The following article by Amber Phillips was posted on the Washington Post website October 5, 2017:
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-S.C.) said Oct. 4 “we have not come to any final conclusions” about the Russia investigation but that they are still looking into multiple areas of interest. (Reuters)
This post has been updated with Trump’s latest tweet about the Russia investigation.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is expanding the scope of its investigation into Russian meddling, with panel leaders saying there is no end date in sight.
The panel is interested in questioning a lawyer who runs in the president’s inner circle, looking into possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign, and determining whether the intelligence community’s findings are fully correct and complete.
Here are the five main takeaways from the Wednesday presser:
The following article by Nicholas Fandos was posted on the New York Times website October 4, 2017:
Senators Richard M. Burr, left, the intelligence committee’s chairman, and Mark Warner, its vice chairman, held the most extensive news conference since the committee began its investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Credit Pete Marovich for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee delivered a stark warning on Wednesday to political candidates: Expect Russian operatives to remain active and determined to again try to sow chaos in elections next month and next year.
At a rare news conference, Senators Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina and the committee’s chairman, and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and its vice chairman, broadly endorsed the conclusions of American spy agencies that said President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a campaign of hacking and propaganda to disrupt the 2016 presidential election. Continue reading “Senate Intelligence Heads Warn That Russian Election Meddling Continues”
The following article by Joe Williams was posted on the Roll Call website October 4, 2017:
Health care defeat spurs heightened awareness of the upcoming messaging battle on taxes
Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin G. Hatch and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have unveiled a framework for their tax measure and already face a messaging battle. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
The messaging battle over a pending overhaul of the U.S. tax code has begun. And while Republicans say they feel confident they will overcome the opposition this time around, a lingering defeat on health care continues to concern proponents.
The administration and congressional GOP leaders last week unveiled a framework for the still unreleased tax legislation. It immediately set off a cascade of reaction — positive and negative — as Republicans labeled it a middle-class tax break and Democrats called it a giveaway for the rich.
The following article by Alan Rappeport and Jim Tankersley was posted on the New York Times website October 3, 2017:
Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, acknowledged that full repeal of the popular state and local tax deduction would be a “nonstarter” with many Republicans in Congress. Credit Al Drago for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Republican leaders are backing away from a proposal to fully repeal an expensive tax break used by more than 40 million tax filers to deduct state and local taxes amid pushback from fellow lawmakers whose residents rely on the popular provision.
The state and local tax deduction is estimated to cost $1.3 trillion over the next decade and its repeal is central to paying for a sweeping tax rewrite unveiled last week by Republican lawmakers and administration officials. But elimination of the provision has emerged as a flash point in the nascent debate over the plan, with Republicans in high-tax states worried about backlash from residents who could see their tax bills rise. Continue reading “Republicans Are Reconsidering Full Repeal of State and Local Tax Deduction”
The following article by Binyamin Appelbaum was posted on the New York Times website September 27, 2017:
President Trump spoke about his administration’s tax reform plan in Indianapolis on Wednesday. Credit Tom Brenner/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The tax plan that the Trump administration outlined on Wednesday is a potentially huge windfall for the wealthiest Americans. It would not directly benefit the bottom third of the population. As for the middle class, the benefits appear to be modest.
The administration and its congressional allies are proposing to sharply reduce taxation of business income, primarily benefiting the small share of the population that owns the vast majority of corporate equity. President Trump said on Wednesday that the cuts would increase investment and spur growth, creating broader prosperity. But experts say the upside is limited, not least because the economy is already expanding. Continue reading “Trump Tax Plan Benefits Wealthy, Including Trump”
The following article by David Weigel was posted on the Washington Post website September 21, 2017:
U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) speaks as Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) listen. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The chief sponsors of the GOP’s 11th-hour effort to curtail the Affordable Care Act will debate two of their Senate opponents, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), on Monday night — an arrangement that surprised some of Sanders’s Democratic colleagues, who learned about the debate when host network CNN blasted out a news release.
The following article by Glenn Howatt and Jennifer Brooks was posted on the StarTribune website September 22, 2017:
Latest GOP bill would defund MinnesotaCare and shift our federal aid to other states.
Dr. Michael Kamp examines a patient Thursday at Open Cities Medical Center. The low-income clinic in St. Paul would face major funding losses under the Graham-Cassidy health care proposal. Credit: Leila Navidi, STAR TRIBUNE
WASHINGTON – Minnesota stands to lose billions of dollars in federal funding if Senate Republicans are successful next week in their latest bid to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
Supporters of the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill say it returns control of health care policy to the states. But many Minnesota health officials counter that it endangers care of seniors and people with disabilities and would lead to even more costly premiums in the individual market.
“People won’t be able to afford to get coverage and at the end of the day more people will go without the medical care that they need,” said Jim Schowalter, CEO of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. “This takes us back several steps.”
Like other states, Minnesota under the proposal would get a federal health care block grant, with flexibility in how to spend it. But an analysis by the Washington-based health care consulting firm Avalere Health found that Minnesota would lose $8 billion over the next decade compared to what it would receive under the Affordable Care Act.
The federal mandate to have health insurance would go away, along with the system of subsidies and tax credits designed to make premiums more affordable. The bill would also end the expansion of the Medicaid program to those who are slightly above the poverty level, and like other Republican proposals, federal Medicaid dollars to states will be capped.
That could result in a $37 billion loss to Minnesota in federal Medicaid funding by 2030, according to an analysis by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. MinnesotaCare would see its federal funding stream eliminated entirely. The program, which serves 92,000 working poor, is mostly paid for with federal dollars.
“If the repeal of ACA passes, it’s going to just be a nightmare,” Gov. Mark Dayton told reporters this week.
“The uncertainty for states and for the people of Minnesota is going to be really destructive.”
By comparison, Wisconsin would gain $3 billion under its block grant because the bill funnels federal dollars away from states that accepted aid during the Obama administration to those that did not.
“There’s a significant transfer of funds from blue states to red states,” said Andy Slavitt, a Minnesotan who served as acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the last two years of the Obama administration. The bill, he said, creates “losers and bigger losers.”
National and state groups representing hospitals, nursing homes, doctors and some insurance companies have opposed the bill.
“Not much has improved since the last failed attempt by the U.S. Senate to pass an ACA repeal and replace bill,” said Kari Thurlow, senior vice president of advocacy for LeadingAge Minnesota, a long-term care industry group.
Nearly 60 percent of all nursing home care in Minnesota is paid for by Medicaid, which also provides funds to help people live independently at home or in assisted care facilities. The Medicaid spending caps proposed by the bill would force the state to cut benefits and reduce provider reimbursement rates, she said.
“It will hurt the most vulnerable and in many cases jeopardize people’s ability to stay in their homes as they age,” said Will Phillips, state director for AARP Minnesota.
The elderly and people with disabilities make up about 20 percent of the 1.1 million people in Minnesota’s Medicaid program but account for nearly 60 percent of spending.
Minnesota currently provides benefits to people with disabilities that are not required by federal law, making them vulnerable to cuts as federal funding decreases over time, said Mike Gude, communications director for the Arc Minnesota, a disability rights group in St. Paul.
“These programs provide supports that help people with disabilities get and keep jobs in the community and helps them live in their own place in the community,” he said. “All of those kinds of services would be threatened.”
In addition to Medicaid cuts, Minnesota would have about two years to change health policy to conform with the new law, if enacted, compared to the seven years it has taken to implement Obamacare.
“All of sudden to undo all that and redo to establish new programs and new approaches,” said Lynn Blewett, a public health professor at the University of Minnesota. “I just can’t imagine what will happen.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician and a lead sponsor of the bill, dismissed criticism, saying it comes from “those who wish to preserve Obamacare, and they are doing everything they can to discredit the alternative.”
“More people will have coverage, and we protect those with pre-existing conditions,” Cassidy told CNN.
The bill does require that “adequate and affordable” coverage be available for those with pre-existing conditions, but since the terms aren’t defined in the bill, critics fear insurers could jack up the price of those plans beyond most people’s ability to pay. States could also obtain waivers that would erase some protections.
“Over the next 10 years, 32 million people will lose coverage,” Slavitt said. “Premiums are likely to shoot up in the near term — 20 percent in the first year, and the consumer protections that people really value, like: protection against being discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition, having a lifetime cap on your policy, all those are gone.”
The bill’s sponsors are scrambling to lock in the 50 votes they need to pass it before a Sept. 30 procedural deadline.
The following article by Niels Lesniewski was posted on the Roll Call website September 22, 2017:
Arizona Republican says there is not enough time for debate
Arizona Sen. John McCain talks with reporters in the basement of the Capitol on Tuesday. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
Arizona Sen. John McCain said Friday that given the truncated timeline, he cannot vote for the health care repeal proposal floated by fellow Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana next week.
“I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal. I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried. Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will affect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it,” McCain said. “Without a full [Congressional Budget Office] score, which won’t be available by the end of the month, we won’t have reliable answers to any of those questions.” Continue reading “McCain a ‘No’ on Latest Senate Health Care Bill”
