Tag Archives: House GOP

Trump the ‘deal-maker’ faces grievous setback

Donald J. Trump told us — many times — during the 2016 presidential campaign that the greatest skill he would bring to the presidency would be his ability to close the deal.

He made a fortune working out the “best” deals in the history of business … he said.

Here we are. Trump is now the president of the United States. He promised to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act with something more “affordable” and that no American would be left without health insurance.

Trump and congressional Republican leaders have produced something called the American Health Care Act. But there’s this little problem with it.

The Congressional Budget Office’s “scoring” of it pegs the number of Americans who would lose health insurance at 24 million. What’s more, the conservative Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives hates the AHCA. They call it “Obamacare light.”

So do congressional Democrats. No surprise there.

Crucial vote coming up

The AHCA goes to a vote Thursday in the House. Freedom Caucus members aren’t budging. The president went to Capitol Hill to pitch the AHCA. He threatened some House members that they’d lose their seats in 2018 if they oppose the bill.

Freedom Caucus leaders say they now have enough votes to kill the AHCA. Which means that a Senate vote won’t matter.

Wasn’t this supposed to be the president’s main selling point? Is this how he closes the deal?

The Affordable Care Act, which has brought 20 million Americans into the health insurance system who previously couldn’t afford it, appears to much harder to “repeal and replace” than Donald Trump predicted it would be.

I will await the president’s response to what appears to be a stunning political setback in the making. I’m wondering if he’s going to say the House vote was “rigged.”

Didn’t they impeach a president for doing this?

President Bill Clinton took an oath to obey all the laws of the land. He then became entangled in an investigation that turned up an inappropriate relationship with a White House intern. He was summoned to testify to a federal grand jury about that relationship, he swore to tell the truth and then, um, fibbed about it.

House Republicans were so outraged they impeached him for it, put him on trial in the Senate, where he eventually was acquitted.

All of that over a sex scandal. Sheesh!

Now a sitting U.S. attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has allegedly been caught in a much more serious lie of his own.

He took an oath to tell the truth to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings. He told senators he never had any conversations with Russian government officials during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Now comes reporting from “enemy of the people” media outlets that, yep, the AG did talk to the Russians.

Should he stay or should he go? Congressional Democrats want Sessions to quit. I won’t go that far just yet.

I do, though, believe the questions surrounding Sessions’s relationship with Donald J. Trump — they’re close friends and even closer political allies — disqualifies him from the get-go from pursuing any kind of unbiased, impartial and thorough investigation into the president’s relationship with Russia.

Some top Democrats want him out. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. What’s interesting to me and others is that a number of key Republicans have joined their Democratic “friends” in seeking Sessions’s recusal from any potential investigation.

The president, quite naturally, is going to label the reporting of Sessions’s contacts with the Russians as “fake news.” He’ll debunk reporters for the Washington Post and New York Times — who have been leading the media probe — as “dishonest” purveyors of fiction.

As one who once toiled the craft of journalism, although surely not at this level, I take great personal offense to Trump’s penchant for counterattack. Rather than reacting seriously and with measured calm, the nation’s head of state goes off on these rants about the media’s so-called status at the people’s “enemy.”

The attorney general has no business investigating whether the president had any kind of improper relationship with Russian government officials prior to his taking office. Whether he should remain on the job, well, that will have to be determined quickly.

I know that the law is designed to presume someone’s innocence. The world of politics, though, is a different animal altogether. In that world, the presumption often infers guilt and the accused must prove his or her innocence.

It might not always be fair. It’s just the way it is.

House prepares to burn Obamacare to the ground

I told you I would say something good about Donald J. Trump when the opportunity presents itself.

It just has.

The president-elect has admonished Republican members of Congress about whether they should repeal the Affordable Care Act without having a replacement law ready to go.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-house-republicans-to-vote-on-obamacare-repeal/ar-AAlQhoT?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

According to Reuters: “The president-elect, who takes office on Jan. 20, pressed lawmakers this week to repeal and replace it ‘essentially simultaneously.'”

Yes, Trump has applauded House members’ swift action to repeal the ACA. He’s also been mindful of the consequences of peeling away health insurance for 20 million Americans who have purchased coverage under the ACA.

It’s not as if congressional Republicans haven’t had time to cobble together a replacement plan. For six years, since the ACA was approved, the GOP has been harping and carping about the need to replace it — with something! House Republicans filed a lawsuit to repeal the ACA. They wrung their hands and griped out loud continually about an insurance law that was patterned — interestingly enough — after a Massachusetts law endorsed and pushed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney.

House repeal doesn’t spell the end of the ACA. The repeal effort still has to jump through the Senate hoops, too.

However, the president-elect’s insistence that Congress have a replacement plan ready to go “simultaneously” is the more reasonable and humane approach.

Welcome to a rocky start, Congress

That didn’t take long.

Congressional Republicans decided to gut an ethics watchdog group, prompting the president-elect to send out a tweet that said they should focus on other matters first; then the House GOP caucus decided to scrap the watchdog-gutting, apparently cowed by Donald Trump’s Twitter tirade.

I’m glad the House GOP thought better of the cockamamie idea to place ethics investigations solely within the House Ethics Committee, which is run by Republicans.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/312496-house-gop-scraps-plan-to-gut-ethics-watchdog-after-emergency-meeting

What’s next? The bipartisan independent group will continue to refer complaints to Congress if they deem them legitimate. They’ll be able to accept anonymous complaints.

Does this mean Donald Trump has found some ethical “religion”? Probably not. He’s got a slew of problems himself to resolve.

It does mean, though, that he seems to have put the fear of social media into the minds of his fellow Republicans.

Still, it’s a clumsy start to the next congressional session.

About that swamp-draining idea … try this

Donald J. Trump once pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., making it a better place to enact laws and to do the public’s business.

Let’s get away from that notion, say Republicans in Congress.

How? Oh, let’s just no longer have an independent ethics organization serving as a watchdog of congressional activities and then we’ll just have such activities overseen by, that’s it, Congress itself!

See how it works?

If there’s something suspicious being done by a member of Congress, why we’ll just have his or her pals in Congress do the investigating and then determine whether there should be any sanction delivered to the offending member.

Do you think that’s going to work?

Aww, me neither.

The House Republican caucus has adopted a new rule proposed by House Ethics Committee Chairman Bob Goodlate, R-Va., to let his panel handle all ethics investigations. It will disband the Office of Congressional Ethics this week.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-gop-votes-to-rein-in-independent-ethics-watchdog/ar-BBxPwWL?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Congress created the independent watchdog arm under the leadership of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in 2008.

According to The Hill, the new law “would bar the office from considering anonymous tips about potential ethics violations and prevent disclosures about investigations.”

Interesting, yes? I think so. You see, quite often tipsters with information to pass along need to remain anonymous to protect themselves against retribution.

Journalists, for instance, get tipped off anonymously all the time; the practice, though, is for the journalist to obtain the name of the tipster while pledging not to reveal his or her name publicly while developing a news story. What is so terrible about a congressional watchdog group operating under the same sort of ground rule?

Trump reportedly has advised his transition team to scrap the “drain the swamp” mantra as they talk about the incoming administration. I believe I am now understanding why the president-elect no longer is wedded to the idea.

His GOP pals are refilling that very swamp.

Trump running headlong into D.C. reality

donald

Donald J. Trump is facing the worst of two worlds as he prepares to become president of the United States.

He wants to spend a trillion bucks on infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports. He once compared American airports to “third world” terminals; the bridges and roads are a “disgrace.”

So he has pitched an expensive program to fix it all.

Here’s this little problem. There’s no money to pay for it. Why? He also wants to cut taxes.

Let’s see: Introducing a big spending program while cutting tax revenue seems to be counterintuitive in the extreme. Don’t you think?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-infrastructure-plan-washington-reality-231649

On whom does the president-elect depend to help him enact this idea?

Republicans who control both congressional chambers? Forget about it. They’re skinflints who aren’t about to borrow more money and, therefore, increase the national debt. Do you remember when Joplin, Mo., was leveled by that tornado in 2011 and then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia demanded cuts elsewhere to offset the expense of making one of our communities whole?

What about Democrats who otherwise might be likely to support a big infrastructure “investment”? They detest Trump even more than Republicans do.

Can Trump declare a “mandate” to do what he wants? Um, no, not with a 1.7 million (and growing) popular-vote deficit stemming from the Nov. 8 presidential election.

So, here we are. A political novice set to become president of the United States is getting an on-the-job-training lesson on just how little power he really possesses.

This ain’t a corporate board room, Mr. President-elect.

Battleground state getting bloody

darrylglenn

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — I’m getting a taste of what we’ve been missing in Texas.

Since we don’t live in a “battleground state,” my wife and I have been spared the barrage of TV commercials from Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Moreover, since we don’t have any serious statewide races to decide this election cycle, we’ve also been spared some of the amazing down-ballot campaign rhetoric voters are hearing in this battleground.

Darryl Glenn is a Republican running for the U.S. Senate in Colorado. He is seeking to unseat Democratic incumbent Sen. Michael Bennett.

A 30-second TV spot from Bennett asks voters if they know who Glenn is. The spot highlights a recording of Glenn saying that he is “running against Democrats.” And, he adds, he is campaigning “against evil.”

Democrats personify “evil,” says the Republican.

Oh, brother.

Twenty-two years ago, a Republican House of Representatives firebrand named Newt Gingrich led a partisan revolution that resulted in the GOP takeover of both houses of Congress.

He instructed his Contract With America brigade to paint “Democrats as the enemy of normal Americans.” The enemy. Not a mere political adversary. The enemy, man.

Now the enemy has morphed — in the mind of another Republican — into evil.

See what we’ve been missing at home? Have you missed it? Neither have I.

Sit-in reminds us of the old days

untitled

Democrats are still protesting on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Republicans, meanwhile, have recessed the chamber and have gone home for the next couple of weeks.

What happens now?

I’ve managed to take away a few thoughts from this extraordinary event.

First, we’ve never seen anything like it in Congress, so we have nothing with which to compare it. Democrats decided to put their collective feet down and demand a vote on gun legislation.

They are led by one of the more iconic figures of this country’s civil-rights movement, U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who knows a thing or three about sit-ins, civil disobedience and seeking redress of his grievances against the government.

He also knows a thing or three about getting beaten to within an inch of his life by ham-handed cops intent on putting down these protests.

It’s good that nothing like that has happened on the floor of the House. In some government chambers, such a dispute might result in fists and furniture flying. Have you ever seen how, for example, it has gone in Taipei, where the Taiwanese parliament meets?

Also, House Speaker Paul Ryan shouldn’t have shut down the House while the demonstration was occurring. He ordered the cameras turned off, creating a situation where someone on the House floor violated the rules of the body by photographing the protest through ill-gotten means.

It has prompted some in the media to wonder what might be frightening to the speaker, forcing him to seek to silence the debate. Check this out from the Boston Globe:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/06/22/paul-ryan-what-are-you-afraid/E5U98g15gZJ21ma03MfzMN/story.html

Lewis and his fellow demonstrators want a vote on whether to enact gun legislation in the wake of the Orlando, Fla., slaughter of 49 people.

They are demanding a vote! Up or down!

House Republicans — failing to follow the lead of their Senate brethren — are refusing to allow a vote.

From where I sit, the seriously outnumbered Democratic congressional minority is making a reasonable request.

Let’s get that vote — and then carry the debate over gun legislation forward!

Benghazi probe gets punctured

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, center, is escorted to a secure floor on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Jan. 8, 2016, to be questioned in a closed-door hearing of the House Benghazi Committee. The panel, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is investigating the 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where a violent mob killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Benghazi has become a sort of buzz word in Washington.

It’s come to mean far more than it should mean, which ought only to identify the place where four brave Americans died in a spasm of confusion and anger in a firefight on Sept. 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in that Libyan city.

The term also has come to symbolize the ongoing effort to derail the presidential ambitions of the individual who was secretary of state at the time of the tragedy.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has testified before a House select committee. So have others with direct knowledge of what happened. And yet, the probe goes on and on and on …

Now we hear from a former congressional lawyer who said, by golly, that all the parties concerned did what was humanly possible to save the lives of the four Americans who died.

End of argument? One might hope so.

But … no-o-o-o!

The lawyer, Dana Chipman, who worked for the Benghazi select panel, said there was no more that could have been done. The terrorists who attacked the consulate overwhelmed the facility in a surprise attack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trey-gowdy-dana-chipman-benghazi-committee_us_5738db52e4b08f96c18373e2

That won’t stop Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., from continuing his pursuit of something — anything! — he can find that will undermine the presumed Democratic Party presidential nominee’s political quest.

According to the Huffington Post: “I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region,” Chipman told (Defense Secretary Leon) Panetta in the committee’s January interview with the former defense secretary, according to transcribed excerpts. “And, sir, I don’t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.”

So, there you have it. End of story? It should be. It probably won’t end anytime soon. Maybe it’ll never end.

 

Why the soft-shoe on Trump, congressman?

Thornberry_9

Mac Thornberry is going to be re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives this fall.

The veteran Republican lawmaker is going to win big. He’d win big even if he had a Democratic opponent. He has represented one of the House’s most reliably Republican congressional districts — the 13th — since 1995.

Why, then, does he waffle on whether he intends to “support” or “endorse” the pending GOP presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump?

http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2016-05-05/thornberry-evades-endorsement-urges-voters-watch

He came back to the Texas Panhandle congressional district this week and fielded some questions about whether he intends to endorse Trump.

Thornberry didn’t commit to it.

C’mon, Mac! You’re in zero danger of losing your House seat. Step into it, man.

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is playing his cards much too carefully. If he were in any jeopardy, I might understand some reluctance to offer an endorsement.

Instead, he said something about endorsements carrying little weight — and even less so in this election cycle.

Well, tell that to former Gov. Rick Perry, who has announced his endorsement of Trump. For that matter, tell it to other former Trump opponents who’ve gone the other direction by refusing to endorse because they think so little of the presumptive nominee.

So, you might be wondering: Why try to speak for the congressman? Why not let him make up his own mind?

He works for me. He’s my congressman. I believe all his constituents — his bosses — have the right to hold him accountable for issues such as who he plans to endorse to become the next head of state, head of government and commander in chief of the greatest military machine on Earth.