Monthly Archives: March 2017

New York Times

'We Must Fight Them': Trump Goes After Conservatives of Freedom Caucus New York Times In an early morning Twitter attack, Mr. Trump singled out members of the House Freedom Caucus, which scuttled his health care overhaul last week. The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast, he wrote. Trump rips the Freedom Caucus: How real is his Twitter threat?Fox News Trump targets individual Freedom Caucus members in Obamacare tweetstormCNBC Trump goes after Freedom Caucus ringleadersPolitico CNN -Reuters -CBS News -Twitter all 1,065 news articles »

The rest is here:

'We Must Fight Them': Trump Goes After Conservatives of Freedom Caucus - New York Times

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa. a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, arrives at the office of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., at the U.S. Capitol on March 23, 2017.(Photo: Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON Moderate House Republicans haveapparently rejectedhaving group negotiations about a possible compromise on health care withthe conservative House Freedom Caucus the most critical group in sinking the Republican bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y. one of President Trump's closest allies in the House told reporters Thursday that the moderates' caucus, called the Tuesday Group,met and "unequivocally" decided not to meet with the Freedom Caucus.

Its not changing the opinions in our conference. Weve moved on, Collins said. We have to move on to tax reform. My own hope is they will be more pliable for tax reform having the conference suffering this defeat on health care reform. I truly believe health care has moved onand wont be dealt with until 2019, if then.

I am not negotiating with anyone.Ive seen stories that there are discussions about certain negotiations between the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus. Thats not the case, Rep. Charlie Dent, a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, said Wednesday morning on CNN. Do I talk to other members? Absolutely. Am I negotiating with anyone about the bill that was just put aside? No.

Dent said it was time to bring Democrats to the table and work on a bipartisan solution to fix Obamacare rather than repeal it entirely.

Another co-chairman, New Jersey Republican Rep. Tom MacArthur, said individual members are still talking with each other. But the Tuesday Group ruled out group negotiations because factions within the GOP conference negotiating with each other could result in changes that erode support from others who are not in either faction, he said.

"On the one hand, we do not want to offend our friends in the Freedom Caucus, on the other hand we do not want to enter into negotiations," MacArthur said."When it comes to specifically trying to make changes, I will continue to work with the speaker and the president and other members of Congress and certainly my colleagues in the Tuesday Group. That's the proper way to do this.

When side groups state to negotiate, the risk is upsetting other people who are not part of the process," he said.

The Freedom Caucus is a group of around 30hardline conservatives who threatened en bloc to vote against the legislation because they felt it didnt go far enough. Their demands a couple of which were met in last-minute negotiations but still didnt sway most of them proved a bridge too far for a handful of moderates.

Read more:

Republicans give up on Obamacare repeal bill, move on to other issues

Collapse of Obamacare repeal plan puts Freedom Caucus in complicated spot

With Obamacare repeal dreams dashed, what can GOP accomplish?

With no Democrats backing the bill, Republicans could only lose about 20 votes, soHouse Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Trump decided to pull the bill Friday afternoon instead of see it defeated on the floor.

But this week, leadership and the Freedom Caucus have exhibited a new willingness to reopen negotiations.

On Tuesday, Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C.,told USA TODAY that he was working with MacArthur to set up a meeting between the two groups who had been against the bill.

To actually just talk one-on-one with no leadership, no anybody, other than just members in the room and say OK what are your objections? What gets you to yes from a more moderate side of our spectrum? What gets us to yes from a more conservative side of the spectrum? Meadows said. We feel like if we can get those two then everybody in between will get to a yes. We should have been doing this all along.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows leaves a closed-door strategy session with House Speaker Paul Ryan and others on Capitol Hill on March 28, 2017.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

On Thursday, Freedom Caucus memberRep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said it was incumbent on everyone in the party to go back to the drawing board.

I think every group Freedom Caucus, Tuesday Group, every group has a responsibility to write down their fundamental convictions and say here is a proposal that would get us to yes. We have that responsibility, Franks told reporters at the Capitol.

But theFreedom Caucuslost the support of another key ally this week: the president. The group had gone almost entirely around House leadership and negotiated directly with Trump ahead of the bill being pulled. Meadows was an early supporter of Trumps and campaigned with him during the election.

The caucus and Trump also share a similar base of supporters, but after the failure of the bill Trump seemed to have lost his patience. He tweeted a couple jabs over the weekend and on Monday, and on Thursday hethreatened Freedom Caucus membersin the 2018 election.

Freedom Caucus spokeswoman Alyssa Farah tweeted Thursday that it was not just caucus members who opposed the bill; key Republican moderates also announced their opposition, including Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J.

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, a founding Freedom Caucus member and board member sought to remind Trump that many of the Freedom Caucus members had remained his staunchest defenders even during the toughest times of the campaign.

Heritage Foundation, a conservative advocacy group that was against the legislation, responded to Collins' comments Thursday.

Conservatives are acting in good faith to deliver on longstanding campaign promises and drive down premiums for Americans struggling under Obamacare," said Dan Holler,Vice President of Heritage Action for America. "The refusal of some within the Republican Conference to reciprocate is stunning and will only help the Democrats presidential nominee in 2020.

Ryan was asked about Trump's tweet at a press conference Thursday.

"Look, I understand the president's frustration," Ryan told reporters. "I share his frustration. About 90% of our conference is for the bill ... and about 10% are not. What I encourage members to do is to keep talking with each other until we get to a consensus."

Ryan said he couldn't say when Republicans might try again to pass legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare.

"I'm not going to commit to when and what the bill is going to look like," he said. "What I'm encouraging our members to do is get to a solution ... This is too big of an issue to not get right. I'm not going to put some artificial deadline on it."

Ryan said that working with Democrats won't do any good because they have opposing goals.

"The Democrats aren't for replacing Obamacare. We are," Ryan said. "Something tells me the Democrats aren't going to help us repeal Obamacare - because they wrote it."

Ryan's comment angered Democrats and at least one Republican, Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker.

Contributing: Erin Kelly

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2oCSDzc

View post:

Republican moderates reject talks with House Freedom Caucus - USA TODAY

Since the American Health Care Act crashed and burned last week, the ultraconservative faction in Congress known as the House Freedom Caucus has deservedly received most of the blame from President Donald Trump and other top Republicans. On Thursday Trump even urged his supporters to fight the Freedom Caucus in the 2018 midterm elections, although whether the president will follow through on that threat is anyones guess.

Even though Trumpcare would have eliminated the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion, causing nearly 25 million to lose their health insurance over the coming decade, this group of about three dozen right-wing congressmen (and they are all men) refused to support the bill because it did not go nearly far enough, in their eyes, toward dismantling Obamacare.

In the end, there was a certain irony in the Freedom Caucus sabotaging the Obamacare replacement plan, which had been promoted by their Republican colleagues as a restoration of personal freedom to the American people. People are going to do what they want to do with their lives, because we believe in individual freedom in this country, said House Speaker Paul Ryan while defending the bill shortly before the Congressional Budget Office projected that itwould lead to many millions fewer Americans havinghealth insurance.You get it if you want it. Thats freedom.

Of course, this wasnt quite enough freedom for members of the Freedom Caucus, who wanted Trumpcare to also eliminate the Affordable Care Acts Title 1 provisions, which prevent insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, allow children to stay on their parents insurance until they are 26 years old, and bar companies from imposing annual and lifetime coverage limits. Only when insurance companies could once again stop covering cancer patients in the middle of their treatment,or flat out deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition, would the Freedom Caucus be satisfied that freedom had truly been restored.

So while Republicans agreed that repealing Obamacare with the result thatmillions would end up being without health insurance was about restoring their idea of freedom, they disagreed about just how far to go. Ultimately, it came down to pragmatism versus dogmatism. In the New Republic, Brian Beutler wrote a scathing critique of this exceptionally callous conception of freedom one week before plans to pass theAHCA fell through,commentingthat Trumpcare would enshrine indenture as a facet of personal liberty and that as a governing philosophy, it is the freedom to work until you die. Of course, this callous conception of freedom is hardly new. Right-wing libertarian philosopher Friedrich A. Hayek, who inspired the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions of the late 1970s and early 80s, articulated it in his influential 1960 bookThe Constitution of Liberty:

Liberty does not mean all good things or the absence of all evils. It is true that to be free may mean freedom to starve, to make costly mistakes, or to run mortal risks. In the sense in which we use the term, the penniless vagabond who lives precariously by constant improvisation is indeed freer than the conscripted soldier with all his security and relative comfort.

Today when conservatives like Paul Ryan and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., present themselves as leading exponents of freedom particularly when it comes to economic freedom they are employing the word in this narrow and negative sense, which reinforces the ideology of free market fundamentalism. This negative interpretation is a far cry from what the word meant to most people throughout the 20th century, when progressives offered a more modern definition, epitomizedby President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his proclamation of a second Bill of Rights and his enumeration of the Four Freedoms crucial to a functioning democracy: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.

Towards the end of World War II, in his 1944 State of the Union address, FDR declared that the original Bill of Rights had proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness as the country had grown and the industrial economy expanded over the previous century:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Roosevelt went on to list his economic bill of rights: the right to a useful and remunerative job, the right to adequate medical care, the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment, the right to a good education, and the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

This was a modern conception of freedom responding to the challenges of the 20th century one that acknowledged Americas transformation over the previous 150 yearsfrom an agrarian nation of small, propertied farmers (that is, small capitalists) into an industrial and increasingly urban country of wage earners. Formost ofthe Founding Fathers,political freedom and economic independence (and security) were considered closely interconnected. Thomas Jeffersons agrarian ideal envisaged a nation of small independent farmers who owned their land andthe fruitsof their labor.

But that ideal quickly grew antiquated with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, as more and more yeoman farmers were torn from theirland and forced into wage labor. By the middle of the 19th century many critics had begun equating wage labor with slavery (i.e., wage slavery), but Abraham Lincoln rejected this view. In his words, there was no such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. This may have been true in his day, but in the decadesfollowing his death the majority of Americans did indeed become fixed for life as hired employees,and wealth and property became increasingly concentrated at the top.

In other words, the kind of unfettered capitalism espoused by the Freedom Caucus and Paul Ryan today ostensibly aimed at restoring individual freedom led to the labor-market tyranny of a century ago, whereby workers were completely subservient to capital. The progressive and New Deal movements of the 20th century responded to these profound changes with reforms designed to restore economic security and independence to working people, in large part to stave off more radical movements that challenged capitalism itself.

Since Roosevelt gave his second Bill of Rights speech more than 70 years ago, the language of liberty has been co-opted by those on the far right who have propounded their ownnarrow and negativedefinition of freedom one that largely ignores the past 200 years of economic and social development. Essentially, Republicans are advocating a Gilded Age variety of freedom, one that grants freedom to the rich but serfdom for everybody else. If the Freedom Caucus were to put forward its own economic bill of rights today, it might include a corporations freedom to pollute and destroy the environment, pay subsistence wages and to deny someone health care coverage, while poor and working-class Americans would be granted the freedom to starve or the freedom to die fromuntreated illness when they cannot afford medical care.

While the Republican agenda hit a major snag last week with the collapse of the AHCA proposal savingscores of Americans from losing their health insurance (or, as Republicans see it, from reclaiming their freedom) there is no telling what legislative damage Republicans can do when they manage to unite. If and when they do succeed, they will no doubt employ the same high-minded talk of freedom to defend their reactionary agenda. It is up to progressives to put forward their own 21st-century conception of freedom to counter the mythical and destructive variety espoused by right-wing ideologues.

Read more:

What the Freedom Caucus means by freedom: We've come a long way downhill since FDR - Salon

5564969

What do Donald Trump and Donald Duck have in common? They both quack a lot with little under their sailor caps.

I am probably not the only one, but I am one who has listened for many years to the silly and monstrous orations of the post-1960 Republicans (Oh god! We love Barry Goldwater and hate Nelson Rockefeller).

I am from Mississippi and well remember Haley Barbour and Trent Lott and the college-boy screeches such ilk sold around the state and ultimately the country. A youngster, Chris McDaniel, bought in and he got a knife in his back for his trouble via the eponymous Brutus Barbour (Lott now is a lobbyist with his old senate buddy, Democrat, John Breaux).

A few along the way, like McDaniel, have (courageously I have to say) continued the belief in such bunkum bosh. They continue the good fight thoroughly outnumbered while every election brings new consequences attached to the old 1960s call with the children of the old-guard-lying thugs now at the helm. (The Democrats are liars and thugs, but there is no attempt to conceal it. Like stepping around a pile of dog dung, the Demos are right in front of you while the Republicans simply cover themselves with leaves.)

I am now from Texas (and have been for many years) and now we have the leaf-covered Ted Poe who sold Texans for years that he was honorable conservative. Now his leaves are gone and we hope to wipe him off of our shoes.

The Freedom Caucus (the courageous few I mentioned), like the Alamo, tries to hold on while believing help is on the way. I dont believe it will ever come. A society (a country? cmon) of over 320 million people with a great number having (to me) the most twisted views of life that earlier generations could ever conceive, putting a Sam Houston-like leader with an army of volunteers together? Donald Trump aint no Sam Houston. And where would he get volunteers with the backbone of men: from the Paul Ryans, or Mitch McConnells? (deep belly laugh)

So, that great winner who sold and told everyone that he was going to drain the swamp is threatening the handful of conservative men who still realize that the continuing corruption in Washington cannot be ended by continuing the corruption. Mr. Win-all-the-time-til-you-get-sick-of-it has learned quickly that talk is cheap, and even cheaper for a billionaire. But the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell go home at night and laugh aloud at the thought of Donald thinking he could flush a toilet that not only is full but stopped up. There isnt a plumbers helper big enough, even from New York, to do that job.

So, Donald and Donald and Paul and Mitch and Huey, Dewey and Louie, just shut up or go away or whatever. Who cares.

Read the original post:

Donald Trump's Freedom Caucus Feud - Daily Caller

Tea Party leader Mark Meckler on Thursday told The Hill he is disgusted by President Trumps attacks on the conservative House Freedom Caucus over the GOPs failed healthcare bill.

The man who promised to Drain the Swamp now appears to be the Creature from the Black Lagoon, said Meckler, who co-founded the Tea Party Patriots and whose new group, Citizens for Self Governance, has a database of 2 million conservative activists.

He is now on the side of the swamp monsters, Meckler added.

Trump earlier Thursday issued a threat to the Freedom Caucus, warning them to get on the team or he would target them in the 2018 midterm elections.

The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!

Meckler and others on the right have warned that Trump risked losing his grassroots base by whipping support for the healthcare bill.

Many conservatives have so far directed their anger at Ryan and GOP leadership, who they say misled the president on the legislation.

But Trumps attack on the Freedom Caucus could open up a rift with grassroots conservatives, who have defended the president against criticism over his support for the bill.

More here:

Tea Party leader 'disgusted' by Trump's attack on Freedom Caucus - The Hill

The American Health Care Act might not be dead after all at least not entirely.

The Obamacare repeal-and-replace plan failed to get enough support in the House of Representatives for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to hold a vote on it. But its most vocal critic, conservative Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), now says the American Health Care Act is still a viable vessel for health care reform.

You have to make the assumption that the speaker put out a plant that was agreed to by the majority of the majority, Meadows told reporters Wednesday. To modify that is a better starting point than most. As of last Friday, Meadows was a no vote on AHCA, along with more than two dozen other Republicans, many of them from the Freedom Caucus.

House Republicans have quietly continued negotiations on health care reform this week. But the belief was that AHCA was dead, as Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) said after Ryan was forced to pull the bill from the floor last Friday.

On Wednesday, Republicans began hinting the opposite. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Republicans were starting with where we are and trying to move that forward a sentiment Meadows said was prudent.

But Meadows is operating on a shaky assumption: that AHCA has the support of a majority of Republican legislators. House Republicans were more unified behind AHCA before Meadows and the Freedom Caucus got involved in negotiations.

The original version of the American Health Care Act would have caused 24 million people to lose coverage by 2026, according to a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. For the Freedom Caucus, the problem was that it didnt do enough to repeal Obamacare, which they wanted entirely gutted.

But the more House leadership and the White House gave in to the Freedom Caucuss conservative demands on the health bill, the less popular the bill became with other members of Congress.

By Friday afternoon, it became clear that if AHCA were given a floor vote, it would lose. It was a Catch-22, said Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY).

For every vote you pick up on the right, you lose two on the left; for every vote you pick up on left, you lose two on the right, Collins said during the height of negotiations last week. This is the sausage making of compromise ... there is nothing you can do to help the right that doesnt lose on the left, and vice versa.

Speaker Ryan made large concessions to the bill, to try to appease the partys most conservative faction, but still the partys conservatives could not get on board, and the amendments lost votes among the partys more moderate members.

At the time, Collins, a close ally of President Donald Trump, said any changes to AHCA would have this effect: I will just say rhetorically, what changes between tomorrow and another day? And the answer is nothing. The answer is nothing.

Meadows, however, has changed his tune. He is making the case that the Republican Party is more unified on the policy provisions than last week.

I think its possible to get to a solution in the next hour, he said when asked if House Republicans could strike a deal by next week. The differences are not that different policy-wise. Its more political in nature.

But Meadows refused to give details on any policy specifics that would go into that solution.

Go here to see the original:

The Freedom Caucus chair wants to keep trying with AHCA - Vox

New York Times

Freedom of Expression: United, Puma and the Leggings Furor New York Times Freedom of Expression: United, Puma and the Leggings Furor. Vanessa Friedman. ON THE RUNWAY MARCH 30, 2017. Continue reading the main story Share This Page. Continue reading the main story. Photo. Puma is offering a discount on leggings to ... Featured Tweets by United (@united) | TwitterTwitter all 27 news articles »

See more here:

Freedom of Expression: United, Puma and the Leggings Furor - New York Times