Posts for: Progressive One
May 5, 2017 15:39:07 #
(Main)
Q&A
Will L.A. schools ease rules for meals?
Despite USDA shift, district likely to stick to its nutrition targets.
By Howard Blume
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced this week that his department would back away from enforcing the latest sodium-reduction target for school meals. In addition, schools won’t have to switch entirely to whole-wheat products, and they’ll be able to use flavored milk with 1% fat. (Previously, only nonfat flavored milk was allowed.) These standards were put in place by the Obama administration and have been gradually taking effect.
Is L.A. Unified likely to relax its own standards now that the Trump administration is doing so?
No.
Are the changes likely to affect local schools in some ways?
They could affect some schools and some school districts, but L.A. Unified, the state’s largest school system, will continue to use the nutritional targets set by the Obama administration.
Where does L.A. Unified stand on nutrition standards?
L.A. Unified has been a national leader in improving nutritional standards. But it has encountered some of the same problems that other school systems are complaining about, which include persuading students to eat healthier meals.
What are the arguments against the nutritional guidelines established by the Obama administration?
School districts and some related organizations have complained that the rules need to strike a better balance between nutrition and taste appeal, because it’s better for students to eat school food rather than to skip these meals or substitute something unhealthful instead — before or after school.
School systems also have borne some costs associated with higher standards without getting enough federal aid to cover these costs. One example is that the Obama-era rules upped the fruit content at breakfast from half a cup to a full cup, but did not provide funding for the extra fruit, said Joseph Vaughn, director of food services for L.A. Unified.
Is this another “extreme” right-wing move by the Trump administration?
Not exactly. There are certainly many school districts that are likely to support these changes. And, yes, they move away from healthier alternatives, but not all the way to the extreme of unhealthful alternatives.
The administration did not, for example, backtrack all the way to 2% milk or to the elimination of all sodium standards.
How does the Trump administration argue the need for these changes?
Here’s the anecdote offered by Perdue: “A perfect example is in the South, where the schools want to serve grits. But the whole-grain variety has little black flakes in it, and the kids won’t eat it. The school is compliant with the whole-grain requirements, but no one is eating the grits. That doesn’t make any sense.”
Food advocacy groups challenge such anecdotes. They contend that school systems were largely on track to meet the new guidelines and that such problems as childhood obesity justify strong nutritional standards.
In any case, there was more than a little hyperbole in the headline of the federal announcement: “Ag Secretary Perdue Moves to Make School Meals Great Again.”
Do the new federal regulations affect L.A. Unified policies on milk, which has been the subject of much recent discussion in the district?
As it happens, L.A. Unified this week began general distribution of flavored milk for the first time since 2011, when it was banned by then-Supt. John Deasy and the Board of Education. But the timing of this move is coincidental to the federal announcement. L.A. Unified is now serving nonfat flavored milk, which was always allowed. It is not considering flavored milk with 1% fat, even though that is now permitted.
What else is happening on the food front in L.A. Unified?
The school system next fall will test having a vegan option at a group of schools. And the district’s chicken is sourced from providers who are scored based on how they treat their chickens, their employees and the environment.
Do students like the healthy food at L.A. Unified?
Meal consumption is up, and one reason may be that the district has made some concessions to taste that, in some cases, have a nutritional impact. Kids like breaded chicken more than grilled chicken, for example, so the district will offer more of that. But there’s still an issue with the preparation of food in central kitchens. The food doesn’t always travel well, especially when it comes to preserving flavor. L.A. Unified also is behind some school systems in providing choices such as salad bars. The district has no plans in the near future to return to the era of cafeterias where the lunch ladies (and men) actually prepare the food at schools.
howard.blume@latimes.com
Twitter: @howardblume
Will L.A. schools ease rules for meals?
Despite USDA shift, district likely to stick to its nutrition targets.
By Howard Blume
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced this week that his department would back away from enforcing the latest sodium-reduction target for school meals. In addition, schools won’t have to switch entirely to whole-wheat products, and they’ll be able to use flavored milk with 1% fat. (Previously, only nonfat flavored milk was allowed.) These standards were put in place by the Obama administration and have been gradually taking effect.
Is L.A. Unified likely to relax its own standards now that the Trump administration is doing so?
No.
Are the changes likely to affect local schools in some ways?
They could affect some schools and some school districts, but L.A. Unified, the state’s largest school system, will continue to use the nutritional targets set by the Obama administration.
Where does L.A. Unified stand on nutrition standards?
L.A. Unified has been a national leader in improving nutritional standards. But it has encountered some of the same problems that other school systems are complaining about, which include persuading students to eat healthier meals.
What are the arguments against the nutritional guidelines established by the Obama administration?
School districts and some related organizations have complained that the rules need to strike a better balance between nutrition and taste appeal, because it’s better for students to eat school food rather than to skip these meals or substitute something unhealthful instead — before or after school.
School systems also have borne some costs associated with higher standards without getting enough federal aid to cover these costs. One example is that the Obama-era rules upped the fruit content at breakfast from half a cup to a full cup, but did not provide funding for the extra fruit, said Joseph Vaughn, director of food services for L.A. Unified.
Is this another “extreme” right-wing move by the Trump administration?
Not exactly. There are certainly many school districts that are likely to support these changes. And, yes, they move away from healthier alternatives, but not all the way to the extreme of unhealthful alternatives.
The administration did not, for example, backtrack all the way to 2% milk or to the elimination of all sodium standards.
How does the Trump administration argue the need for these changes?
Here’s the anecdote offered by Perdue: “A perfect example is in the South, where the schools want to serve grits. But the whole-grain variety has little black flakes in it, and the kids won’t eat it. The school is compliant with the whole-grain requirements, but no one is eating the grits. That doesn’t make any sense.”
Food advocacy groups challenge such anecdotes. They contend that school systems were largely on track to meet the new guidelines and that such problems as childhood obesity justify strong nutritional standards.
In any case, there was more than a little hyperbole in the headline of the federal announcement: “Ag Secretary Perdue Moves to Make School Meals Great Again.”
Do the new federal regulations affect L.A. Unified policies on milk, which has been the subject of much recent discussion in the district?
As it happens, L.A. Unified this week began general distribution of flavored milk for the first time since 2011, when it was banned by then-Supt. John Deasy and the Board of Education. But the timing of this move is coincidental to the federal announcement. L.A. Unified is now serving nonfat flavored milk, which was always allowed. It is not considering flavored milk with 1% fat, even though that is now permitted.
What else is happening on the food front in L.A. Unified?
The school system next fall will test having a vegan option at a group of schools. And the district’s chicken is sourced from providers who are scored based on how they treat their chickens, their employees and the environment.
Do students like the healthy food at L.A. Unified?
Meal consumption is up, and one reason may be that the district has made some concessions to taste that, in some cases, have a nutritional impact. Kids like breaded chicken more than grilled chicken, for example, so the district will offer more of that. But there’s still an issue with the preparation of food in central kitchens. The food doesn’t always travel well, especially when it comes to preserving flavor. L.A. Unified also is behind some school systems in providing choices such as salad bars. The district has no plans in the near future to return to the era of cafeterias where the lunch ladies (and men) actually prepare the food at schools.
howard.blume@latimes.com
Twitter: @howardblume
May 5, 2017 15:22:48 #
(Main)
Strict ‘sanctuary cities’ ban
Texas legislation could put police in jail if they fail to comply.
PEOPLE RALLY outside the Capitol in Austin, Texas, this week to protest Senate Bill 4, which bans “sanctuary cities” in the state and allows police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detain. (Jay Janner Austin American-Statesman)
By Jenny Jarvie
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was poised Thursday to sign the nation’s most stringent law yet to target “sanctuary cities,” a measure that could impose heavy fines or even jail time on local law enforcement officials who refuse to honor immigration detention requests.
After weeks of heated debate, sit-ins and protests at the state Capitol in Austin, Texas lawmakers Wednesday night passed the sweeping bill that would ban sanctuary cities and allow police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detained, even those stopped for minor traffic violations. It would also force local officials to comply with federal immigration requests to detain those who are suspected of being in the country illegally.
Police chiefs and county sheriffs who refuse to comply with federal requests, which are not mandatory under federal law, could face up to a year in jail. Cities, counties and colleges could also face stiff fines, from $1,000 to $25,500 a day.
Abbott has said he will sign the bill in the coming days, and immigrant advocates are gearing up for a court fight.
“This is unprecedented,” said Angie Junck, supervising attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco, who argued the bill violated 4th Amendment protections against warrantless arrests without probable cause and raised concerns about racial profiling.
“It’s not only telling law enforcement to engage in unconstitutional behavior, but it’s then seeking to punish them for a crime,” she said. “It’s astonishing.”
The Texas legislation, Senate Bill 4, passed amid a fierce national debate on sanctuary cities, jurisdictions which decline to hold immigrants arrested for local crimes past their release date simply because immigration authorities want them detained for potential deportation proceedings.
Shortly after his inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order on immigration that threatened to strip federal funds from cities that did not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. That provision of the order is in legal limbo after a federal judge in Northern California temporarily blocked it last week, concluding that cities could prevail in their argument that placing new conditions on federal funds is unconstitutional.
On Thursday, Maryland Atty. Gen. Brian E. Frosh issued a memo warning that state and local law enforcement officers were “potentially exposed to liability” if they honored immigration detainer requests — unless the request is accompanied by a judicial warrant or supported by information providing probable cause that the person has committed a crime.
While other states have passed laws urging municipalities to assist federal immigration efforts — Mississippi’s governor signed a law in March that bars sanctuary jurisdictions — legal experts say the Texas bill is the first to explicitly make it mandatory to honor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers, with noncompliance subject to criminal penalties.
“This law takes some of the federal policies that we’ve seen and puts it on steroids,” Junck said. “It seems this governor and the Texas Legislature are trying to outdo the federal government and design their own plan for deportations of residents and to create fear within anyone that’s in the immigrant community to drive them out of the state of Texas.”
Abbott has promised he will “not tolerate sanctuary-city policies that put the cities of Texas at risk.” Shortly after it won legislative approval Wednesday, he wrote on Twitter: “I’m getting my signing pen warmed up.”
Legal experts say the Texas bill is even stricter than Arizona’s widely criticized 2010 law, SB 1070, that required police officers to demand the papers of people suspected of being in the country illegally. After a string of lawsuits and boycotts, that law was eventually amended.
Republican officials who have supported the legislation say it is needed to ensure that those who have committed crimes and are in the country illegally are deported.
“SB 4 will ensure that no liberal local official can flaunt the law,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a statement. “This legislation will eliminate a substantial incentive for illegal immigration and help make Texas communities safer.”
A wide range of opponents — immigrant advocates, Democratic legislators, police organizations and politicians from cities such as Austin and Houston with large immigrant populations — had made it a priority to defeat the bill.
“I am concerned that we’re the canary in the coal mine and other states will start attempting to pass draconian anti-immigrant laws,” said Gregorio Casar, an Austin city councilman who represents a heavily Latino part of north Austin. On Monday, he was one of two dozen protesters arrested outside the governor’s office.
“You’re going to see the people of Texas fight this law every single step of the way, because it’s unconstitutional, it’s dangerous, it’s bad for the economy and it isn’t the state’s business to be cracking down on immigrants,” Casar added.
In turn, Republican Sen. Charles Perry, who wrote the bill, has accused opponents of fear-mongering. The bill, he has argued, provides “uniform application of the law without prejudice” to everyone in Texas.
“Banning sanctuary cities is about stopping officials who have sworn to enforce the law from helping people who commit terrible crimes evade immigration detainers,” he said in a statement.
Police chiefs and sheriffs of major jurisdictions across Texas have spoken out against the bill, arguing that requiring local law enforcement to take a more active role in immigration enforcement will create fear among immigrant communities, foster distrust of police and lead to an uptick in crime.
Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, who made headlines this year when she announced she would not voluntarily comply with federal requests to detain people solely on the basis of their immigration status, said the bill passed as a result of fear and misinformation.
“I am disappointed, because this is not in the best interest of public safety,” she said Thursday in a statement. “It ties the hands of our law enforcement agency and pushes victims of crime into the shadows. While I hate seeing a state law like this come to pass, I have always followed the law and that will not change.”
In an opinion piece published in the Dallas Morning News, David Pughes, interim chief of police in Dallas, and Art Acevedo, chief of police in Houston, wrote that the bill was “political pandering that will make our communities more dangerous.”
“Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups will result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims, and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing crime,” they wrote.
In recent weeks, Texas Democrats and moderate Republicans worked desperately to try to tone down the bill. Last week, Democratic lawmakers in the Republican-dominated House wore all black as they engaged in a marathon overnight session to defeat the legislation.
But after 16 hours of emotional debate, the bill that eventually passed the House 93 to 54 was stricter than previous versions.
One late amendment, criticized by Democratic lawmakers, says police departments cannot discourage officers from inquiring about the immigration status of those who have been detained, even during routine traffic stops. Legal experts warn this would allow sheriff’s deputies and police officers to question a person’s legal status without having probable cause.
“It has gone from a bad bill to a worse bill,” Sen. Sylvia Garcia, a Democrat who represents Houston, warned in remarks to the Senate on Wednesday. She said she feared the legislation could lead to police harassment and profiling of Latinos.
“The last thing I want is ‘walking while brown’ to become reasonable suspicion,” she said. “And, frankly, that is what will happen with this legislation — it doesn’t matter how much its supporters promise that this will not happen. It will happen.”
Jarvie is a special correspondent.
Texas legislation could put police in jail if they fail to comply.
PEOPLE RALLY outside the Capitol in Austin, Texas, this week to protest Senate Bill 4, which bans “sanctuary cities” in the state and allows police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detain. (Jay Janner Austin American-Statesman)
By Jenny Jarvie
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was poised Thursday to sign the nation’s most stringent law yet to target “sanctuary cities,” a measure that could impose heavy fines or even jail time on local law enforcement officials who refuse to honor immigration detention requests.
After weeks of heated debate, sit-ins and protests at the state Capitol in Austin, Texas lawmakers Wednesday night passed the sweeping bill that would ban sanctuary cities and allow police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detained, even those stopped for minor traffic violations. It would also force local officials to comply with federal immigration requests to detain those who are suspected of being in the country illegally.
Police chiefs and county sheriffs who refuse to comply with federal requests, which are not mandatory under federal law, could face up to a year in jail. Cities, counties and colleges could also face stiff fines, from $1,000 to $25,500 a day.
Abbott has said he will sign the bill in the coming days, and immigrant advocates are gearing up for a court fight.
“This is unprecedented,” said Angie Junck, supervising attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco, who argued the bill violated 4th Amendment protections against warrantless arrests without probable cause and raised concerns about racial profiling.
“It’s not only telling law enforcement to engage in unconstitutional behavior, but it’s then seeking to punish them for a crime,” she said. “It’s astonishing.”
The Texas legislation, Senate Bill 4, passed amid a fierce national debate on sanctuary cities, jurisdictions which decline to hold immigrants arrested for local crimes past their release date simply because immigration authorities want them detained for potential deportation proceedings.
Shortly after his inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order on immigration that threatened to strip federal funds from cities that did not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. That provision of the order is in legal limbo after a federal judge in Northern California temporarily blocked it last week, concluding that cities could prevail in their argument that placing new conditions on federal funds is unconstitutional.
On Thursday, Maryland Atty. Gen. Brian E. Frosh issued a memo warning that state and local law enforcement officers were “potentially exposed to liability” if they honored immigration detainer requests — unless the request is accompanied by a judicial warrant or supported by information providing probable cause that the person has committed a crime.
While other states have passed laws urging municipalities to assist federal immigration efforts — Mississippi’s governor signed a law in March that bars sanctuary jurisdictions — legal experts say the Texas bill is the first to explicitly make it mandatory to honor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers, with noncompliance subject to criminal penalties.
“This law takes some of the federal policies that we’ve seen and puts it on steroids,” Junck said. “It seems this governor and the Texas Legislature are trying to outdo the federal government and design their own plan for deportations of residents and to create fear within anyone that’s in the immigrant community to drive them out of the state of Texas.”
Abbott has promised he will “not tolerate sanctuary-city policies that put the cities of Texas at risk.” Shortly after it won legislative approval Wednesday, he wrote on Twitter: “I’m getting my signing pen warmed up.”
Legal experts say the Texas bill is even stricter than Arizona’s widely criticized 2010 law, SB 1070, that required police officers to demand the papers of people suspected of being in the country illegally. After a string of lawsuits and boycotts, that law was eventually amended.
Republican officials who have supported the legislation say it is needed to ensure that those who have committed crimes and are in the country illegally are deported.
“SB 4 will ensure that no liberal local official can flaunt the law,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a statement. “This legislation will eliminate a substantial incentive for illegal immigration and help make Texas communities safer.”
A wide range of opponents — immigrant advocates, Democratic legislators, police organizations and politicians from cities such as Austin and Houston with large immigrant populations — had made it a priority to defeat the bill.
“I am concerned that we’re the canary in the coal mine and other states will start attempting to pass draconian anti-immigrant laws,” said Gregorio Casar, an Austin city councilman who represents a heavily Latino part of north Austin. On Monday, he was one of two dozen protesters arrested outside the governor’s office.
“You’re going to see the people of Texas fight this law every single step of the way, because it’s unconstitutional, it’s dangerous, it’s bad for the economy and it isn’t the state’s business to be cracking down on immigrants,” Casar added.
In turn, Republican Sen. Charles Perry, who wrote the bill, has accused opponents of fear-mongering. The bill, he has argued, provides “uniform application of the law without prejudice” to everyone in Texas.
“Banning sanctuary cities is about stopping officials who have sworn to enforce the law from helping people who commit terrible crimes evade immigration detainers,” he said in a statement.
Police chiefs and sheriffs of major jurisdictions across Texas have spoken out against the bill, arguing that requiring local law enforcement to take a more active role in immigration enforcement will create fear among immigrant communities, foster distrust of police and lead to an uptick in crime.
Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, who made headlines this year when she announced she would not voluntarily comply with federal requests to detain people solely on the basis of their immigration status, said the bill passed as a result of fear and misinformation.
“I am disappointed, because this is not in the best interest of public safety,” she said Thursday in a statement. “It ties the hands of our law enforcement agency and pushes victims of crime into the shadows. While I hate seeing a state law like this come to pass, I have always followed the law and that will not change.”
In an opinion piece published in the Dallas Morning News, David Pughes, interim chief of police in Dallas, and Art Acevedo, chief of police in Houston, wrote that the bill was “political pandering that will make our communities more dangerous.”
“Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups will result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims, and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing crime,” they wrote.
In recent weeks, Texas Democrats and moderate Republicans worked desperately to try to tone down the bill. Last week, Democratic lawmakers in the Republican-dominated House wore all black as they engaged in a marathon overnight session to defeat the legislation.
But after 16 hours of emotional debate, the bill that eventually passed the House 93 to 54 was stricter than previous versions.
One late amendment, criticized by Democratic lawmakers, says police departments cannot discourage officers from inquiring about the immigration status of those who have been detained, even during routine traffic stops. Legal experts warn this would allow sheriff’s deputies and police officers to question a person’s legal status without having probable cause.
“It has gone from a bad bill to a worse bill,” Sen. Sylvia Garcia, a Democrat who represents Houston, warned in remarks to the Senate on Wednesday. She said she feared the legislation could lead to police harassment and profiling of Latinos.
“The last thing I want is ‘walking while brown’ to become reasonable suspicion,” she said. “And, frankly, that is what will happen with this legislation — it doesn’t matter how much its supporters promise that this will not happen. It will happen.”
Jarvie is a special correspondent.
May 5, 2017 15:21:57 #
(Main)
Democrats’ midterm dilemma
RONALD BROWNSTEIN
P resident Trump’s historically low approval ratings provide Democrats legitimate reasons for optimism about their prospects in the 2018 elections, especially in the House. But that confidence rests on a contradiction: Minorities and millennials, the groups most alienated from Trump, are traditionally the constituencies least likely to vote in midterm elections.
The contrast between the electorate’s composition in presidential and midterm elections has confounded Democrats since the 1990s. Over the past two decades, the party has grown more reliant on a coalition revolving around college-educated whites (especially women), minorities and millennials. That new configuration has left Democrats with a boom-and-bust coalition, because the latter two groups are much more likely to vote in presidential elections than midterms; the off-year falloff has been particularly severe among young people. As minorities and millennials recede in midterms, the older whites who increasingly favor the GOP cast a larger share of ballots.
That dynamic helped fuel the GOP sweeps in both the 2010 and 2014 contests under President Obama, and offers a warning for the next one. “If the 2018 electorate resembles a typical midterm electorate, Democrats won’t take back the House,” said Tom Bonier, chief executive of the Democratic voter-targeting firm TargetSmart. “The question of millennial turnout is the biggest question to that end, and it will remain an open question until Election Day 2018.”
The challenge is especially urgent for Democrats because Trump divides younger and older Americans so sharply. Though Trump showed strength among blue-collar white millennials, he carried just 36% of young people overall last November. Polls show he’s lost ground since. Both the CNN/ORC and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys released last week found his approval rating among adults ages 18 to 34 — almost exactly the millennial generation’s boundaries — falling below 30%. Trump’s border wall, his push to repeal Obama’s climate-change agenda, his desire to defund Planned Parenthood, cut taxes for top earners, bar Syrian refugees from the U.S. — they all face preponderant millennial opposition in surveys.
That hostility has produced a pronounced Democratic lean among millennials in early tests of 2018 attitudes. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the party’s advantage among younger voters approaches 30 points, more than double the level in 2010 and 2014 polls. By contrast, Americans 35 years old or more divide exactly evenly between the parties in the CNN/ORC survey and slightly prefer Republicans in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
With millennials poised to eclipse baby boomers as the largest generation of eligible voters in 2020, that ought to present a real challenge for the GOP, but only if Democrats can motivate these younger voters to actually mark and submit their ballots.
Figures compiled by CIRCLE, an institute that studies voter engagement at Tufts University, found that turnout among eligible voters ages 18 to 29 plummeted by more than half from the 2008 presidential election to the 2010 midterms and by that much again from 2012 to 2014. That decline was proportionally far greater than among older generations. (It was also greater than the falloff among minority voters from presidential to midterm elections.)
The result is that while young people ages 18 to 29 comprised nearly one-fifth of all voters in 2008 and 2012, their share collapsed to about one in eight in 2010 and 2014. Seniors, in turn, cast considerably more of the total vote in those midterms than in the presidential years. If that dynamic persists, it will measurably boost Trump and the GOP. In the CNN/ORC survey, more than seven in 10 millennials said they want candidates who will oppose Trump. A slight majority of seniors said they want candidates who will support him.
Can Democrats avoid another midterm millennial malaise? They start with less enthusiasm than under Obama. With Hillary Clinton topping the ticket, Bonier’s analysis of state voter files found, turnout was strong among Latino young people, weaker among younger African Americans (especially men), and mixed among whites.
Two young Democratic operatives have approached the problem from the supply side by forming an organization called Run for Something that assists progressive millennials seeking state or local office. Amanda Litman, the group’s co-founder, said it is building a network of campaign consultants and donors to help young candidates for offices from school board to state legislatures; it has already advanced about 800 potential candidates past its initial screening process.
That many more young
candidates knocking on doors could engage more young voters. “Our candidates have told us,” Litman said, “that their friends and their communities are
getting more involved because they have a personal connection.” Rather than waiting for Democratic organizations to groom young candidates and mobilize young voters, she added, “people like me, my candidates, and their supporters are stepping up and not waiting for the committees.”
Litman pins responsibility in the right place. Whether or not the Democratic Party musters effective turnout efforts, the Trump years will test whether millennials can bear the weight of politically defending the values that most of them say define their generation.
Ronald Brownstein is a
senior editor of the Atlantic.
rbrownstein@national
journal.com
RONALD BROWNSTEIN
P resident Trump’s historically low approval ratings provide Democrats legitimate reasons for optimism about their prospects in the 2018 elections, especially in the House. But that confidence rests on a contradiction: Minorities and millennials, the groups most alienated from Trump, are traditionally the constituencies least likely to vote in midterm elections.
The contrast between the electorate’s composition in presidential and midterm elections has confounded Democrats since the 1990s. Over the past two decades, the party has grown more reliant on a coalition revolving around college-educated whites (especially women), minorities and millennials. That new configuration has left Democrats with a boom-and-bust coalition, because the latter two groups are much more likely to vote in presidential elections than midterms; the off-year falloff has been particularly severe among young people. As minorities and millennials recede in midterms, the older whites who increasingly favor the GOP cast a larger share of ballots.
That dynamic helped fuel the GOP sweeps in both the 2010 and 2014 contests under President Obama, and offers a warning for the next one. “If the 2018 electorate resembles a typical midterm electorate, Democrats won’t take back the House,” said Tom Bonier, chief executive of the Democratic voter-targeting firm TargetSmart. “The question of millennial turnout is the biggest question to that end, and it will remain an open question until Election Day 2018.”
The challenge is especially urgent for Democrats because Trump divides younger and older Americans so sharply. Though Trump showed strength among blue-collar white millennials, he carried just 36% of young people overall last November. Polls show he’s lost ground since. Both the CNN/ORC and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys released last week found his approval rating among adults ages 18 to 34 — almost exactly the millennial generation’s boundaries — falling below 30%. Trump’s border wall, his push to repeal Obama’s climate-change agenda, his desire to defund Planned Parenthood, cut taxes for top earners, bar Syrian refugees from the U.S. — they all face preponderant millennial opposition in surveys.
That hostility has produced a pronounced Democratic lean among millennials in early tests of 2018 attitudes. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the party’s advantage among younger voters approaches 30 points, more than double the level in 2010 and 2014 polls. By contrast, Americans 35 years old or more divide exactly evenly between the parties in the CNN/ORC survey and slightly prefer Republicans in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
With millennials poised to eclipse baby boomers as the largest generation of eligible voters in 2020, that ought to present a real challenge for the GOP, but only if Democrats can motivate these younger voters to actually mark and submit their ballots.
Figures compiled by CIRCLE, an institute that studies voter engagement at Tufts University, found that turnout among eligible voters ages 18 to 29 plummeted by more than half from the 2008 presidential election to the 2010 midterms and by that much again from 2012 to 2014. That decline was proportionally far greater than among older generations. (It was also greater than the falloff among minority voters from presidential to midterm elections.)
The result is that while young people ages 18 to 29 comprised nearly one-fifth of all voters in 2008 and 2012, their share collapsed to about one in eight in 2010 and 2014. Seniors, in turn, cast considerably more of the total vote in those midterms than in the presidential years. If that dynamic persists, it will measurably boost Trump and the GOP. In the CNN/ORC survey, more than seven in 10 millennials said they want candidates who will oppose Trump. A slight majority of seniors said they want candidates who will support him.
Can Democrats avoid another midterm millennial malaise? They start with less enthusiasm than under Obama. With Hillary Clinton topping the ticket, Bonier’s analysis of state voter files found, turnout was strong among Latino young people, weaker among younger African Americans (especially men), and mixed among whites.
Two young Democratic operatives have approached the problem from the supply side by forming an organization called Run for Something that assists progressive millennials seeking state or local office. Amanda Litman, the group’s co-founder, said it is building a network of campaign consultants and donors to help young candidates for offices from school board to state legislatures; it has already advanced about 800 potential candidates past its initial screening process.
That many more young
candidates knocking on doors could engage more young voters. “Our candidates have told us,” Litman said, “that their friends and their communities are
getting more involved because they have a personal connection.” Rather than waiting for Democratic organizations to groom young candidates and mobilize young voters, she added, “people like me, my candidates, and their supporters are stepping up and not waiting for the committees.”
Litman pins responsibility in the right place. Whether or not the Democratic Party musters effective turnout efforts, the Trump years will test whether millennials can bear the weight of politically defending the values that most of them say define their generation.
Ronald Brownstein is a
senior editor of the Atlantic.
rbrownstein@national
journal.com
May 5, 2017 15:19:26 #
May 5, 2017 15:14:32 #
(Main)
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.
May 5, 2017 14:49:10 #
(Main)
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 14:47:58 #
(Main)
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 14:34:23 #
(Main)
Boston confronts old, ugly story
Racist incidents this week at Fenway Park perpetuate an enduring reputation
SECURITY GUARDS are on alert as Baltimore Orioles star Adam Jones returns to the dugout at Fenway Park, where he endured racist taunts this week. (Charles Krupa Associated Press )
By Matt Pearce
It happened again, in Boston, where it has happened so many times over the years: another racist incident at Fenway Park.
The beloved hometown Red Sox and the visiting Baltimore Orioles were preparing to take the field Tuesday night. As a Kenyan woman sang the national anthem, the Boston Globe later reported, a middle-aged white man in a Red Sox hat and T-shirt leaned over to the man next to him and criticized the rendition with a racial slur.
The other fan, who is also white, was offended and complained to stadium security. The man was ejected and, according to Red Sox President Sam Kennedy, banned for life from the storied ballpark.
The episode became big news, but it was an old story.
That story goes like this: Boston is one of the nation’s most politically progressive cities. Boston has some of the nation’s top universities. Boston has undergone a dramatic demographic shift, going from 82% white in 1970 to less than 54% white today.
Yet Boston has never been able to wipe away a reputation for racism that has long stained its name and its communities.
Boston Magazine ran a feature in 2008 about how athletes saw Boston as so racist that they didn’t want to play there, posing this question: “If it’s not a fair label anymore, as so many of us insist, then why won’t it go away?”
Boston is the city where in the 1970s white residents violently resisted efforts to desegregate local schools by busing in black students.
It’s the city where in 2004 San Francisco Giants star Barry Bonds said he could never play for the home team. “Boston is too racist for me,” Bonds told a reporter, who then suggested maybe the team would build a memorial to him and his greatness. “I’m black,” Bonds said. “They don’t build stuff for blacks.”
It’s the city about whose fans Angels center fielder Gary Matthews Jr. told the Los Angeles Times in 2007: “They’re loud, they’re drunk, they’re obnoxious; it’s one of the few places where you hear racial comments.... It’s just different.”
The national anthem incident is the second blowup over race at the ballpark this week. Orioles All-Star center fielder Adam Jones, who is black, told reporters that Boston fans taunted him with racial slurs and threw a bag of peanuts at him in the dugout. He called it “one of the worst” nights of abuse he’d received in his career.
“It is what it is, right?” Jones told USA Today. “I just go out and play baseball. But it’s unfortunate that people need to resort to those type of epithets to degrade another human being. I’m out there trying to make a living for myself and for my family.”
His remarks prompted Red Sox representatives to quickly apologize to Jones and ask fans to report similar conduct in the future.
“No player should have an object thrown at him on the playing field, nor be subjected to any kind of racism at Fenway Park,” Kennedy said in a statement. “The Red Sox have zero tolerance for such inexcusable behavior, and our entire organization and our fans are sickened by the conduct of an ignorant few.”
Jones’ complaints also started a familiar cycle of self-scrutiny among Boston residents and sports fans.
“I’m disappointed and discouraged that people like this still exist in the world, never mind my own city,” Jared Carrabis, a Red Sox supporter and writer at Barstool Sports, blogged about how Jones was treated . “No, a handful of fans do not represent the entire fan base, or the city for that matter, but this series of incidents on Monday night sure doesn’t help defuse the narrative that Boston is a racist city. And that is really, really aggravating.”
Last winter, “Saturday Night Live” star Michael Che, who is black, rankled some Bostonians when he riffed about supporting the Atlanta Falcons over the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl.
“I just want to relax, turn my brain off, and watch the blackest city in America beat the most racist city I’ve ever been to,” Che said.
A joke, maybe, but one that he meant, and one that clearly wounded the city’s white liberals.
“Talk to your closest black friend and ask them to explain it to you,” Che said later during an appearance at Boston University. In response, the city’s mayor, Marty Walsh, who is white, told a local radio station that he wanted to talk to the comedian about his experiences with Boston.
“Clearly it is something that is still inside of him and still bothers him or he wouldn’t have made that statement,” Walsh told Boston Public Radio.
Boston’s reputation as an enlightened city of universities and liberalism has long coexisted with its legacy as a stronghold for whites of Irish descent who dominated neighborhoods like South Boston, known as “Southie.” Boston remains a leading locale for movies with white working-class protagonists.
“Boston’s racial troubles are especially strange when they are set against the city’s reputation as a center of learning, leadership in the abolitionist movement and liberal voting record in recent years on other issues, from Vietnam to the nuclear freeze,” the New York Times noted in 1983, adding, “It is possible to go to a baseball game at Fenway Park and not see a black fan.”
The Red Sox were the last major league team to racially integrate, in 1959, when the team added Elijah “Pumpsie” Green to their roster — after the local chapter of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People protested his original assignment to the minor leagues.
The hometown Celtics, on the other hand, were the first NBA team to draft a black player (1950), put an all-black team on the court (1964) and hire a black coach (1966). But that legacy was overshadowed in the 1980s as the team dominated the league with a roster of mostly white stars.
In a 1990 photo essay by Spike Lee in Spin magazine, beneath a picture of a black man in a Celtics jersey, Lee wrote: “Boston sucks. This guy is an ‘Uncle Tom.’ ”
In his 2002 book, “Shut Out: A Story of Race and Baseball in Boston,” Howard Bryant concluded: “The notion of Boston as the moral voice of a nation, as a social beacon and the home of abolition in the eighteenth and nineteeth centuries, was a myth, really.”
When faced with a new round of self-examination this week, the Boston NAACP president, Tanisha Sullivan, was circumspect.
“I think on some level the expectation is that we as a city are much further along than we really are,” Sullivan said. “We really need to have the courage to address certainly our history, recognize where we are, and be willing to do the ongoing work necessary to make sure that Boston truly is that city on the hill.”
matt.pearce@latimes.com
Racist incidents this week at Fenway Park perpetuate an enduring reputation
SECURITY GUARDS are on alert as Baltimore Orioles star Adam Jones returns to the dugout at Fenway Park, where he endured racist taunts this week. (Charles Krupa Associated Press )
By Matt Pearce
It happened again, in Boston, where it has happened so many times over the years: another racist incident at Fenway Park.
The beloved hometown Red Sox and the visiting Baltimore Orioles were preparing to take the field Tuesday night. As a Kenyan woman sang the national anthem, the Boston Globe later reported, a middle-aged white man in a Red Sox hat and T-shirt leaned over to the man next to him and criticized the rendition with a racial slur.
The other fan, who is also white, was offended and complained to stadium security. The man was ejected and, according to Red Sox President Sam Kennedy, banned for life from the storied ballpark.
The episode became big news, but it was an old story.
That story goes like this: Boston is one of the nation’s most politically progressive cities. Boston has some of the nation’s top universities. Boston has undergone a dramatic demographic shift, going from 82% white in 1970 to less than 54% white today.
Yet Boston has never been able to wipe away a reputation for racism that has long stained its name and its communities.
Boston Magazine ran a feature in 2008 about how athletes saw Boston as so racist that they didn’t want to play there, posing this question: “If it’s not a fair label anymore, as so many of us insist, then why won’t it go away?”
Boston is the city where in the 1970s white residents violently resisted efforts to desegregate local schools by busing in black students.
It’s the city where in 2004 San Francisco Giants star Barry Bonds said he could never play for the home team. “Boston is too racist for me,” Bonds told a reporter, who then suggested maybe the team would build a memorial to him and his greatness. “I’m black,” Bonds said. “They don’t build stuff for blacks.”
It’s the city about whose fans Angels center fielder Gary Matthews Jr. told the Los Angeles Times in 2007: “They’re loud, they’re drunk, they’re obnoxious; it’s one of the few places where you hear racial comments.... It’s just different.”
The national anthem incident is the second blowup over race at the ballpark this week. Orioles All-Star center fielder Adam Jones, who is black, told reporters that Boston fans taunted him with racial slurs and threw a bag of peanuts at him in the dugout. He called it “one of the worst” nights of abuse he’d received in his career.
“It is what it is, right?” Jones told USA Today. “I just go out and play baseball. But it’s unfortunate that people need to resort to those type of epithets to degrade another human being. I’m out there trying to make a living for myself and for my family.”
His remarks prompted Red Sox representatives to quickly apologize to Jones and ask fans to report similar conduct in the future.
“No player should have an object thrown at him on the playing field, nor be subjected to any kind of racism at Fenway Park,” Kennedy said in a statement. “The Red Sox have zero tolerance for such inexcusable behavior, and our entire organization and our fans are sickened by the conduct of an ignorant few.”
Jones’ complaints also started a familiar cycle of self-scrutiny among Boston residents and sports fans.
“I’m disappointed and discouraged that people like this still exist in the world, never mind my own city,” Jared Carrabis, a Red Sox supporter and writer at Barstool Sports, blogged about how Jones was treated . “No, a handful of fans do not represent the entire fan base, or the city for that matter, but this series of incidents on Monday night sure doesn’t help defuse the narrative that Boston is a racist city. And that is really, really aggravating.”
Last winter, “Saturday Night Live” star Michael Che, who is black, rankled some Bostonians when he riffed about supporting the Atlanta Falcons over the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl.
“I just want to relax, turn my brain off, and watch the blackest city in America beat the most racist city I’ve ever been to,” Che said.
A joke, maybe, but one that he meant, and one that clearly wounded the city’s white liberals.
“Talk to your closest black friend and ask them to explain it to you,” Che said later during an appearance at Boston University. In response, the city’s mayor, Marty Walsh, who is white, told a local radio station that he wanted to talk to the comedian about his experiences with Boston.
“Clearly it is something that is still inside of him and still bothers him or he wouldn’t have made that statement,” Walsh told Boston Public Radio.
Boston’s reputation as an enlightened city of universities and liberalism has long coexisted with its legacy as a stronghold for whites of Irish descent who dominated neighborhoods like South Boston, known as “Southie.” Boston remains a leading locale for movies with white working-class protagonists.
“Boston’s racial troubles are especially strange when they are set against the city’s reputation as a center of learning, leadership in the abolitionist movement and liberal voting record in recent years on other issues, from Vietnam to the nuclear freeze,” the New York Times noted in 1983, adding, “It is possible to go to a baseball game at Fenway Park and not see a black fan.”
The Red Sox were the last major league team to racially integrate, in 1959, when the team added Elijah “Pumpsie” Green to their roster — after the local chapter of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People protested his original assignment to the minor leagues.
The hometown Celtics, on the other hand, were the first NBA team to draft a black player (1950), put an all-black team on the court (1964) and hire a black coach (1966). But that legacy was overshadowed in the 1980s as the team dominated the league with a roster of mostly white stars.
In a 1990 photo essay by Spike Lee in Spin magazine, beneath a picture of a black man in a Celtics jersey, Lee wrote: “Boston sucks. This guy is an ‘Uncle Tom.’ ”
In his 2002 book, “Shut Out: A Story of Race and Baseball in Boston,” Howard Bryant concluded: “The notion of Boston as the moral voice of a nation, as a social beacon and the home of abolition in the eighteenth and nineteeth centuries, was a myth, really.”
When faced with a new round of self-examination this week, the Boston NAACP president, Tanisha Sullivan, was circumspect.
“I think on some level the expectation is that we as a city are much further along than we really are,” Sullivan said. “We really need to have the courage to address certainly our history, recognize where we are, and be willing to do the ongoing work necessary to make sure that Boston truly is that city on the hill.”
matt.pearce@latimes.com
May 5, 2017 14:33:21 #
(Main)
What does religion directive do?
Trump’s executive order fits a pattern of doing less than the White House asserts.
PRESIDENT TRUMP greets religious leaders before signing the executive order during a National Day of Prayer event in the Rose Garden. While campaigning, he vowed to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment. (Olivier Douliery Abaca Press)
By Noah Bierman and David Lauter
WASHINGTON — President Trump signed an executive order Thursday that he said would protect politically active churches from losing their tax-free status. But as has repeatedly been true during his young administration, the actual text proved more modest than his words.
“For too long the federal government has used the state as a weapon against people of faith,” Trump said to an audience of conservative religious leaders gathered in the White House Rose Garden.
“You’re now in a position to say what you want to say,” he added before signing the order, along with a proclamation. “We are giving our churches their voices back.”
The order was aimed at fulfilling a campaign promise Trump made to “totally destroy” a federal law known as the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from actively supporting political candidates.
The ban, written by Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1950s, has seldom been used to remove a church’s tax exemption, although some religious groups, both conservative and liberal, have said its existence constrains political speech. Its repeal has not been a top priority for most religious conservative groups, but Trump has often spoken about it.
Trump’s order does not change the law; that would require Congress to act. And despite his declaration, the order doesn’t necessarily change the way the Internal Revenue Service might enforce the law.
The text of the order , which the White House did not release until after Trump’s remarks, says only that the Treasury Department, “to the extent permitted by law,” would not take “any adverse action” against individuals, houses of worship or other religious groups on the basis of speech “about moral or political issues from a religious perspective” that does not amount to “participation or intervention in a political campaign” in favor of or in opposition to “a candidate for public office.”
It’s not clear whether that would change any IRS rules.
Before the signing ceremony, an administration official said the order would direct the IRS to “exercise maximum enforcement discretion” in applying the Johnson Amendment. But the text does not include that language. The order contains a more vague, blanket statement that the administration is committed “to protect and vigorously promote religious liberty.”
The gap between Trump’s language and the actual order follows a pattern: His descriptions of his executive actions often go considerably beyond the reality of what they do.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House deputy press secretary, said the administration’s legal staff believes the order protects clergy from IRS sanctions if they make political endorsements from the pulpit, though a church would still be subject to losing nonprofit status if it placed political advertisements. The IRS in the past has told religious groups that endorsements of candidates from the pulpit could violate the law.
Administration officials pointed to an IRS document that said from 2010 through 2013, there were 99 cases nationwide alleging violations by churches that “merit a high priority examination.” How many were investigated is not clear.
Trump’s order, timed for Thursday’s National Day of Prayer, included no mention of a much broader religious liberty provision leaked in February that could have allowed business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation or other circumstances that involve moral objections. That proposal has been the subject of internal debate at the White House and appears to have been shelved for now.
Sanders, asked why Trump did not include the language that had been in the February draft, said executive orders go through many revisions and that this one fulfilled his goal of protecting religious liberty.
Evangelicals supported Trump strongly during the election and had been pressuring the administration to go further in giving businesses discretion to assert morality clauses without running afoul of anti-discrimination laws.
“It’s not a disappointment; 80% is better than nothing,” the Rev. Franklin Graham, a leading evangelist who attended Thursday’s ceremony at the White House and spoke at Trump’s inauguration, said in an interview. “This is a political world and you don’t always get everything you want.”
Graham said that he hoped Congress would overturn the Johnson Amendment and Trump would craft a morality exemption for business owners, but that he believed the new order “does for the time being open up the opportunity for pastors to speak out.”
Gay rights groups had been on guard against a broader religious liberty order, and other liberal groups warned that Thursday’s narrower executive order could infringe on the separation between church and state and weaken campaign finance regulations.
“Today’s executive order is payment to religious extremists for their support,” Rabbi Jack Moline, president of Interfaith Alliance, said in a statement. “It is not in the interests of American citizens, including those who voted Mr. Trump into office. It is a betrayal of the First Amendment.”
The order does aim to allow religious groups to avoid a mandate to provide contraception coverage under President Obama’s healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act, potentially expanding an exemption that had been carved out in the courts.
That part of the order may become moot if Congress passes legislation to repeal the healthcare law. In the meantime, however, a senior administration official told reporters Wednesday night that “regulatory relief” would come later.
noah.bierman@latimes.com
david.lauter@latimes.com
Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
Trump’s executive order fits a pattern of doing less than the White House asserts.
PRESIDENT TRUMP greets religious leaders before signing the executive order during a National Day of Prayer event in the Rose Garden. While campaigning, he vowed to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment. (Olivier Douliery Abaca Press)
By Noah Bierman and David Lauter
WASHINGTON — President Trump signed an executive order Thursday that he said would protect politically active churches from losing their tax-free status. But as has repeatedly been true during his young administration, the actual text proved more modest than his words.
“For too long the federal government has used the state as a weapon against people of faith,” Trump said to an audience of conservative religious leaders gathered in the White House Rose Garden.
“You’re now in a position to say what you want to say,” he added before signing the order, along with a proclamation. “We are giving our churches their voices back.”
The order was aimed at fulfilling a campaign promise Trump made to “totally destroy” a federal law known as the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from actively supporting political candidates.
The ban, written by Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1950s, has seldom been used to remove a church’s tax exemption, although some religious groups, both conservative and liberal, have said its existence constrains political speech. Its repeal has not been a top priority for most religious conservative groups, but Trump has often spoken about it.
Trump’s order does not change the law; that would require Congress to act. And despite his declaration, the order doesn’t necessarily change the way the Internal Revenue Service might enforce the law.
The text of the order , which the White House did not release until after Trump’s remarks, says only that the Treasury Department, “to the extent permitted by law,” would not take “any adverse action” against individuals, houses of worship or other religious groups on the basis of speech “about moral or political issues from a religious perspective” that does not amount to “participation or intervention in a political campaign” in favor of or in opposition to “a candidate for public office.”
It’s not clear whether that would change any IRS rules.
Before the signing ceremony, an administration official said the order would direct the IRS to “exercise maximum enforcement discretion” in applying the Johnson Amendment. But the text does not include that language. The order contains a more vague, blanket statement that the administration is committed “to protect and vigorously promote religious liberty.”
The gap between Trump’s language and the actual order follows a pattern: His descriptions of his executive actions often go considerably beyond the reality of what they do.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House deputy press secretary, said the administration’s legal staff believes the order protects clergy from IRS sanctions if they make political endorsements from the pulpit, though a church would still be subject to losing nonprofit status if it placed political advertisements. The IRS in the past has told religious groups that endorsements of candidates from the pulpit could violate the law.
Administration officials pointed to an IRS document that said from 2010 through 2013, there were 99 cases nationwide alleging violations by churches that “merit a high priority examination.” How many were investigated is not clear.
Trump’s order, timed for Thursday’s National Day of Prayer, included no mention of a much broader religious liberty provision leaked in February that could have allowed business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation or other circumstances that involve moral objections. That proposal has been the subject of internal debate at the White House and appears to have been shelved for now.
Sanders, asked why Trump did not include the language that had been in the February draft, said executive orders go through many revisions and that this one fulfilled his goal of protecting religious liberty.
Evangelicals supported Trump strongly during the election and had been pressuring the administration to go further in giving businesses discretion to assert morality clauses without running afoul of anti-discrimination laws.
“It’s not a disappointment; 80% is better than nothing,” the Rev. Franklin Graham, a leading evangelist who attended Thursday’s ceremony at the White House and spoke at Trump’s inauguration, said in an interview. “This is a political world and you don’t always get everything you want.”
Graham said that he hoped Congress would overturn the Johnson Amendment and Trump would craft a morality exemption for business owners, but that he believed the new order “does for the time being open up the opportunity for pastors to speak out.”
Gay rights groups had been on guard against a broader religious liberty order, and other liberal groups warned that Thursday’s narrower executive order could infringe on the separation between church and state and weaken campaign finance regulations.
“Today’s executive order is payment to religious extremists for their support,” Rabbi Jack Moline, president of Interfaith Alliance, said in a statement. “It is not in the interests of American citizens, including those who voted Mr. Trump into office. It is a betrayal of the First Amendment.”
The order does aim to allow religious groups to avoid a mandate to provide contraception coverage under President Obama’s healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act, potentially expanding an exemption that had been carved out in the courts.
That part of the order may become moot if Congress passes legislation to repeal the healthcare law. In the meantime, however, a senior administration official told reporters Wednesday night that “regulatory relief” would come later.
noah.bierman@latimes.com
david.lauter@latimes.com
Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
May 5, 2017 14:32:24 #
(Main)
Big Bass wrote:
Retired? Retarded would be more accurate.
You shouldn't mock using that term you insensitive dumb bastard..............
May 5, 2017 14:22:21 #
(Main)
Big Bass wrote:
Yes, I do. That is because I have none.
Whatever you say...have it your way....I've retired from trying to explain anything to you............
May 5, 2017 14:12:38 #
(Main)
Big Bass wrote:
... caused by idiot-liberal racists.
I am so sorry that you let others exploit your weakness........
May 5, 2017 13:57:52 #
(Main)
Shooting survivors say race factored into attack
Many who were at the San Diego apartments disagree with police on shooter’s motive.
ABOUT A DOZEN people who were at the Sunday pool party in San Diego where a shooter opened fire arrive at a news conference where they said they believed that the gunman, who was white, had a racial motivation. (Photographs by Nelvin C. Cepeda San Diego Union-Tribune) “WE FEEL heartbreak ... that [police are] trying to dismiss a part of the motive,” Lauren Chapman said. ()
By Lyndsay Winkley
SAN DIEGO — Survivors of a shooting at a crowded poolside birthday party returned to the University City apartment complex Tuesday with a unified message: Race played a role.
They spoke of their grief and their desire to connect with counselors to help them untangle their trauma. But their primary goal was to publicly state that they felt the shooting was racially motivated.
“As additional factors come in, we realize there are multiple components to this problem, but we feel heartbreak in the fact that [police are] trying to dismiss a part of the motive,” said Navy Lt. j.g. Lauren Chapman, who attended the party.
About a dozen people participated in the gathering, which was held on a grassy outcropping at the La Jolla Crossroads Apartments. The pool area was a distant backdrop.
Although none were hit in the shooting by 49-year-old Peter Selis on Sunday night, all were there.
Most of the 30 or so people who attended the party were black or Latino. Selis was white, and all but one of the seven victims were people of color. One victim died.
San Diego Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman said a day after the shooting that there was “zero information” indicating the crime was racially motivated. She also said Selis, who was fatally shot by police, was despondent over a recent breakup. He called and spoke to his former girlfriend during the incident so she could hear “his rampage.”
Records show Selis also faced serious financial troubles, filing bankruptcy in 2009 and again in 2015. He owed substantial amounts of money to medical groups, credit card companies and creditors, according to court documents.
A number of black community leaders questioned how police could have come to their conclusions so quickly.
“How, in less than 24 hours, did Shelley Zimmerman come to the result that there was no hate involved in this?” said Shane Harris, president of the San Diego chapter of the National Action Network, a civil rights organization.
Capt. Brian Ahearn said Tuesday that the investigation is expected to take weeks.
Police again asked for anyone who may have information to come forward.
At Tuesday’s gathering at the Judicial Drive complex, several speakers recounted details that led them to believe race was a factor in the shooting.
Although the party was about 20 feet away from Selis, two white women who were closer were seemingly dismissed as targets. Selis also did not fire at a white security guard who, from the other side of a fence, ordered him to drop his gun after the shooting began.
lyndsay.winkley@sduniontribune.com
Winkley writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Many who were at the San Diego apartments disagree with police on shooter’s motive.
ABOUT A DOZEN people who were at the Sunday pool party in San Diego where a shooter opened fire arrive at a news conference where they said they believed that the gunman, who was white, had a racial motivation. (Photographs by Nelvin C. Cepeda San Diego Union-Tribune) “WE FEEL heartbreak ... that [police are] trying to dismiss a part of the motive,” Lauren Chapman said. ()
By Lyndsay Winkley
SAN DIEGO — Survivors of a shooting at a crowded poolside birthday party returned to the University City apartment complex Tuesday with a unified message: Race played a role.
They spoke of their grief and their desire to connect with counselors to help them untangle their trauma. But their primary goal was to publicly state that they felt the shooting was racially motivated.
“As additional factors come in, we realize there are multiple components to this problem, but we feel heartbreak in the fact that [police are] trying to dismiss a part of the motive,” said Navy Lt. j.g. Lauren Chapman, who attended the party.
About a dozen people participated in the gathering, which was held on a grassy outcropping at the La Jolla Crossroads Apartments. The pool area was a distant backdrop.
Although none were hit in the shooting by 49-year-old Peter Selis on Sunday night, all were there.
Most of the 30 or so people who attended the party were black or Latino. Selis was white, and all but one of the seven victims were people of color. One victim died.
San Diego Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman said a day after the shooting that there was “zero information” indicating the crime was racially motivated. She also said Selis, who was fatally shot by police, was despondent over a recent breakup. He called and spoke to his former girlfriend during the incident so she could hear “his rampage.”
Records show Selis also faced serious financial troubles, filing bankruptcy in 2009 and again in 2015. He owed substantial amounts of money to medical groups, credit card companies and creditors, according to court documents.
A number of black community leaders questioned how police could have come to their conclusions so quickly.
“How, in less than 24 hours, did Shelley Zimmerman come to the result that there was no hate involved in this?” said Shane Harris, president of the San Diego chapter of the National Action Network, a civil rights organization.
Capt. Brian Ahearn said Tuesday that the investigation is expected to take weeks.
Police again asked for anyone who may have information to come forward.
At Tuesday’s gathering at the Judicial Drive complex, several speakers recounted details that led them to believe race was a factor in the shooting.
Although the party was about 20 feet away from Selis, two white women who were closer were seemingly dismissed as targets. Selis also did not fire at a white security guard who, from the other side of a fence, ordered him to drop his gun after the shooting began.
lyndsay.winkley@sduniontribune.com
Winkley writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
May 5, 2017 13:56:56 #
(Main)
Big Bass wrote:
There you go again, RACIST! Anyone who doesn't think your thoughts.
I guess you do have a mental disability...my apologies............
May 5, 2017 13:54:28 #
(Main)
POPULATION WATCH
4 million people — and counting
L.A. hits a milestone in its long history of growth, but housing becomes bigger worry.
THE DOWNTOWN L.A. skyline has changed constantly since it began to grow more vertical with the rise of skyscrapers in the 1960s. (Photographs by Luis Sinco Los Angeles Times) BY 1970, A FREEWAY system connected Southern California in dramatic ways, contributing to the growth of Los Angeles’ population — and its traffic woes.
SHELBY GRAD
Los Angeles gained 42,470 people from 2016 to 2017.
That might not seem like a lot, but it was enough to push the city’s population over the 4-million mark — to 4,041,707, according to a new state report.
The milestone isn’t much of a surprise, given that other studies already put the city’s population at 4 million. But it’s a mark that underscores Los Angeles’ place as the dominant population center in California.
The rest of the Top 10:
• San Diego: 1,406,318
• San Jose: 1,046,079
• San Francisco: 874,228
• Fresno: 525,832
• Sacramento: 493,025
• Long Beach: 480,173
• Oakland: 426,074
• Bakersfield: 383,512
• Anaheim: 358,546
Here’s a look at L.A.’s path to 4 million people:
1950
Population: 1.9 million
California was in the midst of post-World War II suburbanization. Much of the city was developed before the war, but the 1950s saw vast housing tracts going up in the San Fernando Valley.
Milestones: Los Angeles came out of World War II poised to become an economic powerhouse, thanks in part to defense spending.
1960
Population: 2.4 million
As the move to more suburban neighborhoods continued, the city’s population surged. Signs of decline in the central city, however, were becoming apparent.
Milestones : Disneyland opened in Anaheim, while the Cold War fueled defense spending in Southern California.
1970
Population: 2.8 million
By 1970, downtown L.A. had started to look more vertical, with the rise of skyscrapers the decade before.
Milestones: A freeway system connected Southern California in dramatic ways, and the Manson “family” murders shocked the world.
1980
Population: 2.9 million
The 1980 census found whites made up less than half of the city’s residents, making L.A. a majority-minority city. While the shift had been predicted, it was notable.
A Times story on the findings noted that “Hispanics” — already 28% of the population — were projected to become the largest single ethnic group in the city by 1984.
Milestones: A new skyline began to form in downtown L.A. and other areas, notably Century City; Tom Bradley was elected the city’s first black mayor.
1990
Population: 3.4 million
The 1980s saw a boom that took many experts by surprise. It was fueled by rising Latino and Asian populations, both through immigration and births. By 1991, Latinos were the majority group in L.A.
Milestones: Los Angeles hosted the Olympics in 1984, and the city was riveted by the Lakers’ “Showtime” era. L.A. got a gleaming skyline, while income and racial disparities became more evident.
2000
Population: 3.6 million
Growth slowed again in the 1990s, as the region was hit by a severe recession, riots and the Northridge earthquake.
Milestones: Defense downsizing and corporate consolidation sent the city into a tailspin that was worsened by riots and natural disasters.
2010
Population: 3.7 million
The most recent full census found modest population growth marked by continued increases in L.A.’s diversity.
Milestones: Gentrification began to take hold in downtown and other areas. Downtown’s rebirth is symbolized by the opening of Walt Disney Concert Hall.
2017
Population: 4 million
The region’s population has continued to increase, but a lack of housing is becoming a bigger issue. While L.A. is adding more and denser housing, experts say it’s not keeping pace with demand.
Milestones: Downtown’s skyline is being reshaped by new skyscrapers, and the L.A. River has become a destination, with restoration and parkland additions.
shelby.grad@latimes.com
Twitter: @shelbygrad
4 million people — and counting
L.A. hits a milestone in its long history of growth, but housing becomes bigger worry.
THE DOWNTOWN L.A. skyline has changed constantly since it began to grow more vertical with the rise of skyscrapers in the 1960s. (Photographs by Luis Sinco Los Angeles Times) BY 1970, A FREEWAY system connected Southern California in dramatic ways, contributing to the growth of Los Angeles’ population — and its traffic woes.
SHELBY GRAD
Los Angeles gained 42,470 people from 2016 to 2017.
That might not seem like a lot, but it was enough to push the city’s population over the 4-million mark — to 4,041,707, according to a new state report.
The milestone isn’t much of a surprise, given that other studies already put the city’s population at 4 million. But it’s a mark that underscores Los Angeles’ place as the dominant population center in California.
The rest of the Top 10:
• San Diego: 1,406,318
• San Jose: 1,046,079
• San Francisco: 874,228
• Fresno: 525,832
• Sacramento: 493,025
• Long Beach: 480,173
• Oakland: 426,074
• Bakersfield: 383,512
• Anaheim: 358,546
Here’s a look at L.A.’s path to 4 million people:
1950
Population: 1.9 million
California was in the midst of post-World War II suburbanization. Much of the city was developed before the war, but the 1950s saw vast housing tracts going up in the San Fernando Valley.
Milestones: Los Angeles came out of World War II poised to become an economic powerhouse, thanks in part to defense spending.
1960
Population: 2.4 million
As the move to more suburban neighborhoods continued, the city’s population surged. Signs of decline in the central city, however, were becoming apparent.
Milestones : Disneyland opened in Anaheim, while the Cold War fueled defense spending in Southern California.
1970
Population: 2.8 million
By 1970, downtown L.A. had started to look more vertical, with the rise of skyscrapers the decade before.
Milestones: A freeway system connected Southern California in dramatic ways, and the Manson “family” murders shocked the world.
1980
Population: 2.9 million
The 1980 census found whites made up less than half of the city’s residents, making L.A. a majority-minority city. While the shift had been predicted, it was notable.
A Times story on the findings noted that “Hispanics” — already 28% of the population — were projected to become the largest single ethnic group in the city by 1984.
Milestones: A new skyline began to form in downtown L.A. and other areas, notably Century City; Tom Bradley was elected the city’s first black mayor.
1990
Population: 3.4 million
The 1980s saw a boom that took many experts by surprise. It was fueled by rising Latino and Asian populations, both through immigration and births. By 1991, Latinos were the majority group in L.A.
Milestones: Los Angeles hosted the Olympics in 1984, and the city was riveted by the Lakers’ “Showtime” era. L.A. got a gleaming skyline, while income and racial disparities became more evident.
2000
Population: 3.6 million
Growth slowed again in the 1990s, as the region was hit by a severe recession, riots and the Northridge earthquake.
Milestones: Defense downsizing and corporate consolidation sent the city into a tailspin that was worsened by riots and natural disasters.
2010
Population: 3.7 million
The most recent full census found modest population growth marked by continued increases in L.A.’s diversity.
Milestones: Gentrification began to take hold in downtown and other areas. Downtown’s rebirth is symbolized by the opening of Walt Disney Concert Hall.
2017
Population: 4 million
The region’s population has continued to increase, but a lack of housing is becoming a bigger issue. While L.A. is adding more and denser housing, experts say it’s not keeping pace with demand.
Milestones: Downtown’s skyline is being reshaped by new skyscrapers, and the L.A. River has become a destination, with restoration and parkland additions.
shelby.grad@latimes.com
Twitter: @shelbygrad