Tag: Democrats

  • German Christian Democrats rewrite Merkel’s China playbook

    German Christian Democrats rewrite Merkel’s China playbook

    [ad_1]

    germany merkel russian pranksters 95694

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    BERLIN — Germany’s Christian Democrats, the country’s largest opposition group, are planning to shift away from the pragmatic stance toward China that characterized Angela Merkel’s 16 years as chancellor, claiming that maintaining peace through trade has failed.

    It’s a remarkable course change for the conservative party that pursued a strategy of rapprochement and economic interdependence toward China and Russia during Merkel’s decade and a half in power. The volte-face has been spurred by Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and Beijing’s increasingly aggressive stance — both economically and politically — in the Asian region and beyond.

    According to a draft position paper seen by POLITICO, the conservatives say the idea of keeping peace through economic cooperation “has failed with regard to Russia, but increasingly also China.” The 22-page paper, which is to be adopted by the center-right Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) parliamentary group in the Bundestag around Easter, outlines key points for a new China policy.

    In a world order that is changing after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Chancellor Olaf Scholz last year announced a Zeitenwende, or major turning point, in German security policy. Economy Minister Robert Habeck and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, in particular, have stressed the necessity of a comprehensive China strategy, an idea already mentioned in the coalition agreement to form Scholz’s government. Their ministries have elaborated two different drafts, but a comprehensive strategy is not yet in sight.

    “We realize at this point in time, with some surprise, which is why we prepared and presented this paper, that the German government is significantly behind schedule on key foreign and security policy documents,” said CDU foreign policy lawmaker Johann Wadephul.

    The foreword to the position paper states that “the rise of communist China is the central, epochal challenge of the 21st century for all states seeking to preserve, strengthen, and sustain the rules-based international order.” The CDU/CSU parliamentary group is open to working out a “national consensus” with Scholz’s government. That consensus, the group says, must be embedded in the national security strategy and in a European China strategy.

    The relationship with China is described in the same triad fashion that was formulated by the European Commission in 2019 and is in the coalition agreement of the current German government. Under this strategy, the Asian country is seen as a partner, economic competitor and systemic rival.

    But the CDU/CSU group’s paper says policy should move away from a Beijing-friendly, pragmatic stance toward China, especially on trade. “We should not close our eyes to the fact that China has shifted the balance on its own initiative and clearly pushed the core of the relationship toward systemic rivalry,” the text states.

    Such an emphasis from the conservative group is remarkable given its long-held preference for economic cooperation and political rapprochement toward both China and Russia under Merkel. Before leaving office, for example, Merkel pushed a major EU-China investment deal over the line, though it was later essentially frozen by the European Parliament due to Beijing’s sanctions against MEPs.

    “I say to this also self-critically [that] this means for the CDU/CSU a certain new approach in China policy after a 16-year government period,” Wadephul said.

    The paper calls for a “Zeitenwende in China policy,” too, concluding that Germany should respond “with the ability and its own strength to compete” wherever China seeks and forces competition; should build up its resilience and defensive capability and form as well as expand alliances and partnerships with interest and value partners; and demonstrate a willingness to partner where it is openly, transparently and reliably embraced by China.

    The CDU/CSU paper calls for a European China strategy and a “European China Council” with EU neighbors for better cooperation. A central point is also strengthening reciprocity and European as well as German sovereignty.

    “Decoupling from China is neither realistic nor desirable from a German and European perspective,” according to the text.

    To better monitor dependencies, the paper proposes an expert commission in the Bundestag that would present an annual “China check” on dependencies in trade, technology, raw materials and foreign trade, with the overall aim of developing a “de-risking” strategy.



    [ad_2]
    #German #Christian #Democrats #rewrite #Merkels #China #playbook
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

  • “Well, we’re friends.” “She’s been a very effective legislator.” Senate Democrats aren’t hitting back at Kyrsten Sinema after POLITICO reported she privately bashed caucus members. 

    “Well, we’re friends.” “She’s been a very effective legislator.” Senate Democrats aren’t hitting back at Kyrsten Sinema after POLITICO reported she privately bashed caucus members. 

    [ad_1]

    state of the union 44513
    “Whatever she does, I’m supporting her,” Joe Manchin said.

    [ad_2]
    #friends #Shes #effective #legislator #Senate #Democrats #arent #hitting #Kyrsten #Sinema #POLITICO #reported #privately #bashed #caucus #members
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • “Well, we’re friends.” “She’s been a very effective legislator.” Senate Democrats aren’t hitting back at Kyrsten Sinema after POLITICO reported she privately bashed caucus members. 

    “Well, we’re friends.” “She’s been a very effective legislator.” Senate Democrats aren’t hitting back at Kyrsten Sinema after POLITICO reported she privately bashed caucus members. 

    [ad_1]

    state of the union 44513
    “Whatever she does, I’m supporting her,” Joe Manchin said.

    [ad_2]
    #friends #Shes #effective #legislator #Senate #Democrats #arent #hitting #Kyrsten #Sinema #POLITICO #reported #privately #bashed #caucus #members
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Democrats have a diverse bench waiting in the wings. They just need to pitch it to donors.

    Democrats have a diverse bench waiting in the wings. They just need to pitch it to donors.

    [ad_1]

    pennsylvania governor inauguration 45058

    For years, party insiders have stressed that the donor class is too focused on federal races, and the highest profile ones at that. The lack of attention paid to state contests has not only led to more conservative policy outcomes in the states, they warn, but less Democratic talent moving through the ranks.

    The DLGA’s pitch to donors and other party leaders is a bench-building one: Today’s lieutenant governors are tomorrow’s senators and governors. They also note that Democratic lieutenant governors best represent a party that increasingly relies on the support of non-white and women voters. Of the 25 Democratic second-in-commands, which includes states where the secretary of state fills that role, 14 are women and 12 are people of color.

    “It is the most diverse organization of elected officials in the country,” said Austin Davis, who was recently elected as Pennsylvania’s first Black lieutenant governor. “If you look at the number of lieutenant governors that elevate — whether to the U.S. Senate, whether it’s governor, whether it’s Congress — this is clearly a bench of folks who are going to be leading our party into the future.”

    The DLGA is looking to fashion itself as a training ground for up-and-coming Democrats, connecting them with donors and helping them build policy chops as they consider their political futures beyond their current role.

    “For a long time, I think the role of lieutenant governor was sort of in the background,” Peggy Flanagan, the Minnesota lieutenant governor who serves on the organization’s executive committee, said in an interview during a meeting of the organization in Washington this week.

    Two of Senate Democrats’ highest profile midterm recruits were lieutenant governors: Mandela Barnes, who narrowly lost in Wisconsin to incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson, and now-Sen. John Fetterman, who won a close contest in Pennsylvania against Trump recruit Mehmet Oz. And overall in 2022, four now-former lieutenant governors won election as their states’ chief executives, either winning a term outright or winning a full term of their own after previously assuming the governorship following a resignation.

    DLGA leadership says that it is eager to foster members’ future ambitions. Kevin Holst, who was recently named the committee’s executive director, noted that would-be donors can “form relationships early” with a “future rockstar in the party.”

    Holst said that, beyond putting LGs forth as key fundraisers, one particular area of focus would be turning the committee into a centralized services hub for current and aspiring lieutenant governors.

    “It’s a unique committee in which we are focused on electing more LGs, but we recognize that LG isn’t likely the endpoint for a lot of these elected officials,” he said. “Can we provide the fundraising support? … Can we help with press support? Can we help with profile building in their states?”

    Republicans also have a party committee focused on lieutenant governors, which is an arm of the Republican State Leadership Committee. The GOP version focuses on all down ballot races in states, including state legislator and secretary of state contests. The RSLC lieutenant governors’ website notes that “these experiences often prepare our lieutenant governors for higher office,” and that over a third of the country’s Republican governors were previously lieutenant governors.

    Two tests in the upcoming years for the DLGA will be North Carolina in 2024 and Virginia in 2025, states where the lieutenant governor is elected independently of the governor.

    The officeholders in both states are currently Republicans — and both are considered potential gubernatorial candidates in the upcoming cycle.

    Part of the impulse behind getting involved in these races is because Democrats lost an ultimately consequential race in North Carolina in 2020, a race the committee says it spent $1 million on. Now Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, a controversial and bombastic Republican in the state, is a likely candidate as Republicans look to flip the governorship next year.

    “LG was a race that many people didn’t pay attention to in 2020, and now it is biting us in the ass,” Holst said.

    [ad_2]
    #Democrats #diverse #bench #waiting #wings #pitch #donors
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Mitt Romney castigated Biden’s budget chief on Wednesday over Democrats’ insistence that Republicans want to cut Social Security.

    Mitt Romney castigated Biden’s budget chief on Wednesday over Democrats’ insistence that Republicans want to cut Social Security.

    [ad_1]

    20230215 budget 5 francis 1
    It’s the latest instance of cross-party tensions boiling over on how to fix the entitlement program.

    [ad_2]
    #Mitt #Romney #castigated #Bidens #budget #chief #Wednesday #Democrats #insistence #Republicans #cut #Social #Security
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • One thing in the way of Democrats’ hopes of retaking the House? Ambition.

    One thing in the way of Democrats’ hopes of retaking the House? Ambition.

    [ad_1]

    1244625007

    As Democrats begin their mission of re-taking the House of Representatives from a razor-thin, single-digit deficit, one thing may be making that harder: the ambition of members of their own party for higher office.

    So far, five members have already announced plans to run for Senate in just the first few months of the 2024 cycle including Democratic Reps. Katie Porter (Calif.) and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), both of whom are leaving “frontline” — or highly competitive — districts.

    Slotkin, of Michigan’s 7th District, and Porter, of California’s 47th, were both elected in the Democratic wave year of 2018. They won their reelections by 6 and 3 percentage points, respectively, in 2022. Reps. Adam Schiff and Barbara Lee, of California, and Arizona’s Rep. Ruben Gallego, also announced retirements in a bid for higher office — but they all represent safer Democratic-leaning districts.

    “Elissa came along in 2018 and had the perfect blend of temperament, experience and ability to raise money to win that seat back,” said Thomas Morgan, Michigan’s Democratic Party 7th District chair. “This is a competitive seat, it’s a very diverse population here — everyone from MSU students to auto workers to farmers — so I expect it’ll be extremely competitive to fill Elissa Slotkin’s shoes — which seems insane to even say because it’ll be really difficult to do.”

    These open seats were a welcome sight to Republicans. “The path to growing the Republican majority runs through seats like Elissa Slotkin’s. The NRCC is all hands on deck to add this seat to the Republican column in 2024,” said Jack Pandol, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

    A spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said that with the right resources, Democrats will continue representing these districts.

    “I think we’ll win all those seats,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) of the California open races. “I think in a presidential year, we’ll have a good showing. But we’ll have to work hard to make sure we keep it.”

    The incumbent advantages in fundraising and campaigning

    One big advantage Slotkin and Porter had was that they were both excellent fundraisers.

    “People just have a lot of assumptions [that] because I was a good fundraiser that it must have been like a nothing burger,” Porter said, describing how competitive her reelection was.

    Porter raised $26 million in 2022 and spent $18.5 million on advertising compared to about $1 million spent by her opponent, Scott Baugh, who raised just $3 million, according to the FEC and AdImpact, a service that tracks political advertising.

    Slotkin was also an elite fundraiser, bringing in almost $10 million compared to Republican opponent Tom Barrett’s $2.7 million. There was a parallel disparity in each candidate’ advertising spending: $8.6 million from Slotkin’s committee against $888,000 for Barrett, according to AdImpact.

    Losing incumbency advantage translates to losing more established community connections and campaign infrastructure. Coupled with a shrinking number of competitive House seats thanks to redistricting, these factors weigh more heavily on a party when control of the House could be decided by a single-digit number of seats.

    Having a strong presence on the airwaves was coupled with a competitive field operation. Porter stressed the amount of work that was needed to meet constituents in her newly drawn district last year and how important it was to introduce herself to voters.

    In Michigan’s sprawling 7th district, Livingston County Chair Judy Daubenmier said building enthusiasm around a new candidate will be part of the challenge with Slotkin’s eventual replacement.

    “That doesn’t happen overnight. You have to show up, show up all the time, show up everywhere. When we have a candidate officially announced I’ll be making that point to them. They need to be at the Saint Patrick’s Day parade, the Fourth of July parade,” Daubenmier said.

    Seeking higher office is ‘just the nature of this place’

    Still, losing strong incumbents like Porter and Slotkin is something parties have had to deal with many times in the past. In addition to these five now open races, Democrats will have to defend 29 additional “frontline” members, outlined in a list recently released by the DCCC, including fellow Michigander Rep. Dan Kildee.

    “It happens every two years. It’s just the nature of this place,” Kildee said of how the retirements impact winning back a majority. “It’s just a reality we have to face but knowing that there are good candidates back home gives me — at least in that district — some reassurance that we’ll be competitive.”

    Democrats boost deep benches in both California and Michigan. Several local Democrats in Slotkin’s district have already indicated interest in running although none have declared yet. In California, Porter has already endorsed state Sen. Dave Min as a possible replacement, and nine Democrats have registered with the FEC to run for Schiff’s old seat.

    Thirty-year incumbent and former House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) has seen many retirements in his tenure in the House and Democratic House leadership. This year’s list so far gave him no pause.

    “Anytime you’ve got an incumbent that opens up a seat, that’s a challenge, but I don’t know that it’s anything unusual — especially in California. In California, it might be easier,” Clyburn said with a laugh.

    [ad_2]
    #Democrats #hopes #retaking #House #Ambition
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • A Startling Document Predicted Jan. 6. Democrats Are Missing Its Other Warnings.

    A Startling Document Predicted Jan. 6. Democrats Are Missing Its Other Warnings.

    [ad_1]

    capitol riot seattle police 83806

    Actually, the letter was not a cipher. Plan D was the fourth of several studies organized by an opaque advocacy group, known as the Hub, to prepare for the depredations of the Trump era. The Hub is known in Washington for its sophisticated dark-money interventions in electoral politics. During the 2020 campaign, it also gathered up strategists, lawyers and activists to draft plans for a different kind of conflict.

    The document is an artifact from a dangerous time: Warning that Trump would surely not concede defeat to Joe Biden, it advised Trump’s opponents to “assume the worst” would follow. It urged them to gird for a struggle not only with the president but with “institutions controlled or influenced by the GOP, including the courts.” The document forecast “militia and white supremacist activities through the inauguration — and, very likely, accelerated activity in the early months of a Biden administration.”

    Plan D is sobering reading even today. It is a catalog of the defects in America’s electoral process and political culture that made it vulnerable to a rampaging demagogue— defects that some Democrats wanted to fix with drastic measures.

    Should Biden lose narrowly, the report said, “layers of illegitimate structures and interventions will have contributed to it.” It closed with a warning against complacency even if Trump were to be defeated.

    “A Biden win will not prove that our democracy is healthy,” the document argued, continuing: “Win, lose, or draw, we should perceive ourselves not in a singular moment of crisis but rather in what may be an era of existential challenge for American democracy.”

    I first read the report soon after it was composed, when a source shared it as an off-the-record analysis to inform my thinking about 2020. At the time, I thought it was a creative assessment of potential worst-case scenarios, some of which struck me as rather remote. The January 6 insurrection was still months away.

    In any event, I found Plan D more compelling than contemporaneous Democratic planning exercises that seemed more like high-concept role play for political elites. My colleague Sam Stein, then at The Daily Beast, reported on one “simulation” that foresaw the Biden campaign urging the entire West Coast to secede in a unit known as “Cascadia.” Simulation indeed.

    Plan D was no game. It was devised as a battle plan. Reviewing the report years later, it is impossible not to be struck by the sense of urgency in the text — and the speed with which the impatient demand for fundamental change to American politics has dissipated among most Democrats.

    So, I returned to my source and obtained permission to write about it now at a safe distance from 2020.

    Back then, the group behind Plan D saw deep reform to the political system as a survival imperative for Democrats. If the party controlled government after 2020, the report said, Democrats must treat it as a “fleeting-once-in-a-generation (or perhaps lifetime) opportunity” to revise the political system. Among the targets of that proposed overhaul: a Senate biased toward rural red states, a Supreme Court stacked with right-wing appointees and an Electoral College that overruled the popular vote twice in two decades.

    “First and foremost, we must rewrite the rules of our democracy. That’s doing much more than just the voting, corruption, and money-in-politics reforms in HR1 or the VRA renewal,” the document stated, referring to the centerpiece legislative offerings of the Democrats’ pro-democracy agenda. “We must commit to structural reforms that, at a minimum, include DC and Puerto Rico statehood and expanding the federal courts.”

    Liberals must also “embrace more aspirational goals of ending the Electoral College and establishing a constitutional right to vote,” it continued, plus more basic aims like the elimination of the Senate filibuster. Should Democrats fail to achieve those aims, the report proposed divisive and punitive measures, like denying certain federal assistance to sections of the country that consistently reject Democrats and yet hold a veto over legislation because the system is tilted in their favor. Perhaps, it suggested, brute fiscal coercion would extract concessions from Trump country.

    Today, these calls for invasive constitutional surgery seem nearly fantastical. Democrats captured the White House and Congress, but with legislative majorities so small that they could not even restore the Voting Rights Act, let alone add new Supreme Court justices, new states and new stars to the American flag.

    Democrats still have a thick sheaf of legislative proposals for reforming campaign finance, congressional redistricting, voter registration, early and mail-in voting, federal election oversight and more. In December, Congress passed a bipartisan measure to reform the Electoral Count Act, the rickety 19th Century law that Trump’s allies sought to exploit in 2020 to obstruct the transfer of power.

    But these days Democrats are not really promoting ideas to address the most distorted features of the American system. Far from crusading for DC statehood, they are squabbling among themselves over whether to nullify changes to the city’s criminal code enacted by left-wing local lawmakers. A short-lived flirtation with court-packing withered in a blue-ribbon presidential commission that issued an equivocal report.

    For now, America’s liberal party is more comfortable thundering against changes to the number of ballot-collection boxes in the Atlanta area than openly discussing the profound unfairness of a system that awards equal representation in the Senate to South Dakota and California. Indeed, there are times when talking to Democratic leaders about threats to democracy can feel a little like consulting with a physician who speaks with eager authority about all manner of unpleasant illnesses — except the terminal disease you have actually contracted.

    One Democrat who is eager to talk about that fatal ailment is Arkadi Gerney, the founding leader of the Hub who recently stepped down as its executive director. A longtime gun-control advocate who previously worked for the Center for American Progress and Michael Bloomberg’s City Hall, he was one of the lead authors of the Plan D report.

    In a reflective conversation this winter he told me Democrats should be far more attentive to the rightward bias of the country’s political institutions. Much of American history, he argued, is the story of one popular movement or another driving at changes to democratic political system far grander than the admission of several new states.

    “In this country, we had a history of fixing flawed elements of our democracy, generation by generation, from slavery in the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution, to women’s suffrage, to changing the age to vote to 18,” Gerney said. “And that process, in the last 50 years, has gotten stuck.”

    Part of the problem, he said, is that America’s most unfair political institutions are self-perpetuating. You cannot do much to change the Senate and the Supreme Court without the assent of the Senate and the Supreme Court.

    Still, Gerney insisted, awfully difficult is not the same thing as impossible. He pointed to voters’ volcanic indignation about the Dobbs decision as the kind of popular mobilization that could ultimately yield foundational change. We’ll see.

    The good news in Plan D is contained in passages where its authors missed the mark: their warning, for instance, that the conservative judiciary might aid Trump’s election sabotage (it did not) or the suggestion that Democrats might need to give Trump amnesty from prosecution to ease the transfer of power (multiple ongoing investigations of Trump show otherwise).

    Most encouraging may be what the report misjudged about how the business of legislating would unfold under Biden. Unless the filibuster were abolished, the document warned, Biden’s agenda could meet a miserable death in “Mitch McConnell’s legislative graveyard.” Plan D judged it largely futile to seek bipartisan compromise, since whatever Democrats do, “Republicans will accuse us of murder, socialism and worse.”

    That last part is true of many Republicans. On the whole, the GOP remains an angry, Trumpy party. Yet some — including McConnell — joined with Democrats to pass a hefty infrastructure law, an aggressive industrial policy for the high-tech sector and more. Even with the structure of the Senate and the courts still firmly in place, Democrats still managed to enact a landmark climate law that has unleashed a global clean-energy arms race.

    Whether that was a sufficient use of a once-in-a-generation opportunity is a question Democrats must answer for themselves. The 2024 election will show if it was enough to avert the return of Trump himself.

    [ad_2]
    #Startling #Document #Predicted #Jan #Democrats #Missing #Warnings
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Democrats draw ‘red line’ around Medicaid as GOP mulls cuts

    Democrats draw ‘red line’ around Medicaid as GOP mulls cuts

    [ad_1]

    virus outbreak congress 44405

    “No one’s interested in doing anything other than saving it to make it more solvent for those that might need it down the road,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) told POLITICO. “If you want to save [Medicaid] for future generations, it’s never too early to look at how to do that.”

    Biden, who is expected to release his budget on Thursday, has spent much of the year castigating Republicans for proposals to cut Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act part of a broader effort to paint the GOP as a threat to popular health programs. Though Democrats, who control the Senate, will almost certainly reject big cuts to Medicaid, Republicans’ desire to rein in federal spending portends a drawn out political fight over a program that now insures more than one-in-four Americans.

    Republican House and Senate leadership have been adamant that they will not cut those two entitlement programs, but have said less about Medicaid, which insures more than 90 million Americans. That number swelled during the Covid-19 pandemic, when states were barred from removing people who were no longer eligible.

    Asked if assurances by GOP leaders that Medicare and Social Security are off the table have put more pressure on lawmakers to find savings in Medicaid, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) quipped: “It doesn’t take much imagination to figure that out.”

    Some Republicans want to revive a 2017 plan to phase out the enhanced federal match for Medicaid and cap spending for the program — an approach the Congressional Budget Office estimated would save $880 billion over 10 years and increase the number of uninsured people by 21 million.

    “If you remember back to the American Health Care Act, we proposed that we make some significant changes to Medicaid. I think you’re gonna find that some of those same ideas are going to be revisited,” said Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), a member of the House Budget Committee and the conservative Republican Study Committee, a group now working on its own budget proposal to pitch to GOP leadership.

    Carter added that there is also interest in the caucus in abolishing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, arguing that the majority of states that have opted to expand the program over the last decade might have “buyer’s remorse.”

    “Medicaid was always intended for the aged, blind and disabled — for the least in our society, who need help the most,” he said. “Trying to get back to that would probably be beneficial.”

    Carter and many other Republicans are also pushing for Medicaid work requirements, though the one state that implemented them saw thousands of people who should have qualified lose coverage.

    “For the people who are on traditional Medicaid — the pregnant, children and disabled — there’s no sense in talking about work requirements,” Burgess said. “But for the expansion population, able-bodied adults who were wrapped in under the Affordable Care Act, yeah, that has to be part of the discussion.”

    Other Republicans want to make narrower reforms. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Health Subcommittee, is looking at changes to value-based payments in Medicaid so that states aren’t “on the hook for treatments that don’t work.” Still others are weighing potential changes to areas within Medicaid, including provider taxes and how to handle coverage for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

    The GOP members are spurred on by outside conservative groups like the Paragon Institute, which has been holding monthly briefings for Capitol Hill aides and backchanneling with members.

    “If you look at what’s driving the debt, it’s federal health programs,” Brian Blase, the president of Paragon, who worked at the White House’s National Economic Council under the Trump administration, told POLITICO. “Either Congress will reform federal health programs or there will be a massive tax increase on the middle class.”

    Democrats, for their part, are working to make any proposal to cut Medicaid as politically risky for Republicans as threats to Medicare.

    “I worry that my Republican colleagues have, I guess, heard from the public about their desire to cut Social Security and Medicare [and] are looking elsewhere, and obviously poor people have very little representation in Congress, so that’s an easy target,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who chairs the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee.

    Democrats hoping to shield Medicaid in the upcoming budget negotiations are emphasizing how many red states have voted to expand the program since Republicans last took a run at it in 2017. They’re also stressing that the people covered by Medicaid aren’t solely low-income parents and children.

    “Right now at least 50 percent of Medicaid goes to seniors, and a lot of that is for nursing home care,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, told reporters. “People don’t realize that Medicaid is the ultimate payer for nursing home care once you run out of money or once your Medicare runs out.”

    In a speech in late February, President Joe Biden excoriated Republicans for pushing deep cuts to Medicaid, arguing that doing so would threaten the finances of rural hospitals that are barely able to keep their doors open today.

    “Many places throughout the Midwest, you have to drive 30, 40 miles to get to a hospital. By that time, you’re dead,” he said. “Entire communities depend on these hospitals. Not getting Medicaid would shut many of them down.”

    Two people familiar with White House plans tell POLITICO that Biden is expected to include a federal expansion of Medicaid in the remaining holdout states in the budget he will submit to Congress later this week.

    Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #Democrats #draw #red #line #Medicaid #GOP #mulls #cuts
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Democrats draw ‘red line’ around Medicaid as GOP mulls cuts

    Democrats draw ‘red line’ around Medicaid as GOP mulls cuts

    [ad_1]

    virus outbreak congress 44405

    “No one’s interested in doing anything other than saving it to make it more solvent for those that might need it down the road,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) told POLITICO. “If you want to save [Medicaid] for future generations, it’s never too early to look at how to do that.”

    Biden, who is expected to release his budget on Thursday, has spent much of the year castigating Republicans for proposals to cut Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act part of a broader effort to paint the GOP as a threat to popular health programs. Though Democrats, who control the Senate, will almost certainly reject big cuts to Medicaid, Republicans’ desire to rein in federal spending portends a drawn out political fight over a program that now insures more than one-in-four Americans.

    Republican House and Senate leadership have been adamant that they will not cut those two entitlement programs, but have said less about Medicaid, which insures more than 90 million Americans. That number swelled during the Covid-19 pandemic, when states were barred from removing people who were no longer eligible.

    Asked if assurances by GOP leaders that Medicare and Social Security are off the table have put more pressure on lawmakers to find savings in Medicaid, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) quipped: “It doesn’t take much imagination to figure that out.”

    Some Republicans want to revive a 2017 plan to phase out the enhanced federal match for Medicaid and cap spending for the program — an approach the Congressional Budget Office estimated would save $880 billion over 10 years and increase the number of uninsured people by 21 million.

    “If you remember back to the American Health Care Act, we proposed that we make some significant changes to Medicaid. I think you’re gonna find that some of those same ideas are going to be revisited,” said Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), a member of the House Budget Committee and the conservative Republican Study Committee, a group now working on its own budget proposal to pitch to GOP leadership.

    Carter added that there is also interest in the caucus in abolishing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, arguing that the majority of states that have opted to expand the program over the last decade might have “buyer’s remorse.”

    “Medicaid was always intended for the aged, blind and disabled — for the least in our society, who need help the most,” he said. “Trying to get back to that would probably be beneficial.”

    Carter and many other Republicans are also pushing for Medicaid work requirements, though the one state that implemented them saw thousands of people who should have qualified lose coverage.

    “For the people who are on traditional Medicaid — the pregnant, children and disabled — there’s no sense in talking about work requirements,” Burgess said. “But for the expansion population, able-bodied adults who were wrapped in under the Affordable Care Act, yeah, that has to be part of the discussion.”

    Other Republicans want to make narrower reforms. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Health Subcommittee, is looking at changes to value-based payments in Medicaid so that states aren’t “on the hook for treatments that don’t work.” Still others are weighing potential changes to areas within Medicaid, including provider taxes and how to handle coverage for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

    The GOP members are spurred on by outside conservative groups like the Paragon Institute, which has been holding monthly briefings for Capitol Hill aides and backchanneling with members.

    “If you look at what’s driving the debt, it’s federal health programs,” Brian Blase, the president of Paragon, who worked at the White House’s National Economic Council under the Trump administration, told POLITICO. “Either Congress will reform federal health programs or there will be a massive tax increase on the middle class.”

    Democrats, for their part, are working to make any proposal to cut Medicaid as politically risky for Republicans as threats to Medicare.

    “I worry that my Republican colleagues have, I guess, heard from the public about their desire to cut Social Security and Medicare [and] are looking elsewhere, and obviously poor people have very little representation in Congress, so that’s an easy target,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who chairs the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee.

    Democrats hoping to shield Medicaid in the upcoming budget negotiations are emphasizing how many red states have voted to expand the program since Republicans last took a run at it in 2017. They’re also stressing that the people covered by Medicaid aren’t solely low-income parents and children.

    “Right now at least 50 percent of Medicaid goes to seniors, and a lot of that is for nursing home care,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, told reporters. “People don’t realize that Medicaid is the ultimate payer for nursing home care once you run out of money or once your Medicare runs out.”

    In a speech in late February, President Joe Biden excoriated Republicans for pushing deep cuts to Medicaid, arguing that doing so would threaten the finances of rural hospitals that are barely able to keep their doors open today.

    “Many places throughout the Midwest, you have to drive 30, 40 miles to get to a hospital. By that time, you’re dead,” he said. “Entire communities depend on these hospitals. Not getting Medicaid would shut many of them down.”

    Two people familiar with White House plans tell POLITICO that Biden is expected to include a federal expansion of Medicaid in the remaining holdout states in the budget he will submit to Congress later this week.

    Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #Democrats #draw #red #line #Medicaid #GOP #mulls #cuts
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Warren, Whitehouse lead Democrats in pressing Gensler for strong climate rule

    Warren, Whitehouse lead Democrats in pressing Gensler for strong climate rule

    [ad_1]

    The lawmakers say investors are demanding the information — and that Wall Street’s top regulator needs to “issue a strong climate risk disclosure rule as quickly as possible.” They called the idea of preemptively curtailing the rule’s Scope 3 and financial reporting components to head off legal risks “deeply misguided.”

    “The proposed rules are necessary and overdue,” they wrote to Gensler on Sunday, adding that if the SEC waters down the plans the agency “would be failing its duty to protect investors.”

    Among the others who signed the letter are Sens. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Tina Smith of Minnesota and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler of New York, Katie Porter of California and Chuy García of Illinois also signed on, as did Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent.

    Asked for comment, an SEC spokesperson said in an email that Gensler “responds to Members of Congress directly rather than through the media.”

    Now nearly a year old, the SEC’s proposal has ignited a firestorm in corporate America and among GOP lawmakers. But the Democratic concerns from Capitol Hill about the rule’s future are an early sign of the pushback that the SEC will have to face from the left if the agency elects to ease up.

    The final rule will need to be approved by three of the SEC’s five commissioners, including Gensler.

    Driving the proposal is the SEC’s hope of providing investors with a glimpse — through standardized data and disclosures — into how companies are tackling climate change.

    The threat of litigation has hung over the SEC for months, as industry groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and several state attorneys general have warned that they may look to challenge the rule in court and on the grounds that the SEC overstepped its authority with the rule — especially in looking to include Scope 3 emissions.

    Democrats see Scope 3 as pivotal to the final rule’s success.

    “Not requiring Scope 3 emissions disclosures would enable [fossil fuel companies] and other companies with similar types of emissions patterns to hide the vast majority of their exposure to climate risk from regulators and investors,” the lawmakers wrote. “For many companies and sectors, a greenhouse gas inventory that omits Scope 3 would be materially misleading to investors.”

    [ad_2]
    #Warren #Whitehouse #lead #Democrats #pressing #Gensler #strong #climate #rule
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )