United States Congress of Fail (Part 2)

[candygirl200413]

That was my thinking, since he gets so hot and excited trying to pin something non-real to Hillary and now he can't. But he could do this to Trump but chooses not to.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Group Therapy and Chastened Lawmakers at Raucous Town Halls"

Quote

WASHINGTON — There is no special art to the congressional recess town hall. But there is little doubt when one is going off the rails.

So perhaps it should surprise no one that so many lawmakers have chosen to avoid such outings with constituents during this two-week break from an institution most Americans disdain. There can be no viral video headaches from an event that never happened.

Still, among those adventurous enough to take on all comers, the forums have often been telling. Here is what we’ve learned, or relearned, during the recess so far:

Some Republicans have bigger targets on their backs. And know it.

Few Republican senators need to sweat much before the midterm elections next year. But in a party now defined by President Trump, and all the attendant volatility that promises, some must proceed cautiously.

At the moment, only two Senate Republicans are viewed as potentially vulnerable: Dean Heller of Nevada and Jeff Flake of Arizona. Both faced voters this month.

Mr. Heller plainly does not relish the town-hall format: He told a conservative group last week that the events were “one of those boxes you gotta check,” according to audio obtained by The Nevada Independent. And at a gathering on Monday in Reno, Mr. Heller’s genial sidestepping was greeted at times with chants of “Answer the question!”

On some contentious issues, like federal funding for Planned Parenthood, he seemed caught between a desire to placate attendees — in a state Hillary Clinton carried last year — and a need to reconcile his past positions. At one point, he said he would “protect Planned Parenthood,” before hedging. (Facing pressure from the right, his office further clarified his remarks afterward.)

The welcome for Mr. Flake, who was also pressed on Planned Parenthood funding during a town hall in Mesa, Ariz., was not much warmer. “You work for us!” attendees shouted repeatedly.

If Mr. Trump’s approval ratings continue to sag, the two may become even less reticent about bucking the president.

Midterm candidate auditions are underway, at least for one key seat.

Most lawmakers adopt a kind of Hippocratic oath while answering questions in their districts: Do no harm. Boring is good. Commit to nothing you cannot guarantee.

Representative Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota, has a tendency to go another way. Long considered a leading candidate to challenge Senator Heidi Heitkamp — one of several Democrats up for re-election next year in states that Mr. Trump won easily — Mr. Cramer has spent part of the recess reminding voters, and party leaders, that he does not care much for self-filtering.

In a local radio interview, he defended a widely condemned analogy from Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, comparing Hitler and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. “It’s not without some validity,” Mr. Cramer said.

According to a CNN report last week, Republican officials have begun privately arguing against a run by Mr. Cramer. Mr. Cramer has said that Republicans in Washington do not understand his state. “I do say what’s on my mind,” he said in an interview, adding that no one at any level of Republican leadership had expressed any concerns to him.

He noted that he interacted with voters far more often than many colleagues do. “I expose myself a lot,” he said. “That’s the best way I can put it.”

Democrats are still mad, and it’s not just about health care.

Though the last recess included no shortage of outrage over the president’s Twitter posts, his team’s ties to Russia and other assorted controversies, one topic dominated: health care.

Several weeks later, after the Republican health care bill’s failure in the House, the national focus has become more diffuse. Health care remains top of mind, and supporters of Planned Parenthood made their presence known at several events. But other issues, from climate change to Mr. Trump’s tax returns, often found their way into the mix.

For Democrats, who say that momentum from the last recess helped defend the Affordable Care Act against dismantling upon their return, there is some risk in dividing the party’s focus, scrapping with Mr. Trump and other Republicans on multiple fronts.

Still, Democratic lawmakers and activists insist they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

...

Lawmakers returning to Washington might be even more chastened.

Silver linings have not been entirely out of sight for Republicans. While voter fury remains high, most members avoided memorable stumbles over the recess. Two closely watched special elections for House seats in Kansas and Georgia provided signs of renewed hope for Democrats, but Republicans averted disaster in both cases.

Still, the combination of anger at home and uncertainty about the national political climate as Mr. Trump churns toward the end of his first 100 days could make lawmakers particularly risk-averse as they return from recess.

If some were already unwilling to commit to the health care overhaul pushed by Mr. Trump, in part because of the anger they faced in their districts, there is little reason to believe their appetite for local blowback has increased on other explosive issues. And when even long-safe Republican districts are being contested aggressively, some members who have worried little about job security may be inclined to tread lightly.

Some reliable party loyalists, like Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, have begun questioning the president a bit more pointedly, even talking about his “flaws.” (Ms. Ernst chafed this week at Mr. Trump’s frequent trips to Florida, saying she wished he spent more time in Washington.)

These dynamics could affect the behavior of some Democrats, too, as their voters increasingly demand full obstruction of Mr. Trump as the path to avoiding a meaningful primary challenge.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"The GOP has a new plan to destroy Obamacare. It’s even crueler than the last one."

Quote

House Republicans have been hinting they may introduce a new plan to replace Obamacare before the 100th day of the Trump presidency. Naturally, giving President Trump something to arbitrarily tout as an achievement (even if it passes the House, the Senate looms) in advance of the arbitrary 100-day mark is far more important than the human toll the proposal would have on millions.

Now Republicans are indeed set to introduce the new plan, multiple reports tell us. And judging by a new study set to be released today, it is even crueler than the last GOP plan: The study finds premiums would likely soar for the sick, probably pushing them off coverage.

The Huffington Post has a detailed rundown of the new GOP plan, which is designed to bridge the gap between moderates and conservatives who rejected the last one for different reasons. It allows states to seek a waiver to get rid of the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition on charging higher premiums to people with preexisting conditions, on the condition that states set up or participate in high-risk pools that would help cover any of those people who lose insurance. It would also restore to the GOP bill the ACA’s requirement that insurers cover Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) — such as doctor’s and emergency room visits and maternity care — but allow states to seek waivers from them.

In effect, the waiver on preexisting conditions is designed to make conservatives happy, while giving moderates high-risk pools that allow them to argue it wouldn’t harm people with preexisting conditions. The restoration of EHBs is designed to make moderates happy, while telling conservatives states could still get out from under them.

But the waiver on prohibitions against jacking up premiums for people with preexisting conditions — which is called “community rating” — is a major problem. It would smack them with far more in costs — potentially pushing them off coverage entirely.

The liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) conducted a new study — set to be released later today — on how much these premiums might soar for people with various preexisting ailments. The “surcharge” in the middle column represents additional premium charges that insurers are projected to add to coverage of each condition annually, and the numbers are eye-popping:

... (take a look at the chart -- it's horrifying)

Topher Spiro, a health policy analyst at CAP, tells me that these sums were calculated by using actuary “risk scores” for each condition, which detail how much someone with that condition costs insurers relative to a healthy person. (Focus on the first two columns for now; the third will be elucidated by the report itself.)

“If insurers can charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people, they would add a surcharge to premiums that reflects this additional cost,” Spiro says. “The premium markups would be unimaginable, adding thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars to premiums. They would be priced out of the market and quarantined into high-risk pools.”

Now, in fairness, these findings are based on calculated national averages, so applying them to what would happen in any given state is tricky. But this is intended as a general guideline of what sort of premium hikes we might see in states that did seek waivers — and it’s fair to assume many red states would do so. What’s more, this conclusion dovetails with the general conclusions of other health policy analysts. The big story is that, while the new plan would ostensibly keep the prohibition against refusing to cover people with preexisting conditions, allowing premiums to be jacked up would functionally price a lot of those people out of the market, gutting that protection.

Indeed, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt tells me he thinks the CAP projections are plausible. “These figures show why a guarantee of coverage without community rating offers essentially no protection for people with pre-existing conditions,” Levitt says. “No insurance company will want to cover people with expensive health conditions if they don’t have to, so they will set premiums to make sure the coverage is out of reach. Health care costs are highly concentrated among a small number of people who are sick, and they would find it impossible to get affordable coverage.”

Of course, the new plan’s defenders would reply that these people can go into high-risk pools (this is apparently meant to give moderates cover to back it). But they’ve historically been underfunded and/or resulted in people paying higher prices or going without coverage.

Meanwhile, the new GOP plan would keep in place the old plan’s phase-out of the Medicaid expansion, which would itself result in 14 million fewer people on Medicaid, according to the Congressional Budget Office. You’d think that this, plus the gutting of protections for preexisting conditions, would render the new plan toxic for GOP moderates who, in rejecting the old plan, have confirmed that they are not willing to embrace a massively regressive plan that would push millions of poor and sick people off coverage while delivering an enormous tax cut to the rich. Of course, the need to give Trump a fake achievement to tout is also an urgent matter, so who knows what they’ll do.

...

Every time I think the Repubs can't sink any lower, they dig a deeper trough. So, someone with a metastatic cancer would be charged a $142,000 SURCHARGE? Seriously?

Edited to add: I just called my congressman's office to express my extreme displeasure at this newest nastiness by the GOP. My congressman is reliably blue, so he wouldn't vote for it, but I asked that he push back hard.

[Audrey2]

12 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"The GOP has a new plan to destroy Obamacare. It’s even crueler than the last one."

Every time I think the Repubs can't sink any lower, they dig a deeper trough. So, someone with a metastatic cancer would be charged a $142,000 SURCHARGE? Seriously?

Do I read this correctly, that the supposedly "pro life" (in reality, pro birth, and really not that- more anti sex in or out of marriage) would allow an additional surcharge of $17,000+ to a woman who has delivered a child?

[candygirl200413]

This is only the tip of the iceberg. He was caluding with Russia, calling it now!

Chaffetz leaves door open to not finish term in House

Quote

Chairman of the powerful House oversight committee Jason Chaffetz may not finish out his term in Congress, he said Thursday, a departure that would invite jockeying for his high-profile position.

Chaffetz on Wednesday surprisingly announced he would not run for reelection, and the following day he told CNN that he may resign early.

"My future plans are not yet finalized but I haven't ruled out the possibility of leaving early," Chaffetz told CNN in a text message. "In the meantime I still have a job to do and I have no plans to take my foot off the gas."

News that Chaffetz might step down before the end of his term was first reported by KSL radio.

Chaffetz, a Utah Republican who unsuccessfully ran for House speaker in 2015, chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and played a visible role in investigations related to Planned Parenthood and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Chaffetz has left the door open to seeking public office again, though in his announcement Wednesday, he said "I will not be a candidate for any office in 2018."

 

Also what's the point in doing Obamacare repeal again if they are making it a million times worst? and now I'm personally getting nervous for not only those that are struggling but getting kicked off my parents insurance in 3 years with having asthma.

[Cartmann99]

31 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

Do I read this correctly, that the supposedly "pro life" (in reality, pro birth, and really not that- more anti sex in or out of marriage) would allow an additional surcharge of $17,000+ to a woman who has delivered a child?

Yup!

Is phase two where they roll out the Soylent Green factories to deal with the uptick in deaths?

7 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

"My future plans are not yet finalized but I haven't ruled out the possibility of leaving early," Chaffetz told CNN in a text message. "In the meantime I still have a job to do and I have no plans to take my foot off the gas."

Yeah, he's definitely trying to run away from something. 

[fraurosena]

40 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

Also what's the point in doing Obamacare repeal again if they are making it a million times worst

Maybe they're doing it to get the GOP Freedom Caucus on board? Remember, they voted against the previous iteration of Ryandon'tCare because they thought it didn't go far enough...

Damn! If the Freedom Caucus were to vote for this atrocity, would it pass?
Man, what a scary, scary thought... 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, Audrey2 said:

Do I read this correctly, that the supposedly "pro life" (in reality, pro birth, and really not that- more anti sex in or out of marriage) would allow an additional surcharge of $17,000+ to a woman who has delivered a child?

Yes, you see why I was so appalled. It's a sneaky way of instituting a "woman tax". I truly despise the Republican Party. My hope and prayer is that some of the moderate Repubs realize voting for this atrocity will cost them in the long run.

[Childless]

3 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

This is only the tip of the iceberg. He was caluding with Russia, calling it now!

Chaffetz leaves door open to not finish term in House

 

Also what's the point in doing Obamacare repeal again if they are making it a million times worst? and now I'm personally getting nervous for not only those that are struggling but getting kicked off my parents insurance in 3 years with having asthma.

The point is to give rich people tax breaks.  Money is more important than lives.  This is why I call bullshit on the pro-lifers.  They don't give a damn about life.

[candygirl200413]

That is just so sad and disgusting. Thinking about that plus I just read (which apparently is old news?) that Chaffetz made sure to get rid of funding for security at Benghazi to screw Hillary over. I always like to find the best in people but damn the GOP really are heartless assholes and I'm so sad it just finally registered to me.

[GreyhoundFan]

"White House could provoke a spending showdown over funding for border wall"

Quote

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that he hopes to use negotiations to keep the government open past April 28 in an effort to force Democrats to back some funding for creating a new wall along the U. S-Mexico border — a risky move that could provoke a spending showdown with congressional Democrats next week.

Mulvaney said the White House would be open to funding some of the Democrats’ priorities — such as paying insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act — if Democrats agree to fund some of the more controversial parts of President Trump’s agenda, notably the border wall.

The new request threatens to undermine weeks of negotiations between Republican leaders and Democrats in Congress to pass a stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. The negotiations so far have excluded talk of the border wall, which Republicans have argued should be taken up later to keep the government open.

“We have our list of priorities,” Mulvaney said at an event hosted by the Institute of International Finance. “We want more money for defense. We want to build a border wall. We want more money for immigration enforcement, law enforcement.”

Mulvaney stopped short of saying that the White House would refuse to sign a spending agreement that does not include those priorities, but he made clear that he expects Democrats to reopen talks. Democrats saw Mulvaney’s comments as evidence that the White House is meddling to undermine what they described as successful, bipartisan talks.

“Everything had been moving smoothly until the administration moved in with a heavy hand,” said Matt House, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “Not only are Democrats opposed to the wall, there is significant Republican opposition as well.”

Republican leaders and members of the House and Senate appropriations committees had hoped to avoid a spending confrontation early in Trump’s administration by negotiating directly with Democrats, whose votes will be necessary to pass any spending bill. Republicans hold a slim 52-to-48 advantage in the Senate, meaning they will need at least eight Democrats to reach the 60 votes required to pass spending measures in that chamber.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said the White House comments make it “more difficult” to reach an agreement, arguing that there is intense opposition to the wall from Democrats in both the House and Senate.

Mulvaney said that the White House is willing to negotiate, but only if Democrats bend on funding the wall.

“If they tell us to pound sand, I think that’s probably a disappointing indicator of where the next four years is going to go,” Mulvaney said. “If they tell us, however, that they recognize that President Trump won an election, and he should get some of his priorities funded for that reason, elections have consequences, as folks who win always like to say.”

...

Great, so a pissing contest over the freaking wall might shut down the government. I guess then the tangerine toddler can spend weeks at Mar-a-Lago while government and non-government employees are furloughed.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The GOP’s latest health-care plan is comically bad"

Quote

House Republicans are apparently ready for yet another attempt to snatch health insurance away from constituents who need it. Someone should remind Speaker Paul Ryan of a saying often attributed to his legendary predecessor Sam Rayburn: “There’s no education in the second kick of the mule.”

Having failed miserably to win passage of an abomination of a bill — the American Health Care Act — Ryan (R-Wis.) and his minions are back with something even worse. A draft framework being circulated this week would pretend to keep the parts of Obamacare that people like, but allow states to take these benefits away. We see what you’re doing, folks.

This is getting silly. What part of “forget it” do Republicans not understand?

I realize there is great pressure to follow through on the GOP promise to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. And I realize that President Trump, nearing the 100-day mark, sorely needs a legislative victory to tweet about. King Pyrrhus needed a win, too, but that didn’t work out too well for him.

Republicans don’t talk much about the practical reason for moving urgently on health care, which is to set the stage for tax reform: They want to take money now used to subsidize health care for low-income Americans and give it to the wealthy in the form of big tax cuts. Again, we can see you.

I’m sure the crowds at GOP town halls will be understanding. Just be sure to check attendees at the door for tar and feathers.

The new proposal — brokered by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), of the moderate Tuesday Group, and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), of the far-right Freedom Caucus — is like a parody, as if life-or-death access to health care were fodder for a “Saturday Night Live” sketch.

Nominally, the MacArthur amendment would retain the Essential Health Benefits standard imposed by the ACA, which requires insurance policies to cover eventualities such as hospitalization, maternity and emergency care — basically, all the things you’d ever need health insurance for.

The amendment would also appear to maintain the ACA’s guarantees that anyone could buy health insurance, including those with preexisting conditions, and that parents could keep adult children on their policies until age 26. That all looks fine — but it’s an illusion.

After specifying that these popular provisions will stay, the amendment then gives states the right to snatch them away. States would be able to obtain waivers exempting them from the Essential Health Benefits standards. They would also be able to obtain waivers from the preexisting conditions requirement by creating a “high-risk pool” to provide coverage for those who are unwell.

There would no longer be a prohibition, however, against charging “high-risk” individuals more — so much more, in fact, that they would potentially be priced out of the market. We would go back to the pre-ACA situation in which serious illness could mean losing a home or filing for bankruptcy.

This may satisfy GOP ideological imperatives — Ayn Rand would be so proud — but it is atrocious policy, even if you put aside considerations such as compassion and community.

...

Unchanged from last month’s failed bill are provisions that would strip massive amounts of money out of Medicaid, by far the nation’s biggest source of payment for nursing-home care. So Republicans might not want to show their faces anywhere near retirement communities.

The Affordable Care Act changed the way most people in this country think about health care. It did not, however, change the thinking of many House Republicans, who continue to believe individuals should be held financially liable for a genetic predisposition toward diabetes or a random cellular mutation that leads to cancer.

Another abject failure to repeal the ACA would be a terrible political outcome for Republicans. But far worse, looking ahead to the 2018 midterms, would be for Trump to sign this latest monstrosity into law.

 

[Howl]

Rampant speculation on the interwebs that Chaffetz will resign tomorrow, Friday, the day that news goes to die.  We'll see.  Is is sex?  Russian kompromat? Money?  Maybe it's all idle wishes that he'll be saying Adios.  As my best friend says, More will be revealed! 

A few interesting facts about Chaffetz. He is a half brother to Michael Dukakis' son.  He converted from Judaism to Mormonism. 

 

[RoseWilder]

3 minutes ago, Howl said:

Rampant speculation on the interwebs that Chaffetz will resign tomorrow, Friday, the day that news goes to die.  We'll see.  Is is sex?  Russian kompromat? Money?  Maybe it's all idle wishes that he'll be saying Adios.  As my best friend says, More will be revealed! 

A few interesting facts about Chaffetz. He is a half brother to Michael Dukakis' son.  He converted from Judaism to Mormonism. 

 

One of Chaffetz's former staff member has leaked this to the press: 

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/report-former-staffer-confirms-jason-chaffetz-is-under-fbi-investigation/2375/

Quote

One day after Jason Chaffetz announced out of nowhere that he won’t be seeking reelection to Congress in 2018 and that he won’t be running for any other office, he followed it up today by hinting that he may not even finish his term. Now comes a report that one of Chaffetz’s own former staffers is confirming that Chaffetz is under FBI investigation, and that it’s going to become public before much longer.

Six days ago we brought you the story of an intel community source asserting that Russia had blackmail material on Jason Chaffetz and that the FBI knew about it. But now comes a corroborating report from Dave Bernstein, an online political pundit whose sources have a history of being proven correct. Here’s what Bernstein has shared:

“According to a former Jason Chaffetz staffer, Chaffetz is also the subject of an ongoing investigation for campaign finance fraud. A friend of Chaffetz at FBI told him the investigation could not be kept quiet for much longer, that Intel committee would soon find info on him. Benghazi has Russian ties too, but Chaffetz’s staffer could not verify the connection. Some of his current staffers may be implicated. Per the former Chaffetz staffer, this is one of the reasons they resigned. The former staffer also says Chaffetz’s staff is in panic mode.”

I've been saying since February that I think Chaffetz is connected to the Russia scandal. But I was really beginning to worry that the media would be paying so much attention to Trump's ties to Russia that they wouldn't investigate anyone else. I'm so incredibly glad that Chaffetz appears to be on the brink of going up in flames. 

But resignation isn't enough for him. I want to see him led out of his house in handcuffs. He's done so much damage to the government, to Hillary Clinton, to this country. I hope Hillary Clinton gets to enjoy every moment of watching this repulsive man pay for his crimes. 

[candygirl200413]

AGREED! @RoseWilder when it drops officially I will be enjoying a nice glass of wine dedicating it to Hillary Clinton. He is such a POS and I'm glad the Karma Gods have finally responded!

Also, he tweeted an article about 5 facts about his wife which was very out of the blue. Really hoping an affair results.

[Audrey2]

Not only that, Chaffetz was also the guy with the boneheaded idea to transfer a lot of federal land to the states. He figured most states in the west couldn't afford to service these lands, so they'd end up with his timber, gas, oil, and development buddies. As someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest and enjoys hiking, he caused me a lot of anxiety, until he withdrew his bill. 

[GreyhoundFan]

9 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

One of Chaffetz's former staff member has leaked this to the press: 

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/report-former-staffer-confirms-jason-chaffetz-is-under-fbi-investigation/2375/

I've been saying since February that I think Chaffetz is connected to the Russia scandal. But I was really beginning to worry that the media would be paying so much attention to Trump's ties to Russia that they wouldn't investigate anyone else. I'm so incredibly glad that Chaffetz appears to be on the brink of going up in flames. 

But resignation isn't enough for him. I want to see him led out of his house in handcuffs. He's done so much damage to the government, to Hillary Clinton, to this country. I hope Hillary Clinton gets to enjoy every moment of watching this repulsive man pay for his crimes. 

I want to see him doing a perp walk in handcuffs too. That would make my day. And, it would be great if Hillary responded with one line: "lock HIM up".

 

Bob Goodlatte is the US Rep from a large swath of Virginia. Most of his area is deep red, but there are multiple significant blue pockets. People are not happy because he's ducking out of meetings with constituents, just like so many of the spineless Repubs. "Waiting for Goodlatte: Some residents frustrated by congressman’s absence"

Quote

FRONT ROYAL — If you’re a constituent of longtime Rep. Bob Goodlatte and you want to communicate with him, here are your options:

You can attend one of the regularly scheduled “open-door meetings” in his district, where a Goodlatte staffer will listen to your concerns and pledge to relay them, but is not authorized to respond.

Or you can participate in a “tele-town hall,” by signing up online to join a conference call, along with thousands of your neighbors. With no advance warning, one night the phone will ring and connect you to a call, often already in progress. A handful of people on the line are chosen to ask the congressman a question.

And finally, there is Facebook Live, which Goodlatte (R-Va.) has used twice this year to answer questions he selected from among those submitted by members of the public.

Amid raucous protests and town hall meetings staged by voters who are angered by the Trump administration and the GOP-controlled Congress, Goodlatte has joined some other lawmakers from his party in finding less contentious ways to interact with the people he represents.

Through a spokeswoman, Goodlatte declined an interview for this story. But he said in a statement that he meets with people who request appointments and corresponds with constituents who call or email his office.

During a March 1 tele-town hall, he explained why he prefers those events to large, in-person gatherings.

The phone-in events “provide for an opportunity for a very civil discourse, as opposed to what you’ve seen around the country where people turn town meetings into mob scenes and have cardboard cutouts of elected officials and all kinds of other things that kind of demean the process and take away from the people who show up and really want to have a serious discussion about the problems facing the country,” Goodlatte said, according to a broadcast of the call that a resident posted on Facebook Live.

One week earlier, activists had staged a “People’s Town Hall” outside Roanoke with a cardboard cutout dubbed “Flat Bobby” as a stand-in for Goodlatte.

The congressman’s hands-off approach is frustrating to some of his constituents, particularly Democrats living in urban pockets of an otherwise deeply conservative district who faithfully attend some of the “open-door meetings” that Goodlatte staffers hold weekly, bi-weekly or monthly in 21 locations.

“It’s recess time, let’s see him,” Len Sherp, a 70-year-old retiree from Front Royal, said last week to Emily Wicht, a staffer who ran last week’s session at a public library near Sherp’s home.

“Do you know of anything on his schedule that is open to constituents?” Sherp asked.

Wicht was relentlessly cheery.

“No, sir, I’m not given his schedule, but everything publicly posted is on his website,” she said.

Besides the meetings, there were no public events listed on Goodlatte’s website. His spokeswoman said later that Goodlatte was sitting down at that moment with President Trump in the Oval Office to discuss immigration and other issues. The White House confirmed the meeting.

Goodlatte, now in his 13th term in Congress, previously held town halls in the district, but he doesn’t anymore. Asked why he stopped, a spokeswoman declined to comment.

The congressman has visited businesses and held private meetings over the past two weeks, during the spring recess, but has not made any broader public appearances.

Sherp and other critics said they expect more from their representative, the senior Republican in the Virginia delegation and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

“The people are angry,” said Sherp, an organic farmer who was wearing a “No Farms, No Food” cap and a “Chairman of the Gourd” T-shirt. “They’re angry over the direction that the country seems to be headed. They’re angry over the unwillingness of Congressman Goodlatte to come and meet with us.”

Seven of the 11 members of Congress from Virginia — Republicans Dave Brat, Thomas Garrett and Scott W. Taylor and Democrats Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Gerald E. Connolly, Don Beyer and A. Donald McEachin — have each held at least one in-person town hall meeting this year, in some cases enduring heckling from the crowds.

Those sticking to tele-town halls and Facebook Live events, in addition to Goodlatte, are Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R), a member of the hard-line Freedom Caucus who represents all of Southwest Virginia west of Roanoke; Rep. Rob Wittman (R), whose district runs from Prince William County to the suburbs outside Richmond; and Rep. Barbara Comstock (R), whose Northern Virginia district is a top target for Democrats next year.

...

Yeah, he likes the "tele-town halls" because he doesn't have to actually see people and can mute them at will. Jerk.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Democrats to Trump: You don’t have the leverage. We do."

Quote

Senior House Democrats held a conference call on Thursday night with members of the Democratic caucus, and according to a Dem aide, one of the key conclusions reached on the call was this: In the battles over Obamacare, Trump’s border wall, and funding the government, Democrats — not the White House — must behave as the ones with the leverage.

As the 100-day mark of the Trump presidency approach, panic has set in among aides who fear that the press coverage will brutally (and accurately) reflect his historical lack of accomplishments. This is leading to questionable decisions on their part that could prove destructive to the country — and could backfire and make the 100-day mark coverage even more brutal for them. But this worry should also be seen as handing more leverage to Democrats in the near term. Dems seem both aware of this and inclined to act accordingly.

The White House has adopted a new strategy in the battle over funding the government, one designed to compel Democrats to help fund Trump’s Mexican wall and expanded deportation force. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney is now saying that the White House might agree not to sabotage the Affordable Care Act — by funding the subsidies to insurance coverage for lower-income people which, if halted, could melt down the exchanges — if Democrats agree to fund the wall and more immigration enforcement agents.

But on the Thursday night conference call, House Dems resolved not to back down in the face of any such pressure, according to a readout of the call provided by a Democratic aide.

“We have the leverage and they have the exposure,” Dem leader Nancy Pelosi told people on the call, per the aide, adding that, because Republicans are in the majority, keeping the government funded will be seen as “their responsibility.”

Also on the call, Rep. Nita Lowey — the ranking Dem on the Appropriations Committee — flatly declared: “We are not building a wall.” Lowey said progress was being made in negotiating with GOP appropriators towards a short-term government funding bill. But she noted that a short-term extension of the previous funding bill — called a “continuing resolution,” or “CR” — might be necessary first, which suggests Democrats are willing to allow things to come to a head before buckling to White House demands.

Now, it remains to be seen whether Democrats will hold as firm as their current posture suggests. It also remains to be seen what Democrats will get out of these negotiations. But it looks likely that Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass a government funding bill, both in the Senate (where Republicans only hold 52 seats and will need to break a Dem filibuster) and in the House (where conservatives may bolt, leaving Republicans short of a majority on their own). Democrats want Republicans to drop the White House demand for funding for the border wall and increased deportations, and they also want Republicans to fund the “cost sharing reductions” (CSRs) that subsidize low out-of-pocket costs for lower-income people, to prevent insurers from fleeing the individual markets, which could leave at least 10 million uncovered.

The White House position is that the need to fund the CSRs gives Trump leverage to demand funding for the wall and a deportation force. But why should Democrats give Republicans anything in exchange for funding the CSRs, when Republicans are currently trying to inflict far more damage on the Affordable Care Act than not funding the CSRs would?

Absurdly enough, even as the White House is demanding concessions in exchange for not sabotaging the ACA, it is also pushing Congress to vote on a new version of the GOP repeal-and-replace bill that would be even more regressive and destructive than the last one was. Trump would likely take the blame for the chaos and loss of coverage that killing funding for the CSRs would unleash. Why should Dems bail him out of that problem — and allow Republicans to wield the CSRs as leverage against them — as long as the drive to roll back coverage for far more people continues? This should — and likely will — increase the resolve of Dems to dig in harder.

Tellingly, multiple reports indicate that the White House is demanding a rushed vote on the new repeal-and-replace bill because aides are desperate to showcase something, anything, as a legislative achievement in time for the 100-day mark. So you’d think the last thing the White House can tolerate is a government shutdown on Trump’s watch at precisely that moment, which would further reinforce the image that Trump and Republicans are making an enormous mess of governing. And so, in the government funding fight, Democrats should see the looming 100-day milestone as something that also gives them increased leverage. Judging by last night’s Democratic conference call, they are aware of this.

...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Great NYT article: "The Balloon, the Box and Health Care"

Quote

Imagine a man who for some reason is determined to stuff a balloon into a box — a box that, aside from being the wrong shape, just isn’t big enough. He starts working at one corner, pushing the balloon into position. But then he realizes that the air he’s squeezed out at one end has caused the balloon to expand elsewhere. So he tries at the opposite corner, but this undoes his original work.

If he’s stupid or obsessive enough, he can spend a long time at this exercise, trying it from various different angles, and maybe even briefly convince himself that he’s making progress. But he’s kidding himself: No matter what he does, the balloon isn’t going to fit in that box.

Now you understand what’s happening to G.O.P. efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans have spent many years denouncing Obamacare as a terrible, horrible, no good law and insisting that they can do much better. They successfully convinced many voters that they could preserve the good stuff — the dramatic expansion of coverage that has brought the percentage of Americans without health insurance to a record low — while reducing premiums, shrinking deductibles and, of course, doing away with the taxes on high incomes that pay for the program.

Those promises basically define the box into which they’re trying to stuff health care.

But health care costs money. In particular, if you want to make care available to Americans who have pre-existing medical conditions — including the condition of being not rich and being relatively old, but not yet eligible for Medicare — you have to find some way to subsidize them.

Obamacare provides those subsidies in part with direct public funding, in part with regulations that implicitly use premiums paid by the healthy to cover the cost of caring for the less healthy.

There are other possible ways to achieve the same goal, but the money has to come from somewhere. That basically says how much air there is in the balloon — and it makes the balloon too big for the box.

Now you understand why there’s a predictable, repetitive rhythm to the health care story.

Again and again, we read news reports to the effect that Republicans are closing in on a plan that will break the political deadlock. They’ll repeal the Obamacare taxes and block-grant Medicaid! No, they’ll make insurance cheaper by eliminating the coverage requirements! Or, the latest idea being floated, they’ll let insurance companies raise premiums on people with pre-existing conditions and compensate by creating special high-risk pools!

And each time the plan turns out to have a fatal flaw. Millions will lose coverage; or they’ll keep coverage, but it will become so threadbare it’s almost worthless; or premiums will skyrocket for the most needy unless vast sums — hundreds of billions of dollars — are devoted to those high-risk pools.

The important thing to remember is that these problems don’t keep popping up because the people devising the plans are careless, and keep forgetting crucial issues. They’re popping up because the G.O.P. is trying to stuff a big balloon into a small box, and every time you squeeze it somewhere it inflates someplace else.

And because the task Republicans have set for themselves is basically impossible, their ongoing debacle over health care isn’t about political tactics or leadership. Even if Donald Trump were the great deal maker he claims to be, or Paul Ryan the policy wonk he poses as, this thing just can’t work.

...

All of this raises the obvious question: If Republicans never had a plausible alternative to Obamacare, if this debacle was so inevitable, what was the constant refrain of “repeal and replace” all about?

The answer, surely, is that it began as a cynical ploy; at first, the Republicans hoped to kill health reform before it really got started. And now they’ve trapped themselves: They can’t admit that they have no ideas without, in effect, admitting that they were lying all along.

And the result is that they just keep trying to stuff the balloon into that box.

Stupid and obsessive. Yeah, that pretty much describes Agent Orange, Mitch McTurtle, and Paul Lyan.

[AmazonGrace]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/20/jason-chaffetz-utah-retire-scandal-237423

Quote

 

Asked if he is resigning because of a yet-to-be revealed scandal, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely, positively not.

“Not in any way shape or form,” he said. “I’ve been given more enemas by more people over the last eight years than you can possibly imagine. From the Secret Service to the Democratic Party. I am who I am. If they had something really scandalous, it would’ve come out a long, long time ago.”

 

This sounds less like an "I didn't do it" and more like a "They can't prove I did it!" to me. 

Let's say he recently conspired with the Trussians, how the hell would the Democratic party have revealed it eight years ago? 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Democrats partner with political newcomers aiming to create anti-Trump wave in 2018 midterms"

Quote

A wave of first-time candidates eager to fight President Trump and his young administration plan to challenge House Republican incumbents, giving Democratic Party leaders hope that they can capi­tal­ize on the anger and intensity at grass-roots protests and town hall meetings across the country this year.

At least 15 declared candidates or contenders on the verge of announcing have emerged in districts that Democrats must win to take back the House, including in several districts where the party did not seriously compete in 2014 or 2016, according to party officials.

Democrats need 24 new seats to retake control of the House — a tall order that no party leader publicly says is possible, at least not yet.

Still, less than 100 days into Trump’s presidency, the early interest gives Democrats a chance to compete more aggressively in districts where they haven’t fielded challengers in recent cycles — and perhaps chip away at the GOP’s seven-year control of the House.

“This is unprecedented,” said Stephanie Schriock, president of Emily’s List, the progressive organization that trains and recruits women to run for political office. During the 2016 cycle, her group spoke with about 900 women interested in running for school board, state legislature or Congress. This year, they’ve heard from more than 11,000 women in all 50 states — with a few dozen seriously considering House races, she said.

Democratic strategists are trying to take advantage of the groundswell of engagement. They have moved initial staff to key districts they are targeting, including several in California, Virginia and Texas.

In a bid to pick up as many as five more seats from Republican incumbents in California, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has moved its eight-member western regional political team to offices in Irvine, Calif. — the first time the team has been permanently stationed outside of Washington since 2000. The goal is to defeat Reps. Mimi Walters, Edward R. Royce, Dana Rohrabacher, Steve Knight and Darrell Issa, all of whom won reelection last year in districts that Hillary Clinton won.

And they are actively recruiting candidates in the most competitive districts. Staff at the DCCC — responsible for electing more Democrats to the House — say they’ve spoken with more than 300 potential candidates in 70 districts nationwide, a figure that they believe will allow the party to compete in several long-held Republican districts like the one in Georgia where the first round of a special election this week earned outsized national attention.

Congressional Republicans cautioned that the Democrats’ activity includes no evidence of an advantage in next year’s midterm elections. They noted that Democrats have to focus more on recruiting because they control less of the map and need to make gains. And they caution that early recruits might not line up with the demands of Democratic voters.

Democrats “are getting a bit out front of themselves in not recognizing that their candidates are going to have difficulty getting through primaries,” said Jesse Hunt, national press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Their base is demanding all-out destruction and candidates with rigid ideology whose sole purpose is to oppose Donald Trump and the Republican agenda. That’s going to run up against some of what Washington Democrats want to do.”

NRCC officials said they have spoken with more than 100 potential candidates about challenging Democrats, especially in a handful of Midwestern districts that could become vacant as Democratic incumbents retire or seek higher office. And so far, Republicans retain a financial advantage in this election cycle despite Democrats’ apparent enthusiasm advantage: While the DCCC raised $31 million in the first quarter — including 120,000 online donations from first-time givers — the House GOP’s campaign arm raised $36 million.

Liberal activists and Democratic organizers said the key ingredient this year is the grass-roots urgency, but the hope is to combine that with organizing heft.

In the fierce battleground of Northern Virginia, Democratic State Sen. Jennifer Wexton is a prime example. A former prosecutor, Wexton was wooed by Democrats in 2016 to challenge Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), but she declined — and the two-term lawmaker prevailed in one of the most expensive and competitive House races last year.

On Friday, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report declared Comstock’s seat a “toss up” after Wexton decided to jump in — a decision that resulted partly from conversations with fellow Democrats and partly from attending the Women’s March on Washington and other protests that opened her eyes to the extent of the outrage spurred by Trump’s election.

“I’ve never seen anything like that it my life, it was amazing and very inspiring,” Wexton said. “I went to Dulles Airport during the Muslim ban and same thing there. All the people who had come out to protest in solidarity with immigrants and the volunteer attorneys who were there. I mean that was amazing.”

...

The landscape is different in the Senate.

Republicans have a distinct advantage in 2018, when 25 Democrats will be defending Senate seats, including 10 in states that Trump won last year. But Republicans are struggling to find candidates to challenge Democrats next year. Several prominent, well-funded contenders in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Montana, Indiana and elsewhere have declined to launch Senate campaigns. Democrats, hoping to win Senate races in Arizona and Nevada, also have yet to find recruits.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee declined to comment on its recruiting plan. But one national GOP strategist, who like many contacted declined to be named publicly for fear of retribution from the White House or congressional leaders, said that concerns with Trump’s sagging popularity are a leading factor for wary Republican candidates.

“Presumably, if you’re running as a Republican in 2018, you’re running to implement his agenda,” said the operative. “There are a lot of Republicans who are uneasy with big elements of Trump’s agenda and you’re seeing that reflected in challenges with candidate recruitment.”

...

I guess this article could have gone in the "Resistance" thread, but I flipped a coin...

I'm not delusional to think the Dems can retake both chambers, but it would be nice to retake one, or at least cut the Repub supermajority in the house.

[fraurosena]

13 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Great NYT article: "The Balloon, the Box and Health Care"

Stupid and obsessive. Yeah, that pretty much describes Agent Orange, Mitch McTurtle, and Paul Lyan.

Pretty much describes the whole GOP, if you ask me...

[GreyhoundFan]

"Congress must make a deal to avoid a shutdown. So, about that wall…"

Quote

REMEMBER HOW President Trump was going to construct a wall along the border between the United States and Mexico — paid for by Mexico? There’s been a change of plans. Now Mr. Trump wants the Democrats to put up the cash.

All right; that’s a slight exaggeration. What’s actually happening is that the government’s current spending authority runs out April 29. Without a new bill, the country could face a partial shutdown of federal agencies. No one, Mr. Trump included, wants that, and the two parties are negotiating a deal to avoid it. However, his budget director, Mick Mulvaney, threw a wrench into the talks Thursday by declaring that the final deal should include money for Mr. Trump’s wall. Yes, Mr. Mulvaney said, Democrats “don’t like the wall, but they lost the election. And the president should, I think, at least have the opportunity to fund one of his highest priorities in the first funding bill under his administration.” A down payment on the wall might be the White House’s price for agreeing to the Democrats’ own priority: a key health-care subsidy for low-income consumers.

Republicans do not have the necessary 60 votes for passage of any spending deal in the Senate, which gives the Democrats leverage despite their minority status in both houses. They would be crazy to capitulate, and not only because the politics of the issue favor them. (Sixty-two percent of the public opposes building a wall along the entire border, according to a Pew Research poll.) As a policy matter, the wall is a foolish and wasteful enterprise, one whose legitimate purposes — stopping unauthorized immigration and drug smuggling — could be achieved at far lower cost through other means. In the unlikely event that this pharaonic enterprise ever did get completed, it would stand as a monument to the xenophobia Mr. Trump tapped to get elected. The sooner he can be forced to abandon it, the better.

Democrats are in the right on the health-care issue as well. At issue are billions of dollars to help lower-income health insurance exchange customers afford out-of-pocket expenses, money that the Obama administration provided but that the Republicans insist was not properly appropriated; they have a lawsuit pending on that point. Ideally, the Republicans would be abandoning that fight and engaging the Democrats in a genuinely constructive update of Obamacare, not the “repeal-and-replace” exercise they have been pursuing, without success, due to their own internal divisions. Intra-GOP talks are ongoing, with Mr. Trump suggesting that a compromise might be ready for a vote in the House next week. “The plan gets better and better and better,” Mr. Trump said, which is the opposite of the truth: Leaked versions of the bill would, under certain circumstances, allow states to let insurance companies sell policies that people with preexisting conditions could not afford.

April 29 also marks the 100th day of Mr. Trump’s presidency; he may be trying to conjure some sort of legislative victory before then, or at least put up a convincing show of trying. What he’s mainly demonstrating, though, are the reasons his accomplishments so far have been so paltry: His vaunted negotiating skills have delivered little, and his priorities have been misguided.

...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Democrats may finally break through in Texas, thanks to Trump"

Quote

For a few election cycles now, Democrats have been vowing to put the largest, most important red state, Texas, in play. President Trump won the state by a not-very-close 9 points. Then again, Mitt Romney won it by about 16 points in 2012. Democrats still insist that as the state becomes more affluent, more diverse and more urban, it will tip Democratic. In 2016, Harris County — the most populous county in the state — went Democratic: “Ending a streak of thin electoral margins, Harris County — the biggest battleground in ruby red Texas with a population larger than 25 other states — turned solidly blue … with the largest presidential margin of victory in more than a decade. The blue wave was apparent up and down the ballot on a banner night for the county’s Democrats.” (If this sounds familiar, remember we just came through the Georgia 6th District’s special election, in which an atypical, wealthy and educated red district gave Democrat Jon Ossoff a stunning plurality of 48 percent.)

Last year, the Pew Research Center reported: “The Hispanic population in Texas is the second largest in the nation. About 10.4 million Hispanics reside in Texas, 18.8% of all Hispanics in the United States. . . . Some 28% of Texas eligible voters are Hispanic, the second largest Hispanic statewide eligible voter share nationally.” One reason Hispanics do not turn out in as high numbers as white voters has to do with age. “Latino eligible voters are younger than white, black and Asian eligible voters in Texas. Some 32% of Latinos are ages 18 to 29, compared with 19% of white eligible voters, 26% of black eligible voters and 21% of Asian eligible voters.” As voters age, they tend to become more regular voters, which suggests that just as the Hispanic population is growing, the turnout among Hispanic voters will rise as they age.

While the Texas congressmen in deep-red districts have little to worry about, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and congressmen such as Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tex.), who barely won in a district that went for Hillary Clinton, may face unusually stiff competition in 2018. A few political tremors rumbled through the state recently.

First, last month a federal appeals court found that “Texas intentionally discriminated against black and Latino voters in drawing its 2011 congressional map, the majority found in a 2-1 ruling … More specifically: Three of the state’s 36 districts violate either the U.S. Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.” Hurd’s district was one of those found to have been unconstitutionally gerrymandered.

Separate court decisions struck down the state House and Senate map and invalidated the state voter-ID law. The Associated Press explained:

For Texas, the stockpiling losses carry the risk of a court punishing the state by demanding approval before changing voting laws. The process, known as “preclearance,” was formerly required of Texas and other states with a history of racial discrimination before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. But the court kept in place the chance that states could again fall under federal oversight if intentional discrimination is found.

Minority rights groups and Democrats could press a three-judge panel in San Antonio over that possibility at a court hearing later this month in San Antonio, when they’re also expected to demand new state and congressional maps for the 2018 elections.

These are huge victories for civil rights groups and in turn could boost Democratic participation in 2018.

...

By a margin of 54 percent to 42 percent, Texans disapprove of the job Trump is doing. As is true elsewhere, subgroups of voters view him in starkly different terms. (“85 percent of Republicans give the President positive marks compared to 86 percent of Democrats who disapprove of his job performance. Same goes for young Texans. . . . 73 percent of 18-29 year olds are not enthused with the President’s job performance along with 61 percent of Hispanics. Meantime, he is viewed positively by 60 percent of Whites.”)

And finally, Texans are generally pro-NAFTA. “Overall, 43 percent of Texas adults say that NAFTA has been good for the Texas economy, 24 percent say that it has been bad, and 33 percent offered no opinion. The topline results tracked closely to when we previously asked this question in 2009, when an equal share, 43 percent said that NAFTA had been good for the Texas economy, 28 percent said that it had been bad, and 29 percent had no opinion.”

In sum, if Democrats can keep up their level of enthusiasm, turn out their base and run against Trump and his anti-immigrant and anti-trade policies (which hurt Texas residents), Cruz and a few incumbent GOP congressmen may have their hands full. Cruz, in particular, who has opportunistically been all over the map on support for Trump and on immigration — and failed to deliver much in the way of concrete results for his constituents — might actually be an inviting target for Democrats. We should underscore the pollster’s warning that polling “conducted this far in advance of an actual election are, at best, useful in gauging the potential weaknesses of incumbents seeking re-election …  [And] the substantial percentage of undecided respondents — coupled with the conservative, pro-Republican proclivities of the Texas electorate in recent years — suggest a cautious interpretation.” (Cruz will also have a boatload of cash.)

Nevertheless, the notion that Republicans would have to work hard to hold seats in Texas tells you that something is changing. If right-wing immigrant-bashing and protectionism don’t work in the Lone Star State, Republicans might need to reconsider their philosophy.

Wow, if we could rid Congress of Ted Cruz, it would be a dream come true.

[Penny]

10 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Wow, if we could rid Congress of Ted Cruz, it would be a dream come true.

I would love for him to be defeated! I hope this comes true.