family.
“A lot of people, I’m sure, tried to take that power away,” he said. “And he was able to do it. So obviously, he’s a pretty smart cookie.”
Trump rattled South Korea last week when he said in at least two interviews that the government in Seoul, one of America’s closest allies, should pay $1 billion for a sophisticated missile defense system that the U.S. has begun installing in the country.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, is intended to become operational within a matter of days, the Pentagon has said.
Despite Trump’s comments, the White House national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, sought to reassure Seoul that Washington would not try to make South Korea pay for the antimissile batteries, according to South Korea’s presidential office.
McMaster confirmed Sunday that was the case — for now.
“What I told our South Korean counterpart is that until any renegotiation, that the deal’s in place, we’ll adhere to our word,” McMaster said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Senior administration officials often have been forced to walk back Trump’s more provocative comments, especially on foreign affairs, without seeming to directly contradict the president.
In this instance, McMaster sought to put Trump’s comments in the context of looking at “appropriate burden-sharing” across all U.S. alliances.
On healthcare, Trump brushed aside the failure last week — the second — to bring a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, to the House floor, something he had pledged to accomplish early in his tenure.
Republicans have been unable to fully agree on the provisions of the complex legislation, and Trump probably caused the GOP leadership additional headaches when he leaped into the fray with a pledge that insurers would be required to offer coverage to consumers with preexisting health problems.
A GOP compromise plan would have allowed states to opt out of that requirement, a cornerstone of Obamacare.
“This bill has evolved,” Trump told CBS interviewer John Dickerson, adding that “now we have preexisting conditions in the bill” nationwide.
“Preexisting is going to be in there,” the president added.
Trump also appeared to hedge on what had been an ironclad campaign tenet: that he would not cut Medicare.
“The concept of Medicare, I’m not touching,” he said, but added, “Waste, fraud and abuse … if there are things within Medicare that are being abused, I will touch that.”
Tax reform has been another area in which Trump has longed for a high-profile win. In the CBS interview, the president was dismissive of calls from some in Congress to condition tax reform on the release of the president’s income taxes.
The president has ridiculed Democrats’ stance on the issue, singling out Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).
“They don’t have the presidency, they don’t have the House, they don’t have the Senate,” Trump said Sunday. “And Schumer’s going around making a fool out of himself.”
Schumer, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said his advice to Trump would be that “name-calling doesn’t work.”
“If he changes, we could work together,” he said of the president. “But he can’t just dictate what he wants, not talk to us and say, ‘You must support it.’ ”
laura.king@latimes.com
Twitter: @laurakingLAT
PRESIDENT Trump’s focus is on North Korea, healthcare and taxes. (Tracie Van Auken EPA)
By Laura King
WASHINGTON — President Trump pushed past his first tumultuous 100 days in office by calling for action Sunday on three of his administration’s top priorities — North Korea, healthcare and tax reform — but gave mixed signals on each of them.
Trump described North Korea’s mercurial leader, Kim Jong Un, as a “pretty smart cookie.” Undercutting a key campaign pledge, Trump suggested possible cuts to Medicare by curbing “abuses.” And he declared that the top Democrat in the Senate, who has derided Trump’s tax proposal as a boon for the wealthy, was “making a fool of himself.”
Vice President Mike Pence separately acknowledged on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that a sweeping White House proposal to slash individual and corporate tax rates would increase the national debt “maybe in the short term.”
The White House previously has argued that improved economic growth would pay for the loss of revenue. Critics have said the Trump tax blueprint could add trillions of dollars to the deficit if enacted.
The day’s developments thus suggested little change from the head-snapping turmoil that marked the first part of Trump’s tenure. Senior aides scrambled in some cases Sunday to ease the sting of the president’s comments or even to contradict him.
The president also courted fresh controversy when the White House announced late Saturday that Trump had made a “very friendly” call to President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and had invited him to visit the White House.
Since taking office in June, Duterte has presided over a bloody anti-drug crackdown that human right groups say has left more than 7,000 people dead in what appears to be a campaign of extrajudicial killings by police and unidentified death squads.
It was not the first time Trump’s dealings with a foreign strongman have raised questions.
Trump earlier in April hosted Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Sisi at the White House and praised him for doing a “fantastic job” despite his jailing of thousands of political opponents after he took power in a military coup.
Also in April, Trump was alone among Western leaders in making a congratulatory phone call to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after he claimed victory in a referendum that vastly enhanced presidential powers.
Critics called the Turkish referendum, whose results have been disputed by the leading opposition party, a blow to democracy.
Trump, who spent Sunday at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had celebrated Saturday’s 100-day milestone with a full-throated attack on the news media and other perceived enemies at a raucous nighttime rally in Harrisburg, Pa.
The president had skipped the annual White House correspondents’ dinner, long a presidential staple. Surrounded by his wildly cheering supporters, Trump mocked the black-tie event as Washington and Hollywood elitists “consoling themselves” over the loss of the 2016 election.
On North Korea, Trump said in an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he didn’t know whether he would authorize military action if Pyongyang conducted a sixth nuclear test, as is widely expected.
“I don’t know,” he said when asked whether he would order a military response. “I mean, we’ll see.”
The president appeared to offer grudging praise for North Korea’s leader, noting that Kim took over when he was 26 or 27 after his father died and has consolidated power despite challenges from several members of his family.
“A lot of people, I’m sure, tried to take that power away,” he said. “And he was able to do it. So obviously, he’s a pretty smart cookie.”
Trump rattled South Korea last week when he said in at least two interviews that the government in Seoul, one of America’s closest allies, should pay $1 billion for a sophisticated missile defense system that the U.S. has begun installing in the country.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, is intended to become operational within a matter of days, the Pentagon has said.
Despite Trump’s comments, the White House national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, sought to reassure Seoul that Washington would not try to make South Korea pay for the antimissile batteries, according to South Korea’s presidential office.
McMaster confirmed Sunday that was the case — for now.
“What I told our South Korean counterpart is that until any renegotiation, that the deal’s in place, we’ll adhere to our word,” McMaster said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Senior administration officials often have been forced to walk back Trump’s more provocative comments, especially on foreign affairs, without seeming to directly contradict the president.
In this instance, McMaster sought to put Trump’s comments in the context of looking at “appropriate burden-sharing” across all U.S. alliances.
On healthcare, Trump brushed aside the failure last week — the second — to bring a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, to the House floor, something he had pledged to accomplish early in his tenure.
Republicans have been unable to fully agree on the provisions of the complex legislation, and Trump probably caused the GOP leadership additional headaches when he leaped into the fray with a pledge that insurers would be required to offer coverage to consumers with preexisting health problems.
A GOP compromise plan would have allowed states to opt out of that requirement, a cornerstone of Obamacare.
“This bill has evolved,” Trump told CBS interviewer John Dickerson, adding that “now we have preexisting conditions in the bill” nationwide.
“Preexisting is going to be in there,” the president added.
Trump also appeared to hedge on what had been an ironclad campaign tenet: that he would not cut Medicare.
“The concept of Medicare, I’m not touching,” he said, but added, “Waste, fraud and abuse … if there are things within Medicare that are being abused, I will touch that.”
Tax reform has been another area in which Trump has longed for a high-profile win. In the CBS interview, the president was dismissive of calls from some in Congress to condition tax reform on the release of the president’s income taxes.
The president has ridiculed Democrats’ stance on the issue, singling out Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).
“They don’t have the presidency, they don’t have the House, they don’t have the Senate,” Trump said Sunday. “And Schumer’s going around making a fool out of himself.”
Schumer, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said his advice to Trump would be that “name-calling doesn’t work.”
“If he changes, we could work together,” he said of the president. “But he can’t just dictate what he wants, not talk to us and say, ‘You must support it.’ ”
laura.king@latimes.com
Twitter: @laurakingLAT
May 1, 2017 14:12:54 #
Roasted in absentia
Hasan Minhaj wins over the Trump-less correspondents gathering.
LORRAINE ALI TELEVISION CRITIC
No one had a harder gig Saturday than comedian Hasan Minhaj, except perhaps for the poor soul who had to tell President Trump that Minhaj didn’t blow it roasting the commander in chief onstage at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
The senior correspondent for “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah” was the latest in a long line of hosts, including Seth Meyers, Rich Little and Bob Hope, at the annual Washington black-tie event. All have roasted the press and presidents alike.
But unlike those big names, the lesser-known political satirist Minhaj, 31, had to fill a gaping hole in the festivities while making stiffs like Wolf Blitzer laugh.
That’s because Trump wasn’t there. He’s the first president since Ronald Reagan in 1981 to bow out of the annual event (and Reagan was recovering from an assassination attempt). Trump instead had his own rally earlier in the day, in front of supporters in Pennsylvania, where he called news outlets like the New York Times and CNN failing, incompetent and dishonest.
“We’ve got to address the elephant that’s not in the room,” said Minhaj near the jittery beginning of his monologue. “The leader of our country is not here. And that’s because he lives in Moscow, it’s a very long flight. As for the other guy, I think he’s in Pennsylvania because he can’t take a joke.”
C-SPAN broadcast the dinner in its entirety, as they did a march in Washington earlier Saturday where an estimated 200,000 people protested Trump’s climate policy. In between the march and the dinner programming was a broadcast of Trump’s pep rally in Harrisburg.
It was a C-SPAN trifecta of political tension, rancor and laughs. “A large group of Hollywood actors and Washington media are consoling each other in a hotel ballroom in our nation’s capital right now,” said former Hollywood celebrity Trump of the dinner.
He noted that the press’ “priorities are not my priorities, and not your priorities” and said “if the media’s job is to be honest and tell the truth, then I think, we would all agree, the media deserves a very, very big fat failing grade.” Trump’s own approval rating is at 43%, the lowest of any president at this point in his term since 1953.
All of it happened on Trump’s 100th day in office, a tenure that’s been one of the most contentious and rocky — particularly regarding the president’s relationship with the press — in modern memory. Trump also asked that his White House staff not attend the dinner.
The event at the Washington Hilton, sponsored by the White House Correspondents’ Assn., kicked off with the theme of speaking truth to power. Washington Post Watergate reporters and “All the President’s Men” authors Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were the guests of honor.
Minhaj initially appeared out of his depth at the podium after such heavyweights but gradually began to win over a crowd hesitant to laugh at Trump jokes without the president in the room dishing it back as other presidents historically have.
“I would like to say it’s an honor to be here, but that would be an alternative fact,” he said. “No one wanted to do this so, of course, it landed in the hands of an immigrant. That’s how it always goes down.”
Minhaj, who called the gig “one of the strangest events I’ve ever done in my life,” loosened up with the crowd and midway through finally prevailed over one of the most awkward televised correspondents’ dinners ever.
“In the age of Trump, I know that you guys have to be more perfect now, more than ever, because you are where the president gets his news,” he joked. “That’s why you’ve got to be on your game. You’ve got to be twice as good. Because when one of you messes up, he blames your entire group. And now you know what it feels like to be a minority.”
By the close of his 20-plus-minute monologue, Minhaj — who is usually steadfast and controlled in his duties as a “correspondent” on “The Daily Show” — became impassioned as he spoke about the role the press now plays in keeping American democracy alive.
“I was asked not to roast the president and the administration in their absentia,” said Minhaj. “We are in a very strange situation where there is a very combative relationship between the press and the president. But now that you guys are minorities, just for this moment, you might understand the position I’m in. It’s the same position a lot of minority kids feel in this country. Do I come up here and just try to fit in and not ruffle any feathers? Or do I say how I really feel because this evening is about celebrating the 1st Amendment and free speech?
“Free speech is the foundation of an open democracy, from college campuses to the White House,” he said. “Only in America can a first-generation, Indian American Muslim kid get on this stage and make fun of the president. The Orange Man behind the Muslim ban. It’s a tradition that shows the entire world that the president is not beyond the reach of the 1st Amendment.”
He continued, “But the president didn’t show up because Donald Trump doesn’t care about free speech. The man who tweets everything that comes into his head refuses to acknowledge the amendment that allows him to do it. [Hours from now] Donald Trump will be tweeting about how bad Nicki Minaj bombed at this dinner … and that’s his right. I’m proud all of us are here to defend that right, even if the man in the White House never would.”
lorraine.ali@latimes.com
Hasan Minhaj wins over the Trump-less correspondents gathering.
LORRAINE ALI TELEVISION CRITIC
No one had a harder gig Saturday than comedian Hasan Minhaj, except perhaps for the poor soul who had to tell President Trump that Minhaj didn’t blow it roasting the commander in chief onstage at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
The senior correspondent for “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah” was the latest in a long line of hosts, including Seth Meyers, Rich Little and Bob Hope, at the annual Washington black-tie event. All have roasted the press and presidents alike.
But unlike those big names, the lesser-known political satirist Minhaj, 31, had to fill a gaping hole in the festivities while making stiffs like Wolf Blitzer laugh.
That’s because Trump wasn’t there. He’s the first president since Ronald Reagan in 1981 to bow out of the annual event (and Reagan was recovering from an assassination attempt). Trump instead had his own rally earlier in the day, in front of supporters in Pennsylvania, where he called news outlets like the New York Times and CNN failing, incompetent and dishonest.
“We’ve got to address the elephant that’s not in the room,” said Minhaj near the jittery beginning of his monologue. “The leader of our country is not here. And that’s because he lives in Moscow, it’s a very long flight. As for the other guy, I think he’s in Pennsylvania because he can’t take a joke.”
C-SPAN broadcast the dinner in its entirety, as they did a march in Washington earlier Saturday where an estimated 200,000 people protested Trump’s climate policy. In between the march and the dinner programming was a broadcast of Trump’s pep rally in Harrisburg.
It was a C-SPAN trifecta of political tension, rancor and laughs. “A large group of Hollywood actors and Washington media are consoling each other in a hotel ballroom in our nation’s capital right now,” said former Hollywood celebrity Trump of the dinner.
He noted that the press’ “priorities are not my priorities, and not your priorities” and said “if the media’s job is to be honest and tell the truth, then I think, we would all agree, the media deserves a very, very big fat failing grade.” Trump’s own approval rating is at 43%, the lowest of any president at this point in his term since 1953.
All of it happened on Trump’s 100th day in office, a tenure that’s been one of the most contentious and rocky — particularly regarding the president’s relationship with the press — in modern memory. Trump also asked that his White House staff not attend the dinner.
The event at the Washington Hilton, sponsored by the White House Correspondents’ Assn., kicked off with the theme of speaking truth to power. Washington Post Watergate reporters and “All the President’s Men” authors Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were the guests of honor.
Minhaj initially appeared out of his depth at the podium after such heavyweights but gradually began to win over a crowd hesitant to laugh at Trump jokes without the president in the room dishing it back as other presidents historically have.
“I would like to say it’s an honor to be here, but that would be an alternative fact,” he said. “No one wanted to do this so, of course, it landed in the hands of an immigrant. That’s how it always goes down.”
Minhaj, who called the gig “one of the strangest events I’ve ever done in my life,” loosened up with the crowd and midway through finally prevailed over one of the most awkward televised correspondents’ dinners ever.
“In the age of Trump, I know that you guys have to be more perfect now, more than ever, because you are where the president gets his news,” he joked. “That’s why you’ve got to be on your game. You’ve got to be twice as good. Because when one of you messes up, he blames your entire group. And now you know what it feels like to be a minority.”
By the close of his 20-plus-minute monologue, Minhaj — who is usually steadfast and controlled in his duties as a “correspondent” on “The Daily Show” — became impassioned as he spoke about the role the press now plays in keeping American democracy alive.
“I was asked not to roast the president and the administration in their absentia,” said Minhaj. “We are in a very strange situation where there is a very combative relationship between the press and the president. But now that you guys are minorities, just for this moment, you might understand the position I’m in. It’s the same position a lot of minority kids feel in this country. Do I come up here and just try to fit in and not ruffle any feathers? Or do I say how I really feel because this evening is about celebrating the 1st Amendment and free speech?
“Free speech is the foundation of an open democracy, from college campuses to the White House,” he said. “Only in America can a first-generation, Indian American Muslim kid get on this stage and make fun of the president. The Orange Man behind the Muslim ban. It’s a tradition that shows the entire world that the president is not beyond the reach of the 1st Amendment.”
He continued, “But the president didn’t show up because Donald Trump doesn’t care about free speech. The man who tweets everything that comes into his head refuses to acknowledge the amendment that allows him to do it. [Hours from now] Donald Trump will be tweeting about how bad Nicki Minaj bombed at this dinner … and that’s his right. I’m proud all of us are here to defend that right, even if the man in the White House never would.”
lorraine.ali@latimes.com
May 1, 2017 14:21:57 #
May 1, 2017 14:40:49 #
Trump’s Tax Cuts May Be More Damaging Than Reagan’s
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/opinion/trumps-tax-cuts-may-be-more-damaging-than-reagans.html?emc=edit_th_20170501&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=51247735&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/opinion/trumps-tax-cuts-may-be-more-damaging-than-reagans.html?emc=edit_th_20170501&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=51247735&_r=0
May 1, 2017 14:43:36 #
Florida Deal Would Reverse Key Part of Obama’s Medicaid Expansion
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/us/politics/medicaid-expansion-trump-obama-florida.html?emc=edit_th_20170501&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=51247735
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/us/politics/medicaid-expansion-trump-obama-florida.html?emc=edit_th_20170501&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=51247735
May 2, 2017 13:21:06 #
Woman to appeal Trump U deal
She wants to sue the president individually, which could delay payout to thousands.
SHERI B. SIMPSON is entitled to more than $15,000 in a $25-million settlement with President Trump’s defunct “university.” She wants at least four times that. (Alan Diaz Associated Press)
By Kristina Davis and Greg Moran
SAN DIEGO — A woman who was the only official objector to the $25-million deal to settle three Trump University lawsuits said Monday that she would appeal the settlement, a move that could mean months of further litigation and delay any payout.
Sheri B. Simpson filed a formal notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The move was immediately criticized by the lawyer for the other 3,700 or so class members who are eligible to get up to 90% of what they spent on President Trump’s defunct real estate success program.
Gary Friedman, the lawyer for Simpson, said the appeal will be based on the argument that a San Diego federal judge who approved the settlement on March 31 erred because class members were not given a second chance to opt out of the case.
“The class members had a right to opt out of the settlement,” Friedman said. “The notice they received from the court promised them in no uncertain terms they had that right. Then, once the defendant got elected president, it became inconvenient to honor that promise.”
Rather than take the more than $15,000 she would get in the settlement, Simpson wants to take the president to trial individually and seek an award four times that amount or more, Friedman said.
Lawyers for the class members said Simpson and her lawyer mischaracterized language that went out in the class notices, which — when read in the correct context — stated that participants could opt out of receiving a portion of the settlement, not leave the case entirely. By staying in the case, Simpson is bound by the settlement, they argued.
Jason Forge, one of the main lawyers in the class-action suit and settlement, said that the decision to appeal is wrong and could hurt other members of the class who will have to wait to collect their money from Trump.
“It’s the wrong fight against the wrong people for the wrong reason,” he said Monday. “My only real concern is we won’t have enough time to make it right for everyone. We have a number of senior citizen students here waiting for their money. And given the length of time that appeals can take, we may not be able to get that money to them before they die.”
The class-action lawsuits — two filed in San Diego and another in New York — contended Trump University misled students into thinking it was an accredited university and conned people into signing up for the $35,000 “Gold Elite” program. The elite status paid for a yearlong mentorship and exclusive access to Trump’s resources, which students said were not provided for the most part.
Trump defended his program, saying it provided valuable training and garnered a 98% approval rating among students.
Friedman said Simpson regretted holding up settlement payments. “We feel terribly about the delay,” he said. “But she is not going to be guilted into changing her position.”
He said he planned to ask the appeals court for an expedited hearing schedule.
kristina.davis@sduniontribune.com
greg.moran@sduniontribune.com
Davis and Moran write for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
She wants to sue the president individually, which could delay payout to thousands.
SHERI B. SIMPSON is entitled to more than $15,000 in a $25-million settlement with President Trump’s defunct “university.” She wants at least four times that. (Alan Diaz Associated Press)
By Kristina Davis and Greg Moran
SAN DIEGO — A woman who was the only official objector to the $25-million deal to settle three Trump University lawsuits said Monday that she would appeal the settlement, a move that could mean months of further litigation and delay any payout.
Sheri B. Simpson filed a formal notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The move was immediately criticized by the lawyer for the other 3,700 or so class members who are eligible to get up to 90% of what they spent on President Trump’s defunct real estate success program.
Gary Friedman, the lawyer for Simpson, said the appeal will be based on the argument that a San Diego federal judge who approved the settlement on March 31 erred because class members were not given a second chance to opt out of the case.
“The class members had a right to opt out of the settlement,” Friedman said. “The notice they received from the court promised them in no uncertain terms they had that right. Then, once the defendant got elected president, it became inconvenient to honor that promise.”
Rather than take the more than $15,000 she would get in the settlement, Simpson wants to take the president to trial individually and seek an award four times that amount or more, Friedman said.
Lawyers for the class members said Simpson and her lawyer mischaracterized language that went out in the class notices, which — when read in the correct context — stated that participants could opt out of receiving a portion of the settlement, not leave the case entirely. By staying in the case, Simpson is bound by the settlement, they argued.
Jason Forge, one of the main lawyers in the class-action suit and settlement, said that the decision to appeal is wrong and could hurt other members of the class who will have to wait to collect their money from Trump.
“It’s the wrong fight against the wrong people for the wrong reason,” he said Monday. “My only real concern is we won’t have enough time to make it right for everyone. We have a number of senior citizen students here waiting for their money. And given the length of time that appeals can take, we may not be able to get that money to them before they die.”
The class-action lawsuits — two filed in San Diego and another in New York — contended Trump University misled students into thinking it was an accredited university and conned people into signing up for the $35,000 “Gold Elite” program. The elite status paid for a yearlong mentorship and exclusive access to Trump’s resources, which students said were not provided for the most part.
Trump defended his program, saying it provided valuable training and garnered a 98% approval rating among students.
Friedman said Simpson regretted holding up settlement payments. “We feel terribly about the delay,” he said. “But she is not going to be guilted into changing her position.”
He said he planned to ask the appeals court for an expedited hearing schedule.
kristina.davis@sduniontribune.com
greg.moran@sduniontribune.com
Davis and Moran write for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
May 5, 2017 14:47:58 #
A Republican win, for now
Healthcare bill narrowly prevails in the House and faces an uncertain fate in the Senate.
By Lisa Mascaro and Noam N. Levey
WASHINGTON — House Republicans narrowly passed legislation Thursday to roll back the Affordable Care Act, the first step toward delivering on a years-long campaign promise despite mounting concerns from healthcare groups that the legislation would strip protections enjoyed by millions of Americans.
The tight vote, 217 to 213, with all Democrats opposed, underscored the limited appeal of the American Health Care Act, which passed thanks to last-minute deal-making and the personal intervention of President Trump. Even so, 20 Republicans defected to vote against the measure.
After House GOP leaders had shelved previous attempts to advance the bill because of a lack of support from their own party, Thursday’s vote provided a major legislative victory to Trump, which may give momentum to his other priorities and bolster his efforts to be seen as a leader who can govern with the Republican majority in Congress.
“Make no mistake, this is a repeal and replace of Obamacare,” a buoyant Trump said at a Rose Garden reception for Republicans at the White House immediately after the vote. “It’s essentially dead.
“It’s going to be an unbelievable victory when we get it through the Senate,” he added.
But the future of the bill remains highly uncertain as Senate Republicans expressed deep reservations about the potential that Americans will lose their healthcare coverage under the measure.
Several Senate leaders, including health committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), indicated Thursday they wanted to take a very different approach, proceeding slowly with a new bill that would not jeopardize coverage for as many people as the House measure.
That means that any Senate progress on health legislation will probably take weeks, if not months, and could pose a serious challenge if it must be reconciled with the House version, which was crafted to win over the most conservative wing of the party.
Longer term, the narrow passage of the House bill — which was uncertain until the final votes were cast — and the prospect that the debate will drag into the summer or beyond virtually ensures that healthcare once again will be a dominant issue in the midterm election.
Needing every vote they could get, Republican leaders pressed many of their members from swing districts — including all California Republicans who represent areas Trump lost last year — to support the bill. Democrats are likely to use those votes against Republicans when they run for reelection, just as Republicans did in ousting Democrats after Obamacare was passed in 2010.
Democrats sang, “Hey, hey, hey, goodbye,” on the House floor as the bill was being approved, predicting voters would boot Republicans from office as a result.
Protesters chanted, “Shame on you!” outside the Capitol as Republicans boarded buses to whisk them to the White House.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) orchestrated a full-scale floor opposition Thursday against what she called the “moral monstrosity of Trumpcare,” but in the end, Democrats were unable to block the measure.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), whose political reputation was riding on the outcome, told lawmakers this was their moment to make good on their promise to voters.
“Are we going to be men and women of our word? Are we going to keep the promises we made? Or are we going to falter?” Ryan said in an unusually fiery speech ahead of the vote. “Let us pass this bill to take the next step to put Obamacare behind us.”
Despite the risk of a voter backlash against the bill, many Republican strategists believe their candidates would face even bigger peril by failing to fulfill the party’s repeated promises to repeal Obamacare.
The full cost and impact of the bill remain unclear because GOP leaders called the vote without first waiting for a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. A previous assessment, before amendments were made to appease both conservative and centrist factions of the party, estimated the GOP plan would leave 24 million more Americans without healthcare coverage by 2026.
The legislation cuts more than a $1 trillion in federal healthcare assistance to low- and moderate-income Americans, primarily through a landmark retrenchment in Medicaid, the half-century-old government health plan for the poor.
It stands to reverse an expansion of healthcare under Obamacare that has brought the nation’s uninsured rate to the lowest level recorded — an additional 20 million Americans have gained coverage.
And even though Republicans said their bill would lower premiums and protect vulnerable Americans, the vote was swiftly condemned by a wide range of patient advocates, physicians and other healthcare groups.
“American lives are at stake,” warned Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Assn., who urged Senate leaders not to be as “reckless, shortsighted and heartless” as the House.
Potentially faring best in the House bill would be wealthy Americans and the insurance industry. Both would benefit from the elimination of as much as $600 billion in taxes enacted under Obamacare to help pay for the coverage expansion.
Several studies have shown that Trump’s own supporters, living in conservative, rural areas, would fare the worst , paying higher premiums or losing benefits.
A key change from the original bill that was sought by the conservative House Freedom Caucus allows states to apply for waivers from some of Obamacare’s most popular requirements, including the ban on insurers charging more for patients with preexisting medical conditions.
Advocates for patients with cancer, diabetes and other serious illnesses fear that would allow insurers to once again bill people with these diseases thousands of dollars more for insurance, making coverage unaffordable in many cases.
Late Wednesday, another amendment was added to win back centrists worried about the effect of those state waivers. That change poured an additional $8 billion into high-risk insurance pools to cover patients with preexisting conditions who can’t obtain traditional coverage.
The additional money did little to convince healthcare professionals, who have cautioned that these pools, common before Obamacare, have proved woefully inadequate to cover the medical needs of sick patients shut out of commercial health insurance.
Dr. Andrew W. Gurman, president of the American Medical Assn., said the changes only “tinker at the edges without remedying the fundamental failing of the bill — that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance as a direct result of this proposal.”
Neither did the amendments allay the concerns of many Senate Republicans, who have openly criticized the legislation and the rushed process that House leaders used to advance it.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), whose state has expanded Medicaid coverage through Obamacare, cautioned that any changes to the current law “must be made in a way that does not leave people behind.”
“I continue to have concerns that this bill does not do enough to protect Ohio’s Medicaid expansion population, especially those who are receiving treatment for heroin and prescription drug abuse,” Portman said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a fierce critic of Obamacare, said on Twitter that the House replacement plan “should be viewed with caution,” noting that it had been passed without an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and with only three hours of debate.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called House passage an “important step” and promised that Congress would continue work on the issue.
The vote turned out to be far more difficult than initially thought, particularly since the GOP-led House had voted more than 50 times over the years to repeal Obamacare. But those votes were largely symbolic because lawmakers knew then-President Obama would veto any such bill that reached his desk.
With the prospects that their legislation might actually become law and as public opinion polls showed Obamacare’s popularity rising, lawmakers weighed the decision much more carefully.
Many Republican lawmakers appeared to be resigned to punting the bill to the Senate, where they acknowledge it will be changed or stall.
“It’s not that I’m happy with this bill. I am not,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who represents a more centrist district and voted for the bill. “But there’s a long way to go.”
Ahead of the vote, Republicans huddled in the Capitol basement, playing the “Rocky” movie theme song and “Taking Care of Business” as an inspirational soundtrack.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, who was instrumental in brokering changes to bring conservatives on board, said he called Trump earlier Thursday to touch base before the vote.
Trump asked him two questions, he said: Have we made the bill better? Does it cover preexisting conditions? Meadows said yes to both.
“Great, let’s get it done,” he said Trump told him, “and make it better in the Senate.”
lisa.mascaro@latimes.com
Twitter: @LisaMascaro
noam.levey@latimes.com
Twitter: @noamlevey
Healthcare bill narrowly prevails in the House and faces an uncertain fate in the Senate.
By Lisa Mascaro and Noam N. Levey
WASHINGTON — House Republicans narrowly passed legislation Thursday to roll back the Affordable Care Act, the first step toward delivering on a years-long campaign promise despite mounting concerns from healthcare groups that the legislation would strip protections enjoyed by millions of Americans.
The tight vote, 217 to 213, with all Democrats opposed, underscored the limited appeal of the American Health Care Act, which passed thanks to last-minute deal-making and the personal intervention of President Trump. Even so, 20 Republicans defected to vote against the measure.
After House GOP leaders had shelved previous attempts to advance the bill because of a lack of support from their own party, Thursday’s vote provided a major legislative victory to Trump, which may give momentum to his other priorities and bolster his efforts to be seen as a leader who can govern with the Republican majority in Congress.
“Make no mistake, this is a repeal and replace of Obamacare,” a buoyant Trump said at a Rose Garden reception for Republicans at the White House immediately after the vote. “It’s essentially dead.
“It’s going to be an unbelievable victory when we get it through the Senate,” he added.
But the future of the bill remains highly uncertain as Senate Republicans expressed deep reservations about the potential that Americans will lose their healthcare coverage under the measure.
Several Senate leaders, including health committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), indicated Thursday they wanted to take a very different approach, proceeding slowly with a new bill that would not jeopardize coverage for as many people as the House measure.
That means that any Senate progress on health legislation will probably take weeks, if not months, and could pose a serious challenge if it must be reconciled with the House version, which was crafted to win over the most conservative wing of the party.
Longer term, the narrow passage of the House bill — which was uncertain until the final votes were cast — and the prospect that the debate will drag into the summer or beyond virtually ensures that healthcare once again will be a dominant issue in the midterm election.
Needing every vote they could get, Republican leaders pressed many of their members from swing districts — including all California Republicans who represent areas Trump lost last year — to support the bill. Democrats are likely to use those votes against Republicans when they run for reelection, just as Republicans did in ousting Democrats after Obamacare was passed in 2010.
Democrats sang, “Hey, hey, hey, goodbye,” on the House floor as the bill was being approved, predicting voters would boot Republicans from office as a result.
Protesters chanted, “Shame on you!” outside the Capitol as Republicans boarded buses to whisk them to the White House.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) orchestrated a full-scale floor opposition Thursday against what she called the “moral monstrosity of Trumpcare,” but in the end, Democrats were unable to block the measure.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), whose political reputation was riding on the outcome, told lawmakers this was their moment to make good on their promise to voters.
“Are we going to be men and women of our word? Are we going to keep the promises we made? Or are we going to falter?” Ryan said in an unusually fiery speech ahead of the vote. “Let us pass this bill to take the next step to put Obamacare behind us.”
Despite the risk of a voter backlash against the bill, many Republican strategists believe their candidates would face even bigger peril by failing to fulfill the party’s repeated promises to repeal Obamacare.
The full cost and impact of the bill remain unclear because GOP leaders called the vote without first waiting for a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. A previous assessment, before amendments were made to appease both conservative and centrist factions of the party, estimated the GOP plan would leave 24 million more Americans without healthcare coverage by 2026.
The legislation cuts more than a $1 trillion in federal healthcare assistance to low- and moderate-income Americans, primarily through a landmark retrenchment in Medicaid, the half-century-old government health plan for the poor.
It stands to reverse an expansion of healthcare under Obamacare that has brought the nation’s uninsured rate to the lowest level recorded — an additional 20 million Americans have gained coverage.
And even though Republicans said their bill would lower premiums and protect vulnerable Americans, the vote was swiftly condemned by a wide range of patient advocates, physicians and other healthcare groups.
“American lives are at stake,” warned Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Assn., who urged Senate leaders not to be as “reckless, shortsighted and heartless” as the House.
Potentially faring best in the House bill would be wealthy Americans and the insurance industry. Both would benefit from the elimination of as much as $600 billion in taxes enacted under Obamacare to help pay for the coverage expansion.
Several studies have shown that Trump’s own supporters, living in conservative, rural areas, would fare the worst , paying higher premiums or losing benefits.
A key change from the original bill that was sought by the conservative House Freedom Caucus allows states to apply for waivers from some of Obamacare’s most popular requirements, including the ban on insurers charging more for patients with preexisting medical conditions.
Advocates for patients with cancer, diabetes and other serious illnesses fear that would allow insurers to once again bill people with these diseases thousands of dollars more for insurance, making coverage unaffordable in many cases.
Late Wednesday, another amendment was added to win back centrists worried about the effect of those state waivers. That change poured an additional $8 billion into high-risk insurance pools to cover patients with preexisting conditions who can’t obtain traditional coverage.
The additional money did little to convince healthcare professionals, who have cautioned that these pools, common before Obamacare, have proved woefully inadequate to cover the medical needs of sick patients shut out of commercial health insurance.
Dr. Andrew W. Gurman, president of the American Medical Assn., said the changes only “tinker at the edges without remedying the fundamental failing of the bill — that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance as a direct result of this proposal.”
Neither did the amendments allay the concerns of many Senate Republicans, who have openly criticized the legislation and the rushed process that House leaders used to advance it.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), whose state has expanded Medicaid coverage through Obamacare, cautioned that any changes to the current law “must be made in a way that does not leave people behind.”
“I continue to have concerns that this bill does not do enough to protect Ohio’s Medicaid expansion population, especially those who are receiving treatment for heroin and prescription drug abuse,” Portman said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a fierce critic of Obamacare, said on Twitter that the House replacement plan “should be viewed with caution,” noting that it had been passed without an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and with only three hours of debate.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called House passage an “important step” and promised that Congress would continue work on the issue.
The vote turned out to be far more difficult than initially thought, particularly since the GOP-led House had voted more than 50 times over the years to repeal Obamacare. But those votes were largely symbolic because lawmakers knew then-President Obama would veto any such bill that reached his desk.
With the prospects that their legislation might actually become law and as public opinion polls showed Obamacare’s popularity rising, lawmakers weighed the decision much more carefully.
Many Republican lawmakers appeared to be resigned to punting the bill to the Senate, where they acknowledge it will be changed or stall.
“It’s not that I’m happy with this bill. I am not,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who represents a more centrist district and voted for the bill. “But there’s a long way to go.”
Ahead of the vote, Republicans huddled in the Capitol basement, playing the “Rocky” movie theme song and “Taking Care of Business” as an inspirational soundtrack.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, who was instrumental in brokering changes to bring conservatives on board, said he called Trump earlier Thursday to touch base before the vote.
Trump asked him two questions, he said: Have we made the bill better? Does it cover preexisting conditions? Meadows said yes to both.
“Great, let’s get it done,” he said Trump told him, “and make it better in the Senate.”
lisa.mascaro@latimes.com
Twitter: @LisaMascaro
noam.levey@latimes.com
Twitter: @noamlevey
May 5, 2017 14:49:10 #
GOP Congress stiffs workers
I n a remarkable feat of special-interest favoritism, House and Senate Republicans have pushed legislation through Congress to protect Wall Street firms at the expense of their own constituents. The measure, which awaits President Trump’s signature, would rescind an Obama administration ruling that supported state-run retirement savings plans for workers whose employers do not provide one.
At issue is whether states can help those workers — an estimated 55 million nationwide, typically employees at small and low-wage businesses — build up retirement savings with the same tax breaks enjoyed by workers at companies with 401(k) plans. Half a dozen states, including California, are developing ways for those workers to make automatic deposits into private individual retirement accounts overseen by the state, an approach that the Labor Department blessed in a ruling last year.
But some influential Wall Street firms cried foul, afraid that employers would have their workers sign up for the state IRAs rather than hiring the firms to create 401(k) plans — even though the firms have shown no interest in these employers or their workers. Their opposition was especially puzzling in California, where the state’s new Secure Choice savings program could lead 7.5 million workers without retirement plans to set up IRAs run by … Wall Street mutual funds.
Republican lawmakers responded with a resolution (HJ Res 66) to disapprove the Labor Department’s ruling. They argued that the state programs would victimize workers “forced” to contribute to these savings plans without the protection of federal law. Never mind that the savings plans all would have to comply with state safeguards — it’s richly ironic to hear Republicans argue for more federal regulation and less state control. The House rushed the resolution through in February, and the Senate just barely approved it Wednesday, sending it to Trump’s desk.
The real risk here isn’t that businesses might have to make an additional payroll deduction on their workers’ behalf, or that workers and their employers might miss having a rigid federal bureaucracy overseeing these retirement savings plans. The real risk is the one posed by the millions of adults who don’t have any kind of retirement plan, and the third of the country’s residents who haven’t set aside a dime for their dotage. Social Security benefits will keep many (not all) of them out of poverty, but not by much.
Trump is expected to sign the resolution, making it likely that any state that moves ahead will be sued for allegedly violating the federal law on workplace retirement plans. That’s a red herring. California should launch its savings program and make the case in court that it’s legal, because there’s no question that it’s needed.
I n a remarkable feat of special-interest favoritism, House and Senate Republicans have pushed legislation through Congress to protect Wall Street firms at the expense of their own constituents. The measure, which awaits President Trump’s signature, would rescind an Obama administration ruling that supported state-run retirement savings plans for workers whose employers do not provide one.
At issue is whether states can help those workers — an estimated 55 million nationwide, typically employees at small and low-wage businesses — build up retirement savings with the same tax breaks enjoyed by workers at companies with 401(k) plans. Half a dozen states, including California, are developing ways for those workers to make automatic deposits into private individual retirement accounts overseen by the state, an approach that the Labor Department blessed in a ruling last year.
But some influential Wall Street firms cried foul, afraid that employers would have their workers sign up for the state IRAs rather than hiring the firms to create 401(k) plans — even though the firms have shown no interest in these employers or their workers. Their opposition was especially puzzling in California, where the state’s new Secure Choice savings program could lead 7.5 million workers without retirement plans to set up IRAs run by … Wall Street mutual funds.
Republican lawmakers responded with a resolution (HJ Res 66) to disapprove the Labor Department’s ruling. They argued that the state programs would victimize workers “forced” to contribute to these savings plans without the protection of federal law. Never mind that the savings plans all would have to comply with state safeguards — it’s richly ironic to hear Republicans argue for more federal regulation and less state control. The House rushed the resolution through in February, and the Senate just barely approved it Wednesday, sending it to Trump’s desk.
The real risk here isn’t that businesses might have to make an additional payroll deduction on their workers’ behalf, or that workers and their employers might miss having a rigid federal bureaucracy overseeing these retirement savings plans. The real risk is the one posed by the millions of adults who don’t have any kind of retirement plan, and the third of the country’s residents who haven’t set aside a dime for their dotage. Social Security benefits will keep many (not all) of them out of poverty, but not by much.
Trump is expected to sign the resolution, making it likely that any state that moves ahead will be sued for allegedly violating the federal law on workplace retirement plans. That’s a red herring. California should launch its savings program and make the case in court that it’s legal, because there’s no question that it’s needed.
May 5, 2017 15:14:32 #
GOP will regret healthcare ‘win’
By Scott Lemieux
T wo days before the Kentucky Derby, House Republicans hit the trifecta: They used an undemocratic process to pass a healthcare bill that’s awful on the merits and can only hurt them politically.
Republicans created a myth about the Affordable Care Act, claiming that Democrats rammed it through under cover of darkness. For years they mocked then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” But this phrase was taken out of context: She was talking about how the news media had distorted the bill. At any rate, this story about the ACA was completely false. Democrats let the Congressional Budget Office carefully score the bill and if it was rushed it was with the slowest haste in legislative history — the process took more than a year.
Everything that Republicans said about the process that led to the ACA and worse is absolutely true , however, of Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s American Health Care Act. As Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham conceded on Twitter, the bill was “finalized yesterday, has not been scored [by the CBO], amendments not allowed” and only “3 hours final debate” were permitted. Astonishingly, the people’s representatives voted to radically upend the healthcare sector before a public version of the bill was even available.
There’s a reason for this rushed and opaque process — you don’t refuse to wait for a CBO score if you expect good news.
As Pelosi said before the vote, “forcing a vote without a CBO score shows that Republicans are afraid of the facts.” Indeed, it’s hard to overstate how scary the facts really are.
If it becomes law, the AHCA will strip insurance coverage from millions and millions of working people while giving the upper class a massive tax cut. At the last minute, Rep. Fred Upton offered an amendment to help states reduce premiums for people with preexisting conditions — but no one who’s taken either a math class or visited a doctor’s office believes the amount set aside ($8 billion over five years) is nearly enough. Many people with preexisting conditions (which includes people who have sought treatment for sexual assault ) will therefore be locked out of the insurance market. Meanwhile, savage cuts to Medicaid will cause many poor people to lose access to healthcare entirely. The AHCA could also eliminate caps on out-of-pocket expenses for the lucky people who get insurance through their employers, preventing them from continuing expensive treatments.
(Excuse me for not using precise numbers but, as stated, the GOP refused to allow the CBO to score the bill.)
In short, Donald Trump’s promise to cover more Americans more cheaply while protecting Medicaid was a grotesque lie.
Precisely because the bill is terrible, voting to pass it will be a political disaster for the Republican Party. The first version of the bill was massively unpopular , and this version won’t do much better. There simply isn’t any public constituency for passing a huge cut to federal healthcare spending, causing millions to lose insurance, and giving the money to the rich. Pelosi was right that the public would like Obamacare more when they found out what was in it, because most of its components were individually popular even when the bill was not. The same isn’t true of Trumpcare — virtually everything in it is unpopular. It will almost certainly cost some blue-state Republican House members their seats in 2018, and it won’t help Trump’s bad approval ratings either.
It’s unlikely that this slapdash and morally monstrous bill will be able to pass the Senate, even in modified form. Unlikely — but not impossible . Perversely, the political hit Republicans will take for going on the record in favor of Trumpcare might make it more likely to pass the Senate.
For wavering Republicans, putting the party’s House majority at serious risk and not even getting anything out of it would be the worst-case scenario.
Trumpcare would quite simply be a humanitarian nightmare, resulting in untold avoidable death and suffering for no good reason. At least it’s now obvious — though it should have been obvious long ago — that Trump is not a compassionate populist and that Ryan is not a policy wonk. The fact that Republicans plan to hold a party to celebrate this great “victory” should make great fodder for midterm election attack ads.
Scott Lemieux is an instructor of political science at SUNY Albany and regular contributor to the New Republic and The Week.
By Scott Lemieux
T wo days before the Kentucky Derby, House Republicans hit the trifecta: They used an undemocratic process to pass a healthcare bill that’s awful on the merits and can only hurt them politically.
Republicans created a myth about the Affordable Care Act, claiming that Democrats rammed it through under cover of darkness. For years they mocked then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” But this phrase was taken out of context: She was talking about how the news media had distorted the bill. At any rate, this story about the ACA was completely false. Democrats let the Congressional Budget Office carefully score the bill and if it was rushed it was with the slowest haste in legislative history — the process took more than a year.
Everything that Republicans said about the process that led to the ACA and worse is absolutely true , however, of Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s American Health Care Act. As Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham conceded on Twitter, the bill was “finalized yesterday, has not been scored [by the CBO], amendments not allowed” and only “3 hours final debate” were permitted. Astonishingly, the people’s representatives voted to radically upend the healthcare sector before a public version of the bill was even available.
There’s a reason for this rushed and opaque process — you don’t refuse to wait for a CBO score if you expect good news.
As Pelosi said before the vote, “forcing a vote without a CBO score shows that Republicans are afraid of the facts.” Indeed, it’s hard to overstate how scary the facts really are.
If it becomes law, the AHCA will strip insurance coverage from millions and millions of working people while giving the upper class a massive tax cut. At the last minute, Rep. Fred Upton offered an amendment to help states reduce premiums for people with preexisting conditions — but no one who’s taken either a math class or visited a doctor’s office believes the amount set aside ($8 billion over five years) is nearly enough. Many people with preexisting conditions (which includes people who have sought treatment for sexual assault ) will therefore be locked out of the insurance market. Meanwhile, savage cuts to Medicaid will cause many poor people to lose access to healthcare entirely. The AHCA could also eliminate caps on out-of-pocket expenses for the lucky people who get insurance through their employers, preventing them from continuing expensive treatments.
(Excuse me for not using precise numbers but, as stated, the GOP refused to allow the CBO to score the bill.)
In short, Donald Trump’s promise to cover more Americans more cheaply while protecting Medicaid was a grotesque lie.
Precisely because the bill is terrible, voting to pass it will be a political disaster for the Republican Party. The first version of the bill was massively unpopular , and this version won’t do much better. There simply isn’t any public constituency for passing a huge cut to federal healthcare spending, causing millions to lose insurance, and giving the money to the rich. Pelosi was right that the public would like Obamacare more when they found out what was in it, because most of its components were individually popular even when the bill was not. The same isn’t true of Trumpcare — virtually everything in it is unpopular. It will almost certainly cost some blue-state Republican House members their seats in 2018, and it won’t help Trump’s bad approval ratings either.
It’s unlikely that this slapdash and morally monstrous bill will be able to pass the Senate, even in modified form. Unlikely — but not impossible . Perversely, the political hit Republicans will take for going on the record in favor of Trumpcare might make it more likely to pass the Senate.
For wavering Republicans, putting the party’s House majority at serious risk and not even getting anything out of it would be the worst-case scenario.
Trumpcare would quite simply be a humanitarian nightmare, resulting in untold avoidable death and suffering for no good reason. At least it’s now obvious — though it should have been obvious long ago — that Trump is not a compassionate populist and that Ryan is not a policy wonk. The fact that Republicans plan to hold a party to celebrate this great “victory” should make great fodder for midterm election attack ads.
Scott Lemieux is an instructor of political science at SUNY Albany and regular contributor to the New Republic and The Week.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.