1. Health Care – New House Republican Plan

Summary:

  • AHCA – House Republican bill: The White House and House Republicans revised last month’s ACA repeal bill to appeal to the conservative “Freedom Caucus” and passed it on Thursday, May 4, following a narrow vote. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration, possible revisions and passage.

Talking Points:

• Decimates Medicaid by cutting $880 billion over 10 years: 14 million people will lose coverage, while benefits and provider payments will be cut.

• Reduces premium subsidies, replacing them with limited tax credits that will favor the young, healthy and wealthy. Older people will experience up to 30% premium increases.

• The repeal bill appears to maintain the ACA’s essential health benefits, required coverage for pre-existing conditions (community rating) and maintain coverage for youths until they are 26; however, states would be allowed to waive these provisions if they set up high-risk pools. States would have to either lower premium costs, increase the number of those covered, “advance the benefit to the public interest” of the state.

•If a state took the waiver option:

  • Health plans could charge sick people far more for insurance, making it unaffordable, and offer plans with far less coverage
  • While such states would have to set up high-risk pools, the bill provides limited funding to make them work. Past state pools and the ACA transition pool all ran out of funding so quickly that they left those with pre-existing conditions without coverage. High risk pools appeared to help mostly for people with income or resources to pay the higher premiums.
  • Waiver states could also eliminate the essential health benefits included in the ACA, such as maternity and behavioral health care.
  • Large multi-state employers will be able to employ a waiver state’s definition of essential health benefits, allowing them to remove the ACA protection against annual and lifetime limits and annual out-of-pocket spending. This will erode coverage even in the private sector.
  • The bill has not yet been scored by the CBO; but some experts believe that it could have a worse impact than the previous version, under which 24 million people could have lost coverage.

Our MoCs: Heck voted against passage of the AHCA. Both Senator Murray and Cantwell are opposed to the AHCA.

To Do:Thank Heck for his opposition to the AHCA. Contact Murray and Cantwell to urge their continued opposition.

Call Script:

  • VOTE NO on Trumpcare, don't strip away health care from Americans.
  • Over 24 million people will lose coverage over 10 years
  • Will decimate Medicaid with an $800 billion cut that will force states to cut people from coverage.
  • Will charge poor, older and sicker people more, making coverage unaffordable.
  • The only winners will be the very rich, who will receive huge tax cuts.

Additional details and analysis on Trumpcare, Washington Post article on outlook for bill in the Senate

  1. Budget

Summary: The Omnibus Spending Bill for H.R.244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, passed both chambers of Congress. Pres. Trump intends to sign it, a bipartisan effort. Our MoCs voted in favor of it. (NOTE: Pres. Trump went to great lengths, even with GOP control over both chambers, to prepare blame for Democrats if a government shutdown had occurred. At the same time, he tweeted we need a “good” government shutdown in September to “clean this mess up with.”)

WINNERS:

ACA: subsidy payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act will continue for FY2017.

Planned Parenthood: retained funding (NOTE: The AHCA passed the House on 050417. It places PP funding in peril again. For now, however, the funding will continue.)

Coal Miners: a permanent extension of health benefits for retired miners who faced losing coverage was a win.

National Institutes of Health: received additional $2B infunding. Pres. Trump wanted to reduce its funding for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Law Enforcement Agencies, Primarily NY & FL: $61M additional funding will pay $20M of costs for protecting Pres. Trump & family during the transition. The other $41M for protection efforts “directly and demonstrably associated with any residence of the president.” (It costs local law enforcement, while Pres. Trump is at MarALago, an extra $1.5M each trip.)

Environment: Pres. Trump wanted a 30% decrease in funding for the EPA, he received a 1% cut.

Federal Employees: It did not include the substantial cuts the White House proposed, and it also includes some restrictions on cutting programs without congressional approval.

It requires approval for program cuts of $5,000,000 or ten percent, whichever is less. That may make it more difficult for the administration to make large staff reductions that are not specifically called for in the budget.

Domestic Spending: The bill did not cut $18B in domestic program spending requested by Pres. Trump, sparing arts, public television and more.

Puerto Rico: $295M to pay for Medicaid.

Military: A 2.1% (over the 1.6% approved for 2017) pay raise for the military.

LOSERS:

Pres. Trump: requested funds to go toward the wall, but he backed down - a crucial concession that helped smooth the path for congressional negotiators completing the deal. (The agreement does include more funding for border security.)

Pres. Trump: wanted $30B more for the military. He got half, $15B, for fighting terrorism.

A.G. Sessions: The funding bill blocks the AG from meddling with state-level medical marijuana laws. He’s expressed intent to begin ramping up the failed War on Drugs all over again.

To do:There is no call for action at this time. Please take a moment to call/thank our MoCs. This research is provided as background for when long term budget negotiations begin. We can anticipate these will be points of high interest in those discussions. Source links available upon request.

Further reading on 2017 agreement: New York Times, Politico, Washington Post; Bloomberg article on House Republican plans to target Medicaid and food stamps for FY 2018

  1. Russia

Summary:

  • Senate Judiciary hearing: At an open Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3, Senator Chuck Grassley, committee chair, angrily questioned the FBI’s reliance on a dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, ex-head of the Russia desk for Britain’s MI-6. Grassley argued that there's little substance allegations of coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. He suggested that the FBI paid Steele for the dossier and the FBI provided inconsistent information to him about the issue. He stated that he had received information on this from the Trump Justice Department. This suggests a possible effort by the Administration and congressional allies to try to attack the FBI’s credibility and to try to close or smear their investigation into Russian hacking of the election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign or Trump associates.
  • Christopher Steele: CNN reported that Steele has stated that the dossier was not intended to be public, but was serious enough that he shared it with US and British intelligence agencies. Steele said that some of the items in the dossier still needed to be analyzed and verified. The FBI has stated that they did not depend on the dossier in their investigation, but corroborated some less salacious aspects of the dossier using information from multiple other sources.
  • Foreign Relations committee: Chair Bob Corker said there will be no new Russia sanctions bill related to their hacking of the 2016 election.
  • Another Sessions recusal: Attorney General Sessions has recused himself from any investigation or action related to former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
  • Sally Yates hearing: Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates will be testifying on Monday, May 8 in front of a Senate subcommittee on the warning she gave to the new Trump administration about Mike Flynn, his work for Russia and his lies about it.
  • Comeytestifies: “It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election,” he told the senators. “But honestly, it wouldn’t change the decision.”WP article

To do:

1) DEMAND DEPUTY AG ROSENSTEIN APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIA/TRUMP

  • On April 25th, the Senate confirmed Rod J. Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice, the #2 position within the department. This position is much more significant now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from all Trump campaign related investigations, as the entirety of the Trump-Russia investigation will now be spearheaded by the Deputy AG.
  • During his confirmation process, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called upon Mr. Rosenstein to commit to appointing an independent special prosecutor to investigate Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, to which Mr. Rosenstein agreed to do, “If one is required.”
  • Over the course of the last few weeks, the need for a special prosecutor has become clear. The House Intelligence Committee's investigation has been corrupted by Chairman Devin Nunes’s partisan loyalty and politically motivated actions. And in the Senate, it has been reported that the Senate Intelligence Committee is moving at a snail’s pace, with only 7 staffers working part time, no seasoned investigators, no subpoenas issued, and no interviews conducted.

Call this office: U.S. Department of Justice +1 202-353-1555

Your script:Hi, my name is [NAME] and I'm a concerned citizen from [CITY, ZIP].I’m calling to ask Mr. Rosenstein to appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate Russia's involvement with the Trump campaign and the 2016 election. It has become clear that this is the only way we can be guaranteed a fair and full investigation instead of more partisan politics.Thank you for your hard work answering the phones.

Russia, to do continued:

2)SENATE INTEL COMMITTEE: DO YOUR JOB AND INVESTIGATE RUSSIA TIES

  • On March 29, the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr (R-NC) and Mark Warner (D-VA) held a joint news conference where they portrayed themselves as ready to work together in a bipartisan effort to get to the bottom of Trump’s Russia ties. The following day, they held a rare public hearing where it became clear that a serious investigation was warranted and the committee would proceed accordingly. Burr, Warner and the committee received high praise for stating an intention to avoid the kind of partisan obstruction that has plagued the House Intelligence Committee.
  • Since that time, however, the Senate Intel Committee's investigation of Trump-Russia ties has made little progress. Not only has the committee failed to issue a single subpoena, the committee also does not have staff members assigned to the investigation on a full time basis. The seven part-time staffers have no significant investigatory experience. Consequently, no interviews have been conducted and little tangible progress has been made. Chairman Burr has also failed to sign letters requesting pertinent documents from Trump campaign associates linked to the investigation.
  • The issue of whether Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential Election investigation is one of the most important issues ever faced by the United States, and one that cannot fall victim to partisan priorities. There must be a credible, well staffed, and robust investigation into the interference. The Senate Intelligence Committee, and specifically Chairman Richard Burr, must put aside partisanship and conduct this investigation with integrity on behalf of the American people.

Call this office: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence+1 202-224-1700

Your script: Hi, my name is [NAME] and I'm a constituent from [CITY, ZIP]. I'm calling to express my concern that the committee is not sufficiently investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election. The public deserves and expects an investigation that is well staffed with experienced investigators, conducts interviews, issues subpoenas and conducts itself with the highest integrity. Anything less would be a disservice to the Constitution and the American people. Please pass my message along to the Chairman and other members of the committee.

  1. Tax Reform

Summary:

Trump unveiled his tax reform plan on April 26th, though the "plan" was merely a single printed page of ideas lacking the crucial details of what exact changes were to be made, how they were to be paid for, and the impact they would have on the economy and the average American tax payer. The main points that can be gleaned from what was introduced are that it wants to cut the business tax rate to 15% (currently 35%), it wants to eliminate the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax, and it wants to fight the House proposal to limit the tax benefit of debt that real estate companies enjoy.

Talking Points:

  • Trump’s plan would also greatly increase the deficit, not reduce it.
  • It is clear that Trump's tax plan does very little to help relieve middle class Americans of their financial burdens, but instead does a lot to provide gratuitous tax breaks to the wealthy -- people like Donald Trump, his family, and his friends.
  • Eliminating the estate tax would directly benefit Trump's children who are among the fraction of a percentage of the population the tax applies to, and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax would have reduced Trump's 2005 income tax (the only Trump tax information we have thanks to Rachel Maddow) by $31 million, 80% of the total amount he paid.
  • During his press conference about the plan, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin stated definitively, "The president has no intention" of releasing his own tax returns, adding that Trump "has given more financial disclosure than anybody else." Trump is the first president in 40 years to not release his tax returns, which makes Mnuchin's claim false. His statement also proves that Trump's reasoning for not releasing his tax returns never had anything to do with a supposed audit but was instead a blatant voluntary omission and con of the American people.
  • Without seeing Trump's tax returns, it is unclear how much Trump himself stands to personally gain from his tax reform plan, and the American people deserve to know if their President is prioritizing their financial welfare or his own.

To do:

Call Denny Heck +1 202-225-9740

Your script: Hi, my name is [NAME] and I'm a constituent from [CITY, ZIP]. I'm calling to express my strong opposition to tax reform without first seeing Trump’s tax returns. We deserve to know if the President's tax plan prioritizes his own personal gain over the financial welfare of the American people.Thank you for your time and attention.

  1. Financial Regulations: HR 10 – The Financial CHOICE Act

Summary:

  • The Dodd-Frank Act is a financial reform law that was passed in 2010 as a response to the Great Recession. It includes a set of regulations intended to prevent “too-big-to-fail” banks from causing another economic crisis. One critical piece of legislation under Dodd-Frank is the Volcker rule, which prohibits banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments, such as those that led to the housing market crash in 2008. The Volcker rule also limits banks in their relationships with hedge funds and private equity funds. Dodd-Frank also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which ensures that banks, lenders, credit card corporations, and other financial companies treat their customers fairly and protect consumers from practices like predatory payday lending.
  • House Republicans have introduced legislation known as the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10) that would repeal the Volcker rule and strip the CFPB of key enforcement powers, including the ability to fine institutions for unfair lending practices (which the CFPB recently used to fine Wells Fargo $100 million for opening 2 million accounts that their customers didn't know about).
  • Bill has 7 Republican cosponsors
  • 4/26/17 Referred to House Committees: Financial Services; Agriculture; Waysand Means; Judiciary; Oversight and Government Reform; Transportation andInfrastructure; Rules; Budget; Education and the Workforce.

Talking Points:

  • The #WrongCHOICEAct is wrong for our economy: It prevents the Financial Stability Oversight Council from addressing threats to our economy. It undermines Dodd Frank safeguards put in place after the 2008 financial crisis.
  • The repeal of the Volcker rule alone would increase big banks' profits by hundreds of millions of dollars a year while putting the American public at risk for another recession driven by irresponsible banking practices.

Our MoCs: