Tuesday, January 5, 2016
US under pressure to assure Mideast allies amid Iran-Saudi dispute
Former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia on tension with Iran |
The split widened Monday as Bahrain and the UAE joined Saudi Arabia in either cutting off or downgrading ties with Tehran. The diplomatic crisis erupted after Saudi Arabia went forward with a mass execution which included the killing of a prominent Shia cleric, and Iranians retaliated by storming the Saudi embassy in Tehran.
Saudi Arabia's response, though, reflected not only its outrage at Iran but an undercurrent of frustration with the United States’ reluctance to hold Iran accountable for alleged aggressions. One Saudi official was quoted complaining that the U.S. "backs off" every time Tehran crosses a line.
Among other moves, a recent decision by the U.S. to delay sanctions against Tehran could be inflaming that frustration -- and in turn making it more difficult for Washington to help resolve the dispute.
For now, the administration is treading carefully and showing little interest in diving into the middle of the fight. State Department spokesman John Kirby said he doesn’t believe the U.S. should act as a “mediator” between the two sides.
But Robert Jordan, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 2001-2003, told FoxNews.com the Saudis and their allies “feel abandoned by the United States” and urged the U.S. to get more involved.
“The backdrop of animosity and of proxy wars has been getting more dramatic,” Jordan said. “We need to make it clear that we’re not simply singing ‘Kumbayah’ with Iran and that we still see them as a revolutionary state.”
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Monday pushed back strongly on accusations the U.S. was looking the other way with Iran. He added that sanctions are still on the table but also warned Saudi Arabia wasn’t getting a free pass from the U.S. on its mass executions.
“We’re urging all sides to show restraint, not further tensions,” he said at the daily briefing.
On Sunday, Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with Iran and gave Iranian diplomats living in the country only hours to flee. The move highlighted a stunning escalation in the decades-old bad blood between the two nations.
Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir made the announcement after Iranian leaders sharply criticized Saudi Arabia for executing outspoken Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, among a group of 47 executed. Protesters in Iran stormed the Saudi Embassy in response to the killings.
“The killings – the beheading -- was nothing more than a spark that ignited what had been simmering,” Professor Alon Ben-Meir, a senior fellow at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs and senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, told FoxNews.com.
The fracture in ties comes at a time when the United States and other Western countries had hoped civility between the two Middle Eastern nations would ease tensions in Iraq, Bahrain and other political hotspots in the region.
But instead of staying out of the fight, three Sunni-led countries – Bahrain, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates -- joined Saudi Arabia’s lead on Monday.
Bahrain accused Iran of spreading “devastation and destruction” around the world and provoking “unrest and strife in the region.”
Sudan -- which is not a U.S. ally and, like Iran, is considered a state sponsor of terrorism -- kicked out its Iranian ambassador, while the UAE downgraded its ties to Tehran by ordering a reduction in the number of Iranian diplomats stationed in the UAE.
For its part, U.S. officials have been working to ease the tensions.
The White House said Secretary of State John Kerry spoke with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Sunday, while the Saudi Press Agency reported that Kerry had also spoken with Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Salman. The Associated Press said that Kerry would likely make another round of calls to the foreign ministers of all the Sunni-led states in the region, including Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar.
Several officials said one of Washington's most immediate concerns is the potential effect the spat could have on the fragile cooperation in Iraq between the Iraqi security forces, which answer to an Iran-friendly government, and Sunni and Shiite militias that are fighting Islamic State extremists. That cooperation has shown gains in recent weeks, notably with the Iraqi recapture of the provincial capital of Ramadi from the Islamic State group.
Officials were preparing for a high-level U.S. conversation with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to stress the importance of continuing the Iraqi government's outreach to Sunni militias, the officials said.
Also of concern is the state of the Syrian peace effort, which is supposed to swing into high gear in late January with U.N.-sponsored negotiations between Saudi-backed opposition forces and the Iranian-supported government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
In addition to Kerry, other senior U.S. diplomats were in close contact with Saudi and Arab officials over the weekend, according to U.S. officials.
But at least one U.S. official blamed the Saudi government for stoking tensions by executing al-Nimr, who was a central figure in Arab Spring-inspired protests by Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority until his arrest in 2012.
"This is a dangerous game (the Saudis) are playing," the official told The Washington Post. "There are larger repercussions than just the reaction to these executions."
That drew an angry response from a Saudi official, who also told the Post, "Tehran has thumbed its nose at the West again and again, continuing to sponsor terrorism and launch ballistic missiles and no one is doing anything about it."
"Every time the Iranians do something, the United States backs off," the official added, according to the Post. "The Saudis are actually doing something."
During his daily briefing, Earnest warned that the U.S. would not be pressured by any country into enforcing economic sanctions against Iran.
“We know those kinds of financial penalties have an impact and they are helpful in countering Iran’s ballistic missile program but ultimately we will impose those financial penalties, we’ll impose those sanctions at a place of our choosing, when our experts believe they will have the maximum impact and those decisions are not subject to negotiation by the Iranians or by anybody else for that matter,” Earnest said. “Those decisions are made based solely on the conclusion of our financial experts about ensuring those penalties have the maximum impact.”
Mark Penn: Obama said the 'stupidest thing ever said by a president'
In a March 2012 email sent to Hillary Clinton’s private email address, Penn lambasted Obama for his statement to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would “have more flexibility” on missile defense issues after the 2012 election.
“This could be about the stupidest thing ever said by a president in foreign policy,” wrote Penn. “To explicitly say that he is laying low on nuclear defense policies because of his election right now and tell your opponent that is to politicize all foreign policy, evidence weakness that can be exploited by others, and undermine the administration’s credibility. “
Penn recommended that Clinton should “consider resigning” if the administration’s foreign policy positions were truly being swayed by Obama’s campaign for reelection. He also cautioned that enemies “from al Qaeda on down” will use Obama’s words to their advantage.
Penn owns SKDKnickerbocker, which was paid $230,436 for marketing and communications work by the Barack Obama Foundation. Obama plans to use the foundation as the main vessel for his post-presidency political work.
Penn’s opinion that Obama said the “stupidest thing ever said by a president” is just the latest indication of how negatively Penn views Obama.
As a top campaign strategist for Clinton in 2008 Penn recommended a negative campaign strategy that focused on Obama’s “lack of American roots.”
Bill Clinton stumps for Hillary, as Trump keeps up attacks
Guess he quit smoking? |
Bill Clinton hit the campaign trail for his wife's presidential bid on Monday, telling voters in New Hampshire that “nobody is better qualified” than Hillary Clinton -- as his presence stoked revived criticism from Republicans about his personal and professional past.
Front-running Republican candidate Donald Trump has led the attacks, asking how Hillary Clinton can position herself as a champion for women while bringing her husband to campaign events despite his adulterous past.
“I hope Bill Clinton starts talking about women's issues so that voters can see what a hypocrite he is and how Hillary abused those women,” Trump tweeted Saturday.
He also recently suggested that Clinton was not an “innocent victim” in her husband’s extra-marital activities.
“She would go along with him,” Trump told Fox News.
The comments follow similar ones since Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, announced a few weeks ago that she was going to deploy her “not-so-secret weapon” Bill Clinton in January. But the Clinton campaign has hit back, accusing Trump of having a "penchant for sexism."
Hillary Clinton is in a far better position this primary season than she was the last time Bill Clinton stumped for her -- in the 2008 primary against Barack Obama. Clinton has 54 percent of the national primary vote and leads her closest challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, by 23 percentage points, according to a RealClearPolitics poll average.
However, she needs a boost in early-voting New Hampshire where Sanders trails by less than 5 points, with Election Day on Feb. 9.
On Monday, Clinton began his speech at Nashua (N.H.) Community College by calling himself a “happy grandfather,” then argued that his wife’s platform represents voters’ best chance at making America safer and restoring widespread economic prosperity.
“I think it’s the best plan to have the most rapid movement toward broadly shared prosperity,” he said.
Clinton closed his roughly 25-minute speech by saying he and his wife “fell in love 45 years ago” and that “everybody goes to the White House with the best intentions.”
He also made a stop Monday in Exeter, N.H., while Hillary Clinton was in Iowa, which votes first, on Feb. 1.
Hillary Clinton said upon announcing that her husband would join her on the trail: “We’re going to cover as much ground in New Hampshire as we possibly can, see as many people, thank everyone who’s going to turn out and vote for me to try to get some more to join them.”
The former president has already been on the 2016 trail for his wife, appearing on stage with pop star Katy Perry in late October before a key fundraising dinner in Iowa. However, his appearances starting Monday are his first stump speeches.
Clinton until now has largely remained behind the scenes, raising money and offering campaign advice to the former New York senator and secretary of state.
Though polls show he is still one of the most popular political figures in American politics, his efforts during Hillary Clinton’s failed 2008 White House bid were occasionally criticized -- including his suggestion that race was a factor in eventual-winner Obama defeating his wife in the South Carolina primary.
“Does anybody remember when Bill Clinton, in 2008, worked long and hard for Hillary? She LOST! Now Bill is at it again. Just watch,” Trump tweeted this weekend.
The Republican National Committee also used Clinton's appearance Monday to question his paid speaking gigs while his wife was secretary of state. A spokesman said his presence only "reinforces the fact the Clintons are untrustworthy and have used public service to enrich themselves and reward their friends."
Sanders told ABC News on Sunday that he didn’t object to Clinton joining the campaign trail.
“We have enormous problems facing this country, and I think we got more things to worry about than Bill Clinton's sexual life,” he said. “Maybe Donald Trump might want to focus attention on climate change. … Maybe Donald Trump should understand that we should raise the minimum wage. … Maybe he should focus on those things.”
Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson recently suggested that the campaign will make an issue of Bill Clinton’s past behavior if his wife continues with the accusations of sexism toward Trump, while Democrats continue their broader attack on Republicans about their so-called “war on women.”
“Hillary Clinton has some nerve to talk about the war on women and the bigotry toward women when she has a serious problem in her husband,” she told CNN.
Obama executive action on guns to require background checks for more sales
President Obama’s series of executive actions on guns will require background checks for those purchased from dealers even if they're bought online or at gun shows, the White House announced late Monday.
The Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will also issue updated guidance that says the government can consider someone a gun dealer regardless of where the guns are sold.
The actions, which Obama will formally unveil Tuesday, mark a renewed bid by the president to enact gun control measures with or without Congress.
Republicans accused the president of going too far, and already have threatened to fight the new measures by withholding DOJ funding. The guidance, though, aims to achieve a long-time administration goal of narrowing the gun show loophole.
In an attempt to prevent gun purchases from falling through the cracks, the FBI will hire 230 more examiners to process background checks, the White House said.
The FBI has a computerized system that can process background checks for many in seconds, but in instances where the FBI needs more time, the government only has three days before prospective buyers can return and buy the gun without being cleared.
Earlier on Monday, Obama vowed to press ahead with new executive actions on gun control after meeting with top law enforcement officials, claiming he has the “legal authority” to act – and defying congressional critics who say he’s pursuing a “dangerous” overreach.
The president spoke after meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey and other top officials to review their proposals and finalize his plans.
Obama said their recommendations are “well within my legal authority” and would be supported by “the overwhelming majority of the American people including gun owners.”
“The recommendations that are being made by my team here are ones that are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment,” Obama said, claiming they could “potentially save lives.”
The revived push to tighten America’s gun laws via executive action, however, has resulted in a backlash on Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.
Republicans made clear they would fight the administration and accused the president of overstepping.
"While we don’t yet know the details of the plan, the president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said in a statement. “This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it.”
Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, who chairs a key appropriations panel, warned Lynch on Monday that he would “use every tool at my disposal to immediately restrict” DOJ funding if the department proceeds with “new restrictions on our Constitutional rights.”
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump vowed to reverse any such actions if he’s elected.
"We're not changing the Second Amendment," Trump said Saturday at a campaign rally in Biloxi, Miss. "I will veto that. I will un-sign that so fast."
While Obama took heat from Republicans, supporters of stronger action on gun control applauded the president’s new push.
"We definitely think there are things he can do," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates for expanding background checks. Gross says his recent conversations with White House aides have left him hopeful.
"It's very clear that the White House is feeling emboldened," he said.
Obama announced the meeting with Lynch in his weekly address from his Hawaii holiday vacation. On Thursday, he'll take his argument to prime time, participating in a town hall discussion of gun violence on CNN. He's slated to make his case for changes in his State of the Union address on Jan. 12.
The high-profile rollout reflects a White House continuing to look for ways to wrap up unfinished business, despite an uncooperative Congress.
After all but ignoring the issue in his first term, Obama changed course after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in December 2012. Nevertheless, the president failed to push a package of gun measures through Congress, including one expanding background checks.
At the same time, Obama took nearly two dozen executive actions to tighten gun laws, but left a major expansion of background checks out of the mix.
But after the shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon in October, Obama ordered his staff to redouble the effort to look for ways to work around Congress.
Under current law, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to seek background checks on potential firearm purchasers. But advocacy groups say many sellers are currently exempt from having to register, increasing the chance of sales to customers prohibited by law from purchasing a gun.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Cutting through the campaign myths: Why 2016 remains a roller coaster
In this first column of 2016, I stubbornly
refuse to surrender to the listicle culture: Eight Takeaways from the
Speech, The Five Best Moments of the Debate, 13 Must-Read Emails from
the Latest Dump.
But without descending into numerical headlines, I hereby offer some observations on the strangest presidential campaign in modern memory as we head into the season when voters actually get to cast their ballots.
Maybe I’ve spent a little too much vacation time in the sun, but the cold reality of January suggests some observations that might have been lost in the blur of constant coverage.
Many of you are just tuning in. Pundits, myself included, often forget that not all of America was breathlessly following the exhibition season of 2015. Millions of people don’t know that the press has largely deemed Jeb Bush to be toast, that Chris Christie is viewed as mounting some sort of comeback, that Ben Carson is seen as a Herman Cain flash in the pan. They barely remember that the media briefly conferred front-runner status on Scott Walker, who, along with Rick Perry, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal and George Pataki, is gone from the race.
The media have not “made” Donald Trump the front-runner. Sure, the billionaire businessman has dominated the coverage and enjoys a symbiotic relationship with the Fourth Estate. But he is incredibly astute at commanding attention, not just through the art of insult but with over-the-top attacks and proposals on Mexican illegal immigrants, Muslim immigrants, John McCain’s war record, Bill Clinton’s sex life—and, of course, the “scum” and “sleazebags” of the media. No politician has ever thrived on the media’s scorn the way The Donald does. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban calls Trump a master of generating “headline porn.”
Policy has never mattered less. Ted Cruz has catapulted himself into a strong second place because voters know he’s a confrontational conservative, and his stance on social issues has a particular resonance with evangelical voters. Republicans know that Cruz, like Trump, is fiercely opposed to illegal immigration. They view Trump as a proven job creator because of his real estate empire. They care little about the details of his tax-cut plan, or the fact that he’s taken liberal positions in the past. They may know that Cruz has been hammering Marco Rubio on immigration and Rubio has been hitting Cruz on NSA surveillance, but the details are fuzzy at best. This is partly the fault of a media culture that values stinging sound bites and taunting tweets far more than substantive proposals. So far, at least, talking tough on terror matters more than the specifics of fighting ISIS.
Experience has never mattered less. Once upon a time, having served two successful terms as Florida’s governor would help a presidential candidate; now it’s practically a liability. Anyone who served in the pre-Twitter era is viewed as a dinosaur. Politicians with experience in Washington, and even in state houses, are dismissed as part of the problem. After seven years of GOP complaints that Barack Obama was too inexperienced for the Oval Office, this is an odd turn of events.
Advertising has never mattered less. Bush and his Super PAC have dropped more than $30 million on commercials and yet he’s remained mired in the low single digits. Trump spent not a dime on TV advertising and has a huge lead (though as I exclusively reported last Monday, he is about to blitz the airwaves with campaign costing $2 million or more a week). Rubio’s commercials seemingly air constantly but have provided a modest boost at best. It’s a cluttered marketplace; people are increasingly suspicious of ads; and candidates can communicate more efficiently on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and YouTube, especially if the media magnify those messages.
Most outsiders lose for a reason. Carson, who was once neck-and-neck with Trump, has faded in the polls as a series of mistakes highlighted his lack of foreign policy knowledge. His messy staff shakeup, with the campaign manager and other top aides leaving, reflected a quintessential clash between professional operatives and a candidate’s longtime friend, in this case Armstrong Williams. Carly Fiorina, who surged after strong debate performances, slid back to single digits once she and her team were unable to capitalize on her moment in the spotlight. Running for president is a minefield, which is why every president since Ike had already been a seasoned political warrior.
New Hampshire has never mattered more. A Cruz victory in Iowa’s caucuses could give him major momentum, or be written off as an anomaly, which is what happened to Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. A Trump victory in Iowa could launch him on an unstoppable run. Either way, no fewer than four so-called establishment candidates—Jeb, Christie, Rubio and John Kasich—view the Granite State as crucial to their survival. Anyone who finishes poorly there after a weak Iowa showing will face anemic fundraising and media obituaries by the time South Carolina votes.
The race is utterly unpredictable. Beware of the prognosticators who claim to forecast the future. Most of them dismissed Trump as a mere sideshow.
Let’s see, how many bullet points is that?
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
But without descending into numerical headlines, I hereby offer some observations on the strangest presidential campaign in modern memory as we head into the season when voters actually get to cast their ballots.
Maybe I’ve spent a little too much vacation time in the sun, but the cold reality of January suggests some observations that might have been lost in the blur of constant coverage.
Many of you are just tuning in. Pundits, myself included, often forget that not all of America was breathlessly following the exhibition season of 2015. Millions of people don’t know that the press has largely deemed Jeb Bush to be toast, that Chris Christie is viewed as mounting some sort of comeback, that Ben Carson is seen as a Herman Cain flash in the pan. They barely remember that the media briefly conferred front-runner status on Scott Walker, who, along with Rick Perry, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal and George Pataki, is gone from the race.
The media have not “made” Donald Trump the front-runner. Sure, the billionaire businessman has dominated the coverage and enjoys a symbiotic relationship with the Fourth Estate. But he is incredibly astute at commanding attention, not just through the art of insult but with over-the-top attacks and proposals on Mexican illegal immigrants, Muslim immigrants, John McCain’s war record, Bill Clinton’s sex life—and, of course, the “scum” and “sleazebags” of the media. No politician has ever thrived on the media’s scorn the way The Donald does. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban calls Trump a master of generating “headline porn.”
Policy has never mattered less. Ted Cruz has catapulted himself into a strong second place because voters know he’s a confrontational conservative, and his stance on social issues has a particular resonance with evangelical voters. Republicans know that Cruz, like Trump, is fiercely opposed to illegal immigration. They view Trump as a proven job creator because of his real estate empire. They care little about the details of his tax-cut plan, or the fact that he’s taken liberal positions in the past. They may know that Cruz has been hammering Marco Rubio on immigration and Rubio has been hitting Cruz on NSA surveillance, but the details are fuzzy at best. This is partly the fault of a media culture that values stinging sound bites and taunting tweets far more than substantive proposals. So far, at least, talking tough on terror matters more than the specifics of fighting ISIS.
Experience has never mattered less. Once upon a time, having served two successful terms as Florida’s governor would help a presidential candidate; now it’s practically a liability. Anyone who served in the pre-Twitter era is viewed as a dinosaur. Politicians with experience in Washington, and even in state houses, are dismissed as part of the problem. After seven years of GOP complaints that Barack Obama was too inexperienced for the Oval Office, this is an odd turn of events.
Advertising has never mattered less. Bush and his Super PAC have dropped more than $30 million on commercials and yet he’s remained mired in the low single digits. Trump spent not a dime on TV advertising and has a huge lead (though as I exclusively reported last Monday, he is about to blitz the airwaves with campaign costing $2 million or more a week). Rubio’s commercials seemingly air constantly but have provided a modest boost at best. It’s a cluttered marketplace; people are increasingly suspicious of ads; and candidates can communicate more efficiently on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and YouTube, especially if the media magnify those messages.
Most outsiders lose for a reason. Carson, who was once neck-and-neck with Trump, has faded in the polls as a series of mistakes highlighted his lack of foreign policy knowledge. His messy staff shakeup, with the campaign manager and other top aides leaving, reflected a quintessential clash between professional operatives and a candidate’s longtime friend, in this case Armstrong Williams. Carly Fiorina, who surged after strong debate performances, slid back to single digits once she and her team were unable to capitalize on her moment in the spotlight. Running for president is a minefield, which is why every president since Ike had already been a seasoned political warrior.
New Hampshire has never mattered more. A Cruz victory in Iowa’s caucuses could give him major momentum, or be written off as an anomaly, which is what happened to Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. A Trump victory in Iowa could launch him on an unstoppable run. Either way, no fewer than four so-called establishment candidates—Jeb, Christie, Rubio and John Kasich—view the Granite State as crucial to their survival. Anyone who finishes poorly there after a weak Iowa showing will face anemic fundraising and media obituaries by the time South Carolina votes.
The race is utterly unpredictable. Beware of the prognosticators who claim to forecast the future. Most of them dismissed Trump as a mere sideshow.
Let’s see, how many bullet points is that?
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
GOP-led Congress set for first time to vote, pass bill to replace ObamaCare, not just repeal
Within hours of reconvening Tuesday, the GOP-led Congress will finally act to fulfill a 2010 promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
The effort is set to begin Tuesday afternoon when the House Rules Committee meets on the repeal measure, with a full debate and vote as early as Tuesday. With the Republican-led Senate having already passed its version, GOP congressional leaders will send the measure to President Obama, daring him to veto it.
Obama will undoubtedly veto the measure to undo his signature health care law, and Congress has nowhere near the votes to override a presidential veto.
But Republicans hope the entire exercise might start to change the circumstance on Capitol Hill regarding the years-old argument about ObamaCare and its repeal.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is promising to unveil a bill to in fact replace ObamaCare.
For all of the GOP’s sturm und drang about ObamaCare, neither the House nor the Senate has ever debated a bill that attempts to succeed the law.
The reason is that nobody has crafted a plan that would pass in either chamber.
In 2010, House Republicans concocted the “Pledge to America.” It was a political compact created to help the GOP seize control of the House from Democrats and tell voters what they would do if in control.
One of the promises was to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare. After Republicans earned the House majority, the first major vote of 2011 was to repeal the health care law. The House and Senate have voted more than 60 times to either fully or partially repeal the Affordable Care Act, as it is more formally know. Yet they’ve never held a vote to replace ObamaCare.
But with Ryan now at the helm in the House and the GOP controlling the Senate, this may be one of the few chances the party has to come together around a bill which would replace the six-year-old law.
Ryan is, nevertheless, tempering expectations. In a recent meeting with reporters, he indicated that the House was practically obligated to pass a replacement bill. And though Ryan was confident about the House doing so this year, he underscored the unlikelihood that Obama would sign the legislation into law.
Still, the effort is part of Ryan’s attempt to contrast Republicans with the agenda of Obama and the left. Democrats have long hectored Republicans for failing to cough up a bill to succeed ObamaCare.
Such a measure is a unicorn.
If there were the votes to approve that elusive bill, Republicans would have done it. But if they finally at least draft a bill and better yet pass it, then the sides can argue about policy and not just exchange hypothetical catcalls.
Still, if Ryan is correct, the House GOP will write an ObamaCare alternative seven years after a triumvirate of House committees prepped the initial iterations of the ACA in the summer of 2009.
The House approved the first version of ObamaCare in November, 2009. The Senate did so on Christmas Eve of 2009. Both bodies ushered the final health care packages to passage in March, 2010.
This enterprise won’t be easy for Republicans.
Some GOP aides defended not having a replacement bill at the ready.
They suggested the promise in the Pledge to America was to “repeal and replace” the ACA. Certainly there were votes to repeal the law (at least in the House). But the law was never repealed. Therefore, they argued, it wasn’t yet incumbent upon Republicans to make good on the second contingency and replace the statute.
Ryan won’t be able to implement the replacement package either with Obama still in the White House in 2016 -- if it does in fact get that far. But if Ryan’s successful, he’ll have come a lot further than anyone else has before.
Which brings us back to what the House is up to next week.
Though the House has approved dozens of repeal bills over the years, the Senate has not until a few weeks ago taken a direct, up-or-down vote on eliminating ObamaCare.
Democrats controlled the Senate until January 2015. That meant they could block any Republican effort to deposit a repeal bill on the floor.
However, the story changed when the GOP won the majority. Still, Senate rules often favor the minority party. Republicans would have to vault two anticipated Democratic-filibusters just to bring up a repeal bill for debate. Overcoming those filibusters would require two roll call votes of 60 yeas. That wasn’t happening.
The GOP nevertheless had one option at its disposal -- something called “budget reconciliation.”
Budget reconciliation is a unique, once-a-shot piece of legislation that operates under special rules. It’s inoculated from pesky Senate filibusters. And if you can jam something into a budget reconciliation measure, you can usually get it through the Senate because it just requires a simple majority for passage.
The House recently started this process and knocked out a dual reconciliation bill that simultaneously repealed ObamaCare and defunded Planned Parenthood. It then shipped the measure to the Senate. But because of special Senate rules governing budget reconciliation, the upper chamber had to tweak the plan to pass it. That meant that the House and Senate had approved slightly different bills. So the Senate then bounced its updated version back to the House.
This is where things stand: The House is expected to debate and vote on the final, Senate-amended version of the reconciliation plan. If approved, the House and Senate are in alignment and the bill goes to Obama to sign or veto -- though this is a fait accompli.
House Republicans initially planned to take up the reworked Senate bill right before Christmas. But at the last minute, they decided to delay that gambit. They had a new tactic. Wait until after the holiday to maximize exposure of the House debate and vote -- as well as the President’s planned veto. Plus, it might help tee up Republican plans on health care in the new year.
The GOP hopes it can artfully message its plans to design and approve a replacement bill for ObamaCare -- with something with a lot more policy teeth than the other parliamentary gymnastics of just voting to repeal parts or all of the legislation over and over again.
Republicans also are hoping the public embraces these policy ideas as a contrast to those propounded by Obama and Democrats with health care topping the list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...