President Donald Trump reluctantly signed a bipartisan bill Wednesday morning that imposes additional sanctions on Russia. The bill, which also levies sanctions on North Korea and Iran, severely limits Trump’s ability to lift Russian sanctions in the future. Between the House and Senate, 517 members of congress supported the bill, giving Trump pretty much no choice but to sign it.

The bill represents a rare showing of bipartisanship–and of congressional Republicans’ willingness to stand up to the Trump Administration. Republicans, traditionally hawkish on Russia, have until now overlooked Trump’s repeated overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin–during the campaign and his presidency–in order to pursue other legislative goals.

The new sanctions target Russia’s energy and defense sectors, but perhaps more important than the sanctions themselves, the bill gives Congress the final say if the president decides to lift sanctions. Congress would have a 30-day review period to consider any such actions by Trump or future presidents. The administration has decried this part of the bill as “unconstitutional,” as it unfairly limits the president’s flexibility on matters of foreign policy.

In a statement released Wednesday after Trump signed the legislation, the White House said the bill contained “a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions” that “purport to displace the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the bill sends a “powerful message to our adversaries that they will be held accountable for their actions.” He added: “We will continue to use every instrument of American power to defend this nation and the people we serve.”

After signing the bill, Trump released a second statement calling it “seriously flawed” because it “encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” He went on to deride Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation: “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking,” he said.

Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, Washington has been engaged in a diplomatic tit-for-tat with Moscow. Last December, after it became clear Russia meddled in the 2016 election, former President Barack Obama increased Russian sanctions. He also expelled Russian diplomats and seized two of its diplomatic compounds.

The Kremlin retaliated with measures of its own over the weekend, ordering the U.S. to slash its diplomatic staff throughout Russia by 755. It also seized two properties used by U.S. diplomats. On Wednesday, after Trump signed the bill into law, Russian officials offered ominous signs, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying it amounts to a “full scale trade war.”

And Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, added his two cents: “Some U.S. officials were saying that this is a bill that might encourage Russia to cooperate with the United States; to me that’s a strange sort of encouragement,” he said. “Those who invented this bill, if they were thinking they might change our policy, they were wrong.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs “Significantly Flawed” Russian Sanctions Bill appeared first on Law Street.

The House passed a defense bill on Friday that included a description of global warming as “a direct threat to the national security of the United States.” The bill, which sets the Pentagon’s budget and priorities for Fiscal Year 2018, easily passed by a 344-81 vote.

In addition to its acknowledgement of climate change as a potential security threat, the National Defense Authorization Act includes a number of amendments that directly contradict Trump Administration policy.

For instance, the bill declines President Donald Trump’s request to shutter a number of military bases around the country in 2021. Defense Secretary James Mattis told the Armed Services Committee in a hearing last month that closing the bases would save $10 billion over five years. The Obama Administration failed to garner congressional support with the same request.

An additional rebuff to Trump’s stated policies is the bill’s directive that the Pentagon create a so-called “Space Corps.” The proposed unit, opposed by both the Pentagon and the White House, would fall under the Air Force’s auspices, and would provide a front line of defense against future space-related threats. The Senate will negotiate the proposal when it takes up the defense bill.

But the bill’s most surprising feature is its nod to the myriad threats posed by climate change. In addition to calling climate change a “direct threat” to U.S. national security, it also directs the Pentagon to issue a report to Congress on the effects climate change might have on military bases.

Republicans in Congress have long been reluctant to address climate change as a real threat, and Friday’s vote by the Republican-controlled House might mark a change in posture.

Trump has made clear his own views on climate change–he recently withdrew the U.S. from the 194-nation Paris Climate Accord–but the Pentagon’s highest-ranking official, Mattis, has hinted that he recognizes the security threat posed by rising temperatures.

“‘I agree that the effects of a changing climate—such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others—impact our security situation,” Mattis said in his confirmation hearing testimony earlier this year.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) expressly supported the bill, specifically for its 2.4 percent pay increase for military troops. “[The bill] includes support for military families, and honestly, a really well-deserved pay raise for our troops,” Ryan said earlier this week.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Passes Defense Bill that Calls Climate Change “Direct Threat” to U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Representative Martha McSally commented on the Congressional dress code on the House floor on Wednesday. The debate over the dress code, which is not clearly stated and irregularly enforced, was reignited last week after a female reporter was turned away from the Speaker’s Lobby outside of the House chamber. Reporters congregate in that area to grab lawmakers for quick interviews and the dress code rules are stricter there than in other parts of the Capitol Building.

On Wednesday, when speaking on the House floor, McSally ended her speech by saying, “Before I yield back, I want to point out I’m standing here in my professional attire, which happens to be a sleeveless dress and open-toed shoes.”

Here’s @RepMcSally on the House floor wearing a sleeveless dress, which chamber security says violates dress code (rule doesn’t exist). pic.twitter.com/RCjOeYE3wd

— Rebecca Shabad (@RebeccaShabad) July 12, 2017

The dress code is actually not specifically written out, which is why it has been interpreted differently at different times. Right now, women are expected to not wear sleeveless blouses or dresses or shoes with open toes. Men are supposed to wear suit jackets and ties. But the only written specifics are contained in Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives.

In the 2015 edition of that manual, it says that Tip O’Neill, who was Speaker of the House from 1977 – 1986, thought that proper attire should be “customary and traditional,” and elaborated by saying that meant a coat and tie for men and “appropriate” clothing for women. “Appropriate” is not very specific. The manual then states that the House Speaker should determine what is proper attire. In June, Speaker Paul Ryan reiterated that all House members should wear “appropriate business attire.”

.@SpeakerRyan: “Members should wear appropriate business attire…” pic.twitter.com/a4f1Oy5ifT

— CSPAN (@cspan) June 23, 2017

After the female reporter was turned away, a lot of people reacted to the outdated dress code, especially since it is so irregularly enforced. Moreover, many female lawmakers wear sleeveless clothes, particularly given the oppressively hot weather in Washington D.C. during the summer. And former First Lady Michelle Obama often wore sleeveless dresses in an official capacity.

The Speaker’s Lobby has one of the most ridiculous and backwards dress codes around. Did when I covered Congress. Still does. https://t.co/88yv6YSuz1

— Lizzie O’Leary (@lizzieohreally) July 6, 2017

This is not the first time McSally has put her foot down when it comes to men making rules about what women wear. Back in 2002, she sued then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over a military rule that required female soldiers to wear an abaya when off-base in Saudi Arabia.

At the time, McSally was the highest ranking female fighter-pilot in the U.S. She said the rule was unconstitutional, as male soldiers weren’t required to wear any particular clothes when off-base. Women also had to be accompanied by a man at all times when off duty. The rules were changed, and while the military said they had been under review for a while and had nothing to do with the lawsuit, McSally’s tenacity went down in history. And while it’s unclear whether her speech played any role in this decision, Paul Ryan just announced that the dress code will be “modernized.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republican Congresswoman Argues Against Supposed House Dress Code appeared first on Law Street.

Wednesday morning, at a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Virginia,  a man opened fire on a group of Republican congressmen who were practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) was shot and is in stable condition, but needed surgery. At least two police officers and one staffer were injured as well. The shooter, identified as 66-year-old James Hodgkinson, has died, according to President Donald Trump.

The incident comes at a time of intense political polarization in D.C. and across the country, a fact that Wednesday’s tragedy only underscored.

Who is Steve Scalise?

Scalise, the third-ranking Republican in the House, was reportedly “in good spirits and spoke to his wife by phone” after being shot in the hip. He is being treated at a nearby hospital. The 51-year-old has been in Congress since 2008, and in 2014 was elected to the position of majority whip. Before he was elected to the House, Scalise served in the Louisiana legislature. He recently helped pass the American Health Care Act, House Republicans’ Obamacare replacement. According to his House biography, Scalise and his wife have two children, and own a home in Jefferson, Louisiana.

There’s a Congressional Baseball Game?

This annual charity baseball game, in which Republican and Democratic congressmen face off at Nationals Park, began in the early 20th century. This year’s game is scheduled to be played on Thursday, and will reportedly go on. After years of Democratic dominance, Republicans won last year’s game 8-7. A showing of bipartisanship, the game is also meant to raise money for charity.

The Shooter

Shortly after spraying a baseball field full of GOP congressmen with bullets, Hodgkinson was shot by Capitol Police. Hours later, he reportedly died while being treated at a hospital. Short and stocky with a wispy white goatee, Hodgkinson, a native of Belleville, Illinois, had reportedly been in Alexandria for two months. Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC), who was present at the scene, told BuzzFeed News that Hodgkinson came up to him before the attack and asked if the players on the field were Democrats or Republicans. Duncan’s account has not yet been corroborated by other sources.

According to the Belleville News-Democrat, Hodgkinson belonged to a number of anti-Republican groups, including “Terminate the Republican Party,” “Donald Trump is Not My President,” and “The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans.” Hodgkinson also has a criminal history: he was reportedly arrested in 2006 for assaulting his girlfriend.

PHOTOS: Shooter identified as James T. Hodgkinson pic.twitter.com/77fnpblbBZ

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) June 14, 2017

Politicizing a Tragedy

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, people on both sides of the aisle took to Twitter with political takes. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, retweeted Harlan Hill’s claim that the recent, highly controversial Shakespeare in the Park performance was to blame for Wednesday’s attack:

Events like today are EXACTLY why we took issue with NY elites glorifying the assassination of our President

— Harlan Z. Hill (@Harlan) June 14, 2017

Others branded the attack as “leftist terrorism,” referring to the shooter’s apparent support for the Bernie Sanders campaign:

The Orlando massacre was about islamic terrorism.

The shooting of Steve Scalise is about leftist terrorism.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) June 14, 2017

But still, with all of the politicizing and vitriol, there were some hopeful signs to be found on Twitter:

House Democrats pray for Republican colleagues and others injured in a shooting at a GOP baseball practice https://t.co/9zo4CnICPv pic.twitter.com/0VYxEJ93jA

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) June 14, 2017

And back at the Capitol, as Scalise’s colleagues prayed for his quick recovery, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) delivered a statement, saying “an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.” Sanders also issued a statement, saying he had “just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign.” He added: “Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The GOP Baseball Practice Shooting: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, House Republicans are set to vote on a bill that would significantly repeal or alter major parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. Enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and designed to prevent another meltdown, Dodd-Frank has been a Republican target since it was signed into law seven years ago.

Though the bill that would repeal it is expected to narrowly pass the House, entirely on the backs of Republicans, it faces a much higher hurdle in making it through the Senate, where 60 votes would be required to pass. If all 52 Senate Republicans vote for the bill, at least eight Democrats would have to support it to ensure its passage.

Critics of Dodd-Frank contend it stifled economic growth. Supporters say it helps bring financial security to everyday Americans, and is vital in preventing another recession.

The bill that would undo Dodd-Frank, called the Financial Choice Act, was drafted last year by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Among other provisions, it would allow banks to waive some of Dodd-Frank’s restrictions on lending if they can show a substantial reserve of capital to cover potential losses.

On Wednesday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI), framed the new bill as a way to “rescue” small-town America from federal overreach. He said: “The Dodd-Frank Act has had a lot of bad consequences for our economy, but most of all in the small communities across our country.”

The bill is likely to pass the House despite unequivocal Democratic opposition; Republicans maintain a large advantage in the chamber. To Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Republicans who support the Choice Act are “ignoring the past” and “endangering the future of millions of Americans.” She added: “Dismantling the law will force consumers to go it alone against Wall Street.”

The Choice Act will also weaken the powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that was formed after the 2008 crisis. Under the new law, the president would have the authority to unilaterally remove the head of the agency, and many of its oversight functions would be reduced. The law might also gradually reduce the federal deficit. According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, the legislation would lower the deficit by $24.1 billion over a decade.

Still, Democrats see the bill as a direct rebuke of President Donald Trump’s promises to reign in Wall Street. “The Wrong Choice Act is a vehicle for Donald Trump’s agenda to get rid of financial regulation and help out Wall Street,” said Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Financial Service Committee. “It’s a deeply misguided measure that would bring harm to consumers, investors and our whole economy.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Republicans Look to Repeal the Dodd-Frank Act appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks, as Russia-related revelations dominated the discussion in Washington, it has been easy to forget about actual governing. But things are happening. For instance, Republicans have been waiting in the wings for years, eager to pass tax reform legislation. When President Donald Trump–who has been busy swatting away rumors regarding his ties to Russia and jetting to Riyadh–took the White House, and Republicans maintained control of the House and Senate, Republicans could finally take a crack at a tax overhaul. Let’s take a look at their progress so far:

For one, it appears the border tax, favored by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), is all but moot. In a House Ways and Means committee hearing on Tuesday, a number of Republican members voiced their concerns about the tax, which would levy a 20 percent tariff on imports, while getting rid of export taxes.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) said he does not want funding for tax cuts, which would ultimately come from the consumer, “to be on the backs of everyday hardworking American taxpayers.” To another Republican member of the committee, which would have to approve any tax bill before hitting the House floor for a vote, supporting the border tax is out of the question. “I cannot support the border adjustability provisions as introduced last year in the blueprint,” Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) said at the hearing, which included testimony from Target CEO Brian Cornell.

The Trump Administration also appears to oppose the border adjustment tax. “One of the problems with the border adjustment tax is that it doesn’t create a level playing field,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin recently said. “It has the potential to pass on significant costs to the consumer.”

At the end of April, Trump unleashed a one-page tax reform plan. The plan’s key features included severe tax cuts and a steep reduction in the corporate tax rate, from 35 to 15 percent. The 2018 budget the administration released on Tuesday did not include any substantial changes to the April plan.

According to a recent report by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the administration’s tax plan “contains specific, costly tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable corporations but only vague promises for working families.” Using IRS data, the report estimates the plan would provide the top one percent with an average annual tax cut of $250,000 per household.

In addition to the administration’s plan, and the House proposal backed by Ryan and Kevin Brady, the Ways and Means committee chairman, the Senate is reportedly developing its own tax blueprint.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal with the Republican Tax Plan? appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News Founder Roger Ailes Has Died

Roger Ailes, one of the founders of Fox News, passed away this morning at 77. His cause of death has yet to be released. Fox announced the news and aired a statement from his wife Elizabeth, which read, “I am profoundly sad and heartbroken to report that my husband, Roger Ailes, passed away this morning. Roger was a loving husband to me, to his son Zachary, and a loyal friend to many.”

Ailes was a prominent figure in American media as well as a powerful force in conservative politics, and many expressed their condolences. But many also referenced the sexual harassment controversy that led to his removal from the network he created last summer.

Former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson sued him for sexual harassment and at least six other women came forward with similar claims. After Ailes’ ouster, news broke about similar allegations against Bill O’Reilly, who lost his job in April. A lot of people were really not that sorry to hear the news of Ailes’ passing.

Roger Ailes behaved egregiously toward women in his organization and changed our culture for the worse, making people dumber and angrier.

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) May 18, 2017

To all of the women that Roger Ailes hurt, today is going to hurt. We will never forget you and your untold stories.

— Xeni Jardin (@xeni) May 18, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Macron Crushes Le Pen in the French Presidential Election

Emmanuel Macron, a former investment banker who is for all intents and purposes a political newcomer in France, decisively defeated Marine Le Pen this weekend. Macron, whose ideology is best described as center-left won approximately 66 percent of the vote. Le Pen, who boasts a far-right ideology, garnered only 34 percent. There are some hurdles ahead–Macron’s new party, “En Marche!” is very young, and currently holds no seats in Parliament. Those elections will be held next month.

But Macron’s victory is seen as relatively good news for the EU. Le Pen had campaigned in part on a “Frexit”–France’s proposed version of “Brexit.” Macron, on the other hand, championed globalization, France’s position in the EU, and tolerance.

Macron vows to heal France’s divisions after victory over Le Pen https://t.co/dZeN02Uooh pic.twitter.com/gAz2pkV4dh

— Bloomberg (@business) May 8, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Congress reached an agreement over the weekend to keep the government running through the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. While a vote has yet to take place–the House is expected to take up the bill on Wednesday–the spending bill omits a number of President Donald Trump’s stated priorities, and generally preserves or increases spending to programs Democrats feared might receive steep cuts. To avoid a government shutdown, Congress must pass the bill by midnight on Friday.

The trillion-dollar budget is far from the austere outline Trump proposed earlier this year. The bill also does not block federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, which conservatives have long threatened. The National Institute of Health, one of the domestic programs Trump sought to shift money away from, will see a two billion dollar infusion of cash.

Although the Trump Administration averted a shutdown, the spending bill is hardly the conservative blueprint Trump and GOP lawmakers had been seeking. For one, while it includes a $1.5 billion increase in funding for border security, it also contains explicit language barring further construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. Trump, during a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Saturday, reiterated his promise to build the wall.

Democratic leaders seemed pleased with the final agreement. Senate Minority Leader. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “The bill ensured taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall” and “increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), cheered the bill’s funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program.

White House and Republican leaders focused on the agreement’s increase in military spending, which was markedly less than what Trump called for. Vice President Mike Pence said the bill is a “bipartisan win” that will be a “significant increase in military spending.” Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Speaker of the House, said it reflects Trump’s “commitment to rebuild our military for the 21st century and bolster our nation’s border security to protect our homeland.”

In addition to preserving funds for Planned Parenthood and blocking money for a border wall, Democrats avoided other cuts they have feared since Trump’s proposed budget in March. The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget will only dip by one percent. There will be no funding for a deportation force. And, despite threats from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, funding to so-called “sanctuary cities” will not be reduced.

For some conservative members of Congress, however, the bill includes too many concessions to the opposition party. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “you’re going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation.” Jordan’s reasoning: “We told [voters] we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we’re not going to do that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Funding for Trump’s Border Wall in Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

After bungling an attempt to overhaul Obamacare last month, it looks like Republicans will give health care reform another go. Tom MacArthur, a Republican congressman from New Jersey, recently proposed an amendment to the failed GOP effort, the American Health Care Act, eponymously titled the MacArthur Amendment. First reported by Politico on Thursday, the amendment is an attempt to placate moderate Republicans and far-right conservatives like the House Freedom Caucus, a bloc that helped sink the original bill.

President Donald Trump, whose 100th day in office–a standard marker of a president’s effectiveness–is on April 29, is seeking a legislative victory. But Congress will have its plate full next week, as it rushes to pass a government spending bill and, perhaps more important than passing a new health care bill, needs to come together to avoid a government shutdown. Trump, in a news conference on Thursday, sounded fairly confident that the new health care plan would rally House Republicans–something the first attempt utterly failed to do.

“We have a good chance of getting it soon,” Trump said. “I’d like to say next week, but it will be — I believe we will get it. And whether it’s next week or shortly thereafter.” The president, cognizant of the 100-day review tradition, added: “The plan gets better and better and better, and it’s gotten really, really good, and a lot of people are liking it a lot.”

MacArthur’s proposed changes to the AHCA, which did not make it to the House floor for a vote, revolve around giving states the option of opting out of requirements if they show growth. For instance, the amendment retains the requirements for insurers to offer guaranteed coverage for emergency services and maternity care, and pre-existing conditions must also be covered.

But if states prove that without those guaranteed coverages, premiums would dip, the number of insured would climb, or the “the public interest of the state” is advanced, then that state could seek a waiver for guaranteed coverage. States could circumvent the pre-existing coverage guarantee if they establish high-risk pools. These changes are designed to bring the party’s center and right flanks to agreement.

In a Facebook statement on Thursday, MacArthur, the architect of the amended bill, said: “This amendment will make coverage of pre-existing conditions sacrosanct for all Americans and ensures essential health benefits remains the federal standard.” Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House from Wisconsin, hinted that the effort could be ready for a floor vote soon: “We’re in the midst of negotiating sort of finishing touches,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the GOP’s Second Health Care Attempt appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that effectively gives states the option of withholding federal funds from family planning and women’s health clinics. Days before Trump was sworn into office, former President Barack Obama signed a rule that barred states from withholding federal money earmarked for family planning centers like Planned Parenthood. The Trump Administration’s resolution essentially undoes Obama’s action.

The resolution narrowly passed Congress on March 30, as Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. It was applauded by pro-life groups, and derided by pro-choice advocates. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) called the resolution a “major pro-life victory.”

Trump has expressed support for Planned Parenthood in the past, but has also come out against abortion. The Republican-controlled Congress is filled with lawmakers who have long-sought greater restrictions on non-profit groups that perform abortions and receive federal grants. Planned Parenthood, a group that largely provides health-related services to women across the country–half of its affiliates do not perform abortions–has become a favorite punching bag of pro-life lawmakers and advocacy groups.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group, welcomed the resolution. “Prioritizing funding away from Planned Parenthood to comprehensive health care alternatives is a winning issue,” she said. “We expect to see Congress continue its efforts to redirect additional taxpayer funding away from Planned Parenthood through pro-life health care reform after the spring recess.”

Congress is certain to continue pushing a pro-life agenda. But pressure from liberal groups and advisers in his own orbit who lean more pro-choice, like his daughter Ivanka, could push Trump to abandon any hard-line positions on groups like Planned Parenthood. Pro-choice groups are dismayed however, at the direction Trump seems to be taking.

“[Women’s] worst fears are now coming true,” Dawn Laguens, the executive president of Planned Parenthood said in a statement. “We are facing the worst political attack on women’s health in a generation as lawmakers have spent the past three months trading away women’s health and rights at every turn.” And Heidi Williamson, senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, said: “Trump’s actions are creating very real and damaging consequences for millions of women and their families, inflicting direct harm on already vulnerable communities.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Gives States More Freedom to Block Family Planning Funds appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, House Republican leaders introduced their new health care plan, the American Health Care Act. The effort was ultimately unsuccessful, and on March 24 the bill was withdrawn, largely because of Republican infighting. Republican moderates worried that the bill was too extreme, and would be harmful for their constituents. But Republicans further to the right disagreed, arguing that the bill actually didn’t go far enough. Those right-wing Republicans were led by the House Freedom Caucus, a caucus that has only been in existence for two years, but in the Trump era, has made quite a name for itself. Read on to learn more about the inception of the House Freedom Caucus, its ideology, and its members.

History of the House Freedom Caucus

The formation of the House Freedom Caucus was announced in January 2015. Its founding members were all hardline Republican representatives: Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Jim Jordan of Ohio, John Fleming of Louisiana, Matt Salmon of Arizona, Justin Amash of Michigan, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Ron DeSantis of Florida, and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. The nine founders reportedly planned their new caucus at a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, a few weeks before they announced its formation.

According to a statement that offices of the members released:

The House Freedom Caucus gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable, and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety, and prosperity of all Americans.

The House Freedom Caucus is notably more conservative than the rest of the House, and Americans in general. According to Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone:

The Freedom Caucus acts like a third party in Washington because the political fates of its members are not yoked to the national GOP. Their districts rate R+13, according to Cook Political Report data crunched by Rolling Stone. This means their districts vote 13 percent more Republican than the nation as a whole — and are nearly a third more partisan than the median GOP seat (R+10).

The Split from the Republican Study Committee 

The House Freedom Caucus was an offshoot of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a much larger, but traditionally very conservative, caucus. However, in 2015, the year the House Freedom Caucus was founded, some conservative Republicans thought the RSC had become too centrist. The RSC had also become quite clunky and large–it currently has over 170 members.

Reports on whether the House Freedom Caucus’s split from the RSC was amicable have differed. The founding members tactfully told the press that they believed a smaller, more mobile organization was needed to pull the party to the right. Some members of the House Freedom Caucus remained as RSC members, while others left the larger group.

The House Freedom Caucus and House Speaker John Boehner

Congressman John Boehner announced that he would step down from the position of Speaker of the House in September of 2015. He had held the post since 2011, when Republicans gained majority control of the House.

It was reported that Boehner stepped down, at least in part, due to pressure from the House Freedom Caucus. If all of the 30-odd members of the caucus had refused to support him, he would not have had enough votes to remain the House leader. The House Freedom Caucus members wanted Boehner to push harder on some far-right issues, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

Who are the Current Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

No one is completely sure. The invite-only group isn’t public with its roster. However, a number of media outlets have identified the members who have been open about their relationship to the caucus. Here are the congressmen who are believed to currently be part of the House Freedom Caucus:

• House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows, North Carolina
• Alex Mooney, West Virginia
• Andy Harris, Maryland
• Bill Posey, Florida
• Brian Babin, Texas
• Dave Brat, Iowa
• David Schweikert, Arizona
• Gary Palmer, Alabama
• Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
• Jim Bridenstine, Oklahoma
• Jim Jordan, Ohio
• Jody Hice, Georgia
• Joe Barton, Texas
• Justin Amash, Michigan
• Ken Buck, Colorado
• Mark Sanford, South Carolina
• Mo Brooks, Alabama
• Morgan Griffith, Virginia
• Paul Gosar, Arizona
• Rand Weber, Texas
• Raul Labrador, Idaho
• Rod Blum, Texas
• Ron DeSantis, Florida
• Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
• Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
• Steve Pearce, New Mexico
• Ted Yoho, Florida
• Tom Garrett Jr., Virginia
• Trent Franks, Arizona
• Warren Davidson, Ohio

Who are the Former Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

There are also some former members associated with the caucus. These include congressmen who lost re-election bids in 2016, including founding member Scott Garrett of Florida and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. Former Congressmen John Fleming of Louisiana and Marlin Stutzman of Indiana ran for other positions and were defeated.

Retired Congressmen Curt Clawson of Florida, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Matt Salmon of Arizona also used to be counted among the members. Lummis seems to be the only female member ever associated with the caucus, so as it currently stands, the caucus appears to be entirely male. One founding member, Mick Mulvaney, was appointed by President Donald Trump as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and therefore is no longer in the House of Representatives.

There were some members who decided to remove themselves from House Freedom Caucus membership. Congressmen Tom McClintock of California and Reid Ribble of Wisconsin quit after the group’s role in forcing Boehner out of the Speaker of the House position. After he quit, McClintock said: “I feel that the HFC’s many missteps have made it counterproductive to its stated goals and I no longer wish to be associated with it.” And Ribble took his complaints a step farther, saying:

I was a member of the Freedom Caucus in the very beginning because we were focused on making the process reforms to get every Member’s voice heard and advance conservative policy. When the Speaker resigned and they pivoted to focusing on the leadership race, I withdrew.

Representative Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania resigned from the caucus last winter, saying that although his ideology still matched the group’s, he wanted to focus on “substantive policy work rather than procedural mechanisms the group uses to exert influence.” Representative Barry Loudermilk, of Georgia, also quit quietly, saying that he just didn’t have the “bandwith” to be in the group.

Most recently, Representative Ted Poe, from Texas, quit the House Freedom Caucus after the group’s role in the health care bill failure at the end of March. Poe said in an interview on “Fox & Friends” that he felt as though the caucus was saying “no” too much:

The president, Speaker Ryan, came to the Freedom Caucus and made some changes that we wanted several times. But no matter what changes were made, the goal post kept getting moved and at the end of the day, ‘no’ was the answer. And sometimes you’re going to have to say yes.

Poe chose to resign, saying that, “at some time we’re going to have to say ‘yes.’ We are in power. We need to lead.”

The Freedom Caucus in the News

Since its inception, the two most news-worthy events involving the House Freedom Caucus were its founding, and its role in John Boehner’s resignation. But the Freedom Caucus was recently vaulted into the spotlight with the AHCA controversy.

The American Health Care Act

Regardless of whether the assessment is fair or not, the House Freedom Caucus has been largely blamed by the media, President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and others, for the bill’s failure.

The big sticking point with the AHCA for many of the members was that it wasn’t conservative enough, and didn’t provide for a full repeal. At one point, it was reported that the Trump Administration was negotiating with the House Freedom Caucus to secure the needed votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. The Trump Administration offered to get rid of “essential health benefits” that were guaranteed under Obamacare. These essential health benefits included maternity care, emergency room visits, and mental health services. But, the Freedom Caucus still claimed that the bill didn’t go far enough, and on March 24, the bill was pulled.

Trump’s Attack 

In the wake of the AHCA withdrawal, President Donald Trump started criticizing the House Freedom Caucus. On March 27, Trump tweeted: “The Republican House Freedom Caucus was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” He followed that up on March 30, by tweeting: “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!” The verified Twitter account for the House Freedom Caucus responded to Trump’s criticism on March 31, saying that the group wants to hold true to its promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and arguing that only 17 percent of Americans supported the AHCA.

Conclusion

The House Freedom Caucus is relatively new, having just been founded in 2015, and best known for being involved in Speaker of the House John Boehner’s resignation. But in the Trump era, with both the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by the Republican Party, the House Freedom Caucus has become an increasingly influential part of GOP House dynamics. What the group will do with that newfound power remains to be seen.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the House Freedom Caucus? appeared first on Law Street.

After seven years of stiff opposition to Obamacare, Republicans failed in their efforts to produce a successful health care replacement on Friday afternoon. After days of negotiating–both with the White House and with other House Republicans–House Speaker Paul Ryan decided to stall a vote on the bill, the American Health Care Act, after he told President Donald Trump the bill would not secure enough votes to pass.

Friday’s bizarre events were ripe material for Twitter’s finest to strut their stuff. Using #KillTheBill, people took to Twitter throughout the day to send shots at Ryan, Trump, and more. Some used photos and GIFs of a man who succeeded in passing a health care bill to convey their emotions:

Who’s tired of winning? Not me! #killthebill pic.twitter.com/Ylp0LpMAQu

— Peregrine (@Lies_Are_Chains) March 24, 2017

I guess Obama is just better at the art of the deal. #KillTheBill pic.twitter.com/ZnwiqJ9X5s

— Adriel L. Algiene (@AdrielLAlgiene) March 24, 2017

Others riffed on Republicans who do not support contraception to express their thoughts on the health care failure:

house republicans couldn’t agree on contraceptive coverage so they just pulled out instead. #killthebill pic.twitter.com/VWKOrXtCRv

— joe malunda™ (@maloonds) March 24, 2017

Lol when you pull out cause you don’t have a plan B pic.twitter.com/vMCSahyPtr

— Jessica Samakow (@jsam1126) March 24, 2017

Supporters of the House Freedom Caucus–a far-right group that strongly opposed the bill and is largely responsible for sinking it–also found joy in the health care debacle. These two blamed lawmakers they deem Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) for the failed effort:

Thank you, #FreedomCaucus! We’re showing the RINOs that we the people are a force to be reckoned with!#KillTheBill #Ryan

— Deplorable Zilla (@deplorablezilla) March 24, 2017

#KillTheBill
#RyanCare #ObamacareLite #FullRepeal
I Stand With The @freedomcaucus @POTUS @realDonaldTrump @SpeakerRyan @SenateGOP pic.twitter.com/dkJtjs4EiX

— #1775Lexington (@luckyone6565) March 24, 2017

Some people focused on Ryan, the leading force behind the Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare, and his perpetually mopey facial expression:

Time to repeal and replace Paul Ryan.#KillTheBill #FireRyan pic.twitter.com/e6G5lMRSMP

— P Martucci☆NYC4TRUMP (@martucci_peter) March 24, 2017

And, of course, people used Ryan’s first and only true love (hint: it’s not health care) to visualize how he was probably feeling deep in his heart on Friday afternoon:

pic.twitter.com/VS9daWXvzV

— Sean Dove (@_space_plans) March 24, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #KillTheBill Is Now a Reality, Twitter Has Some Fun appeared first on Law Street.

In a mad dash to secure support for the Republican health care bill, President Donald Trump issued an ultimatum to House Republicans late Thursday: pass the law, or keep the Affordable Care Act in place. Trump is dealing with a splintered House: the far-right flank, including the Freedom Caucus, thinks that the bill isn’t extreme enough. On the other hand, moderate Republicans want the bill to preserve some elements of Obamacare, like Medicaid spending. The House is expected to weigh in on the bill at 4:45 Friday afternoon–though the vote was originally expected for Thursday, so a further delay is not unthinkable.

“We have a great bill, and I think we have a good chance, but it’s only politics,” Trump said Thursday after a day of negotiations at the White House with members of the Freedom Caucus. It seems the ultraconservative group of House Republicans successfully wrangled Trump, who agreed to some of their requested changes to the bill: no guarantees for maternity care, emergency services, or mental health and wellness programs. Members of the Freedom Caucus, an increasingly powerful group, have threatened to oppose the bill unless it was amended in a more conservative fashion.

“We’re committed to stay here until we get it done,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), and the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, said on Thursday. “So whether the vote is tonight, tomorrow or five days from here, the president will get a victory.” But even after what seemed like a successful meeting, Trump is upping the pressure on the Freedom Caucus to support the bill. On Friday morning, Trump tweeted:

The irony is that the Freedom Caucus, which is very pro-life and against Planned Parenthood, allows P.P. to continue if they stop this plan!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 24, 2017

The Freedom Caucus is not the only skeptical Republican faction that is demanding changes to the existing health bill, the American Health Care Act. Moderate Republicans–in the House and the Senate–would like to see changes made in the opposite direction; Medicaid spending, which covers many of their constituents, is a vital component of the bill for them. So the quagmire then, for Trump, and for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), the bill’s architect, is how to unite the competing Republican visions for the bill. No Democrats are expected to support the legislation, and only 22 Republicans can dissent for the bill to pass.

Even if Trump gets his way, and the bill passes the House on Friday, it will likely get a major facelift in the Senate before hitting his desk for a signature. On Thursday, President Barack Obama, whose health care bill has been mercilessly targeted by Republicans for seven years, sent a convivial message of hope to his followers on Thursday, the seventh anniversary of the signing of Obamacare.

“I’ve always said we should build on this law, just as Americans of both parties worked to improve Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid over the years,” Obama wrote. “So if Republicans are serious about lowering costs while expanding coverage to those who need it, and if they’re prepared to work with Democrats and objective evaluators in finding solutions that accomplish those goals — that’s something we all should welcome.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump to House Republicans: Support Health Care Bill or Obamacare Stays appeared first on Law Street.

High-ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a Democrat and a Republican, said on Thursday that there is no evidence that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. The rebuke comes two weeks after President Donald Trump tweeted that his predecessor tapped his phones during the campaign.

Despite producing no evidence to back up this claim, and as lawmakers from both parties piled on the condemnation, Trump remained steadfast. Now, high ranking members of his own party have delivered the strongest statement yet in contradiction to Trump’s claims.

“Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016,” Intelligence Chairman Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Vice Chairman Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said in a joint statement.

House Speaker Paul Ryan delivered a less forceful denial of Trump’s wiretap claims on Thursday, when he told reporters that Congress has “seen no evidence of that.” Trump made the explosive accusation on March 4, when he tweeted:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

Trump continued his baseless Twitter tirade, adding: “How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” In the days since, Trump has failed to produce any evidence that Obama, or any agency or individual in his administration, bugged Trump Tower, his de facto campaign headquarters in Manhattan.

Some suspect Trump was referring to the recently-released intelligence information about some of his aides who had communications with Russian government officials or business representatives. Those conversations were relevant to U.S. authorities because there was evidence that Russia had meddled in the election by hacking the emails of Democratic operatives in a veiled attempt to boost Trump’s standing.

And while there is a legitimate concern that those taps might have inadvertently captured some of Trump’s campaign communications, there is no evidence to suggest that is what happened, intentionally or otherwise. FBI Director James Comey is scheduled to make a public address on Monday regarding the wiretap claims. Despite all of this, on Wednesday Trump ominously stood by his comments. “You’re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks,” he said in an interview on Fox News.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Intelligence Committee Leaders: Trump Tower Was Not Wiretapped appeared first on Law Street.

In what might be the largest assault on the funding of government agencies in decades, President Donald Trump released a preliminary budget proposal on Thursday. The budget, a $1.1 trillion affair, would mostly benefit the Defense Department, while considerably reducing funds for the EPA, the State Department, and a whole host of other federal agencies. The budget is called “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.”

About three-quarters of the federal budget is mandatory spending, or spending that is largely locked in and cannot be shifted. Mandatory spending is generally comprised of entitlement spending and interest payments on the national debt. The remaining quarter of the budget is discretionary spending, or spending that the presiding administration and Congress can alter. This is the chunk of the budget–in which funding to federal agencies falls–that would be affected by Trump’s proposals.

Here is a guide to help you navigate Trump’s first budget proposal as president, and what might happen next.

Focus on National Security

For the federal government’s budget for the 2018 fiscal year, Trump has one clear area in mind that could use an infusion of cash: national security. Under Trump’s proposed budget, $54 billion would be added to defense spending, a ten percent increase. The funds would, in part, according to Trump’s budget, help to increase the ranks of the Army and Marine Corps and build-up the military’s ship and plane fleets.

“The core of my first budget blueprint is the rebuilding of our nation’s military without adding to our federal deficit,” Trump said in a letter that accompanied the proposed budget. Some Republicans worry that the increase in military spending does not go far enough. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said “the administration’s budget request is not enough to repair” the damage done by the military spending cuts in recent years.  

Another costly security-related project that the budget proposal covers: Trump’s long-touted wall on the Mexican border. The price tag for that endeavor, which the proposed budget allocates funds for, would be roughly $2.5 billion.

Severe Cuts to Non-Defense Agencies

How would the increases to defense spending be paid for? After all, when Trump pledged to drain the swamp, he never said money trees would sprout in its place. Ten federal agencies would face cuts of over ten percent of their current budget. The EPA, led by Scott Pruitt, a fervent critic of the agency, would see a 31 percent decrease in spending–a cut of about $2.5 billion. Programs to protect wildlife and the environment would be scaled back; 3,200 employees would lose their jobs.

The State Department, the government’s diplomatic arm of international engagement, would also face a stiff budget cut: nearly $11 billion would be shaved off the agency’s funding, a 29 percent drop. Contributions to the UN–for peacekeeping missions and efforts to combat climate change–would be drastically reduced, as would contributions to the World Bank.

Some observers believe that reduced spending to the State Department could, ironically, compromise national security. “We learned in both Iraq and Afghanistan that our military needs an effective civilian partner if victories on the battlefields are going to be converted into a sustainable peace,” said Stephen Hadley, President George W. Bush’s national security adviser. In addition to the cuts to the EPA and State, funding to 19 agencies would be eliminated entirely, from the Institute of Museum and Library Services to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.

Next Up: Congress

It is highly unlikely that the 2018 fiscal year budget will resemble what Trump proposed on Thursday. For one, the Obama Administration capped military spending in 2013, caps which could not be undone without 60 votes in the Senate, and Democrats would likely all oppose such an attempt. In addition to Democratic opposition, many Republicans see Trump’s cuts as being too severe, if not illogical and unnecessary.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the proposed State Department cuts render the budget proposal “dead on arrival.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said the cuts to foreign aid, which makes up a fraction of the budget but has a substantial impact, go too far. House Speaker Paul Ryan, a connoisseur of conservative budget planning, supported Trump’s first draft. “We are determined to work with the administration to shrink the size of government, grow our economy, secure our borders, and ensure our troops have the tools necessary to complete their missions,” he stated. But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), seemingly the face of congressional GOP opposition to Trump, gives the budget outline a slim chance of passing the Senate. “It is clear that this budget proposed today cannot pass the Senate,” he said in a statement.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Trump’s 2018 Budget Blueprint appeared first on Law Street.

House Speaker Paul Ryan likely didn’t wake up this morning expecting to become a viral meme, but that’s exactly what happened.

During a press conference earlier today, Ryan delivered a presentation to explain the GOP’s proposed Obamacare replacement, the American Health Care Act. The house speaker used an old-school PowerPoint to explain key points with graphs and visual aides.

It didn’t take long before Twitter, trained to sniff out prime, meme-worthy blank canvases, offered up some alternative visual aides for Ryan’s presentation. Check out the top ten funniest Paul Ryan PowerPoint memes below!

10. Certified dab pro

Paul Ryan just gave a PowerPoint Presentation… pic.twitter.com/iOqvtglEhe

— President Goodtime (@SethGoodtime) March 9, 2017

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Made Paul Ryan’s PowerPoint Presentation 100 Times Better appeared first on Law Street.

The 115th Congress has been sworn in, and President-elect Donald Trump will be moving into the White House in two weeks. The power shift in Washington, with a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress and a Republican president, is sure to result in a number of changes. Within the first few weeks and months of 2017, one of President Barack Obama’s crowning achievements, the Affordable Care Act, will take on a significantly different form. Read on to find out what Republicans plan on doing to Obamacare, and what their replacement might look like. 

Repeal

It is unclear exactly what the GOP-crafted health law will look like, but one thing is for sure: Republicans are dead-set on undoing at least some of the ACA’s major provisions. The number one target most GOP lawmakers agree on is the mandate that all Americans must have health care, or else face a fine. Leading Republican lawmakers acknowledge there must be some price to pay for healthy people choosing to go uninsured, but again, that penalty has not been fully articulated.

Republicans have been adamant about repealing two other aspects of Obama’s health care law. First, they will likely scale back federal funding for Medicaid, which was vastly expanded under the ACA. Nineteen states–all with Republican governors or legislatures–have rejected the expanded funding. Some Republican-led states have expanded their Medicaid programs however, which could make it a political risk for Congressional Republicans to cut federal funding entirely.

massive increases of ObamaCare will take place this year and Dems are to blame for the mess. It will fall of its own weight – be careful!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2017

Earlier this week, Senate Republicans inched toward repealing the law, a process that could take at least a few months. They approved a budget blueprint, which will essentially pave a trail for further legislation to pass through, and will provide a shield against a Democratic filibuster. The Senate will likely vote on that measure next week and, if it passes with a majority vote, turn it over to the Republican-led House.

Republicans have promised that their repeal efforts would not take place immediately, so that those who are insured under the ACA would not be caught in a no-man’s land. Some experts say that delaying the effects of the repeal effort, especially with no clear replacement law at the ready, could lead to destabilized insurance markets. Paul Ryan (R-WI), speaker of the House and a vocal Obamacare critic, assured people who are worried they’ll lose coverage in the coming months that in 2017 “we don’t want people to be caught with nothing.”

Replace

“Trumpcare,” as President Barack Obama coined the Republican replacement to his health care law on Wednesday, is vague on its details. Congressional Republicans, and Trump, campaigned on a platform that vociferously opposed Obamacare, and voters who were angry at rising premium costs happily voted for an alternative. But what will that alternative look like? There are disparate visions among Republicans of what changes should or should not happen to Obamacare, and the final product is still being hammered out.

There are parts of Obamacare that could survive the GOP assault, including the option that people can remain on their parents’ insurance plan up until the age of 26. That is a highly popular element of the health care law that will likely remain in any future iteration.

Guaranteed coverage, one of Obamacare’s unprecedented (and most expensive) features, is also likely to remain in the Republicans’ replacement plan, at least in some form. Requiring insurers to offer coverage to customers with pre-existing conditions has led to increased premiums, and while Republicans have noted rising premiums as cause for a repeal, they have not said they will entirely scrap guaranteed coverage. Whatever directions the GOP decides to go in, expect the states to have more power and flexibility in designing their plans.

The ACA & Planned Parenthood bring critical health security to women across the US. To the GOP: Dont defund @PPFA Dont #MakeAmericaSickAgain pic.twitter.com/xip6WENNMm

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 6, 2017

In terms of the new pieces of the Obamacare replacement law, the details are hazy. GOP lawmakers will surely do something about the current marketplaces and government subsidies. Trump has mentioned opening up insurance marketplaces across state lines. Trump’s appointee for health secretary, Tom Price, has laid out a plan for tax credits in lieu of government subsidies, which could benefit middle-class Americans who earn too much to qualify for the subsidies under the current law. But like other parts of the law that will succeed Obamacare, details are scant.

The gears are already turning in the rush to repeal Obamacare, at least vast chunks of it. But Republicans are hardly in unison about what should follow. Many who have been insured under the law–including Trump supporters–have been uneasy with what might happen to them in the coming year. Republicans promise to delay the effective date of the incoming repeal, and Democrats promise to make repeal efforts as strenuous as possible for the GOP. The next few weeks and months will hopefully bring some clarity into the future of health care in America.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Will Health Care Look Like After Obamacare is Repealed? appeared first on Law Street.

House Speaker Paul Ryan confirmed many women’s fears when he said that the Republican Party will defund Planned Parenthood, as part of a bill that aims to repeal Obamacare. The GOP is planning a “reconciliation bill,” which means that Democrats will be prevented from filibustering. Ryan spoke at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday, but didn’t provide any further details.

This is an important step for many Republicans as conservatives have tried for years to completely defund Planned Parenthood because it offers abortions. But, the organization also offers education, birth control, breast cancer screenings, STD tests, and more. This move could prove a challenge for some more moderate Republicans who previously have voted against defunding the organization. Many people reacted strongly to the news:

Ryan says that defunding Planned Parenthood will be included in ACA repeal. Because, let’s take away healthcare from as many as possible.

— Dante Atkins (@DanteAtkins) January 5, 2017

Some pointed out that it’s not a question of cutting off direct federal funding to Planned Parenthood. “Defunding” Planned Parenthood means cutting off reimbursement for the care it provides people who rely on Medicaid–a hard blow for low-income people.

Please pay attention to what “defunding” Planned Parenthood means: refusing to reimburse for their care offered to poor folks. https://t.co/muci1CSAGb

— Sarah Seltzer (@sarahmseltzer) January 5, 2017

Planned Parenthood launched a campaign Thursday to counteract the effort, and has planned protests, letters, and other actions over the coming months.

There’s no line item in a budget that goes to Planned Parenthood — simply reimbursement for care rendered, like other health providers. pic.twitter.com/SaTIpE9PUh

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) January 5, 2017

The President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, said that it was no coincidence that the announcement came “the day after Vice President-elect Mike Pence, a long-time opponent of Planned Parenthood, held a closed-door meeting with Speaker Ryan and the Republican leadership.” If the bill passes, Planned Parenthood would lose about $400 million in Medicaid money in the first year, and it would cut off care access for 400,000 women, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

House Pro-Choice Caucus on why #ACA is essential for repro health care. Co-Chair @RepDianaDeGette at podium. pic.twitter.com/JFXPzJA3mq

— Christine Grimaldi (@chgrimaldi) January 5, 2017

Richards said:

Defunding Planned Parenthood is dangerous to people’s health, it’s unpopular, and it would leave people across the country without care. They cannot afford to have basic reproductive health care attacked. Planned Parenthood has been here for 100 years and we’re going to be here for 100 more.

Though conservative Republicans have fought Planned Parenthood for years, it seems like a majority of Americans view Planned Parenthood positively—59 percent according to a Gallup poll from 2015. President-elect Donald Trump himself has changed his opinion a couple of times. After saying that the organization has helped millions of women, he later encouraged efforts to defund it. He also used to call himself “very pro-choice,” but is now against abortion. What is certain, is that Democrats, Planned Parenthood and many, many women will not give up without a fight.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paul Ryan: The GOP Will Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

In two vastly different meetings on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans, led by President Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Mike Pence respectively, discussed the future of the Affordable Care Act. Pence and GOP lawmakers reaffirmed their commitment, and President-elect Donald Trump’s, to repeal and replace Obama’s top health care achievement. Obama and the Democrats doubled down on Obamacare’s bright spots, promising to not “rescue” Republicans by helping them to repeal the law. 

After the GOP meeting, which included Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), Pence told reporters that Americans “voted decisively for a better future for health care in this country,” and Republicans “are determined to give them that.” Pence said Trump, who promised to repeal and replace Obamacare during the campaign, will use his executive authority to reverse at least some of the law. Exactly what that replacement will look like is unclear.

What is crystal clear however, is the unified Republican resolve to gut Obamacare, a law that provides health coverage to about 20 million people. That process began on Wednesday, when the Senate voted 51-48 in support of a new budget blueprint that effectively clears the way for future legislation to repeal the law. Senate Republicans are expected to debate the budget proposal over the next few days. If the chamber officially accepts it, the House would then review the blueprint.

In a series of tweets on Thursday, Trump disparaged a potential Democratic ally with a nickname, criticized Obamacare, and called for a bi-partisan replacement plan. In one tweet, Trump called Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) the “head clown” of the Democrats’ opposition to a health care overhaul. In another tweet, Trump said Obamacare was a “lie from the beginning,” adding that both parties must “get together and come up with a healthcare plan that really works – much less expensive & FAR BETTER!”

As Republicans gathered to discuss repeal and replace, Democrats met with Obama for 90 minutes to prepare for the inevitable war on his signature achievement, and even hammered out marketing strategies for whatever future plan the Republicans propose. According to a White House aide present at the closed-door meeting, Obama suggested branding the Republican plan “Trumpcare.” After the meeting, Schumer, the Senate minority leader, said repealing the ACA would “make America sick again.”

He did not entirely shut down the possibility of working with the Republicans to craft a replacement. “If you are repealing, show us what you’ll replace it with first,” Schumer said. “Then we’ll look at what you have and see what we can do.” Ryan, a longtime critic of Obama’s health care law, assured those who are concerned they would lose coverage that there would be an “orderly transition.” He added: “the point is, in 2017, we don’t want people to be caught with nothing.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obamacare: Republicans and Democrats Lay Out Their Strategies appeared first on Law Street.

Hey there, welcome to the Thursday edition of RantCrush! There have only been five days in 2017 so far, but we’ve already seen a lot of viral law and policy stories. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Apparently, People DO Care About Obamacare

Republicans in Congress have long said that repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is one of their top priorities. But that doesn’t mean that all of their constituents necessarily agree. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) sent out a Twitter poll yesterday asking if Obamacare should be repealed, and the results likely weren’t what she expected.

Do you support the repeal of Obamacare? RT if you do, and share what you want to see as the replacement.

— Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) January 3, 2017

Respondents to the poll overwhelmingly said that they didn’t want an Obamacare repeal. And while Twitter polls are certainly not an accurate or representative way to gather information, other (legitimate) polls have indicated that most Americans don’t want to fully repeal the law. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll from December found that only 26 percent of Americans support a full repeal.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, President-elect Donald Trump made it clear that he still intends to “drain the swamp” of Washington, and House Republicans reluctantly acquiesced to his wishes by dropping a controversial ethics measure.

Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) proposed the measure on Monday, before the 115th Congress was sworn in, aimed at curtailing the power of the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog entity that investigates corruption in the House. But after a barrage of criticism from both parties, the media, and Trump (via a pair of tweets), GOP lawmakers withdrew the proposed changes.

Tuesday morning, before the new Congressional terms began, and after House Republicans adopted the measure by a 119-74 vote on Monday night, Trump voiced his disapproval of the move on Twitter:

With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2017

……..may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2017

In a meeting with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Representative Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the majority leader, the lawmakers decided to scrap the measure. Aides with knowledge of the closed-door meeting said a combination of pressure from Trump, the media, and lawmakers from both parties who opposed Goodlatte’s proposal (which included Ryan and McCarthy) led them to renege on the measure.

“House Republicans showed their true colors last night, and reversing their plans to destroy the Office of Congressional Ethics will not obscure their clear contempt for ethics in the People’s House,” Nancy Pelosi (R-CA), the minority leader, said in a statement. The Office of Congressional Ethics was formed as a check on House corruption under Pelosi’s leadership in 2008, when Democrats controlled the chamber.

Lawmakers from both parties have been indicted, with a handful sent to prison, as a result of investigations from the body. But lawmakers from both parties have also opposed its aggressive pursuit of complaints over the past few years, and its investigations that could cost lawmakers millions of dollars to deflect. After the Office of Congressional Ethics finds probable cause to investigate a lawmaker, the House Ethics Committee, which is staffed by lawmakers, decides to pursue a probe further.

The proposed changes would allow the Ethics Committee to shut down investigations by the independent Office of Congressional Ethics. House leadership and Trump, while agreeing the Office of Congressional Ethics needs reform, thought other GOP priorities–like overhauling the Affordable Care Act–took precedence over removing power from an independent body meant to root out corruption.

“After eight years of operation, many members believe the Office of Congressional Ethics is in need of reform to protect due process and ensure it is operating according to its stated mission,” Ryan, who opposed the proposal to gut the ethics office, said in a statement. “I want to make clear that this House will hold its members to the highest ethical standards and the Office will continue to operate independently to provide public accountability to Congress.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did House Republicans Withdraw Their Ethics Measure? appeared first on Law Street.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would fine lawmakers for photographing or recording events in the chamber, in what is likely a direct response to a June sit-in staged by Democrats. After the House cut the CSPAN video feed during the sit-in, which was a response to the House refusing to take up a gun-control bill, the Democratic lawmakers pulled out their phones, took photographs, and live streamed the protest on Periscope, garnering millions of views.

The new rules “will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people’s work,” Ryan’s  spokeswoman said in a statement. First violations will incur a $500 fine–deducted from the guilty lawmaker’s salary–and subsequent breaches will lead to a $2,500 fine. The next Congress will vote on the bill on January 3, and lawmakers from either party can propose amendments to the 34-page bill before that date.

Led by Georgia Representative John Lewis, a Democrat, the 25-hour sit-in was a response to Ryan’s refusal to allow a vote on gun control measures proposed after the Orlando nightclub shooting. While most happenings in the chamber are streamed by CSPAN, Ryan effectively shut off the cameras when he called for recess after Lewis and dozens of other lawmakers began the demonstration. To ensure the public still had a window into the chamber, the participants used their phones to live-stream the event, and CSPAN picked up the feed. The movement was referred to as #NoBillNoBreak on social media.

After Ryan, who received plenty of flack from GOP lawmakers after failing to respond to the sit-in, announced the bill, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), tweeted his reaction:

Dear @HouseGOP, you can fine me & @HouseDemocrats all the way into bankruptcy for #gunviolence sit-in, but we will always speak for victims.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) December 26, 2016

Some experts say that the rules could potentially violate Article 1 of the Constitution. Mike Stern, a former lawyer for the nonpartisan House counsel’s office, told Politico that the Constitution “gives the House the authority to discipline members; I have never heard of anything where an officer of the House was given that authority.” Rather than have fellow lawmakers handle disciplinary action, Ryan’s bill would grant the House Sergeant-at-Arms unilateral authority. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), responded by saying the bill’s language “appears to raise constitutional concerns.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Lawmakers May Be Fined if They Take Photographs in the Chamber appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday night’s presidential result shocked a whole lot of people in the U.S. and around the world; it stunned those that supported Donald Trump and especially those that supported Hillary Clinton. Shock and surprise, it seems, have also blotted out another equally important fact: Congress will remain red.

Republicans retaining their House majority hardly came as a surprise, but some pundits and polls (we know how accurate both can be) predicted control of the Senate to shift from Republicans to Democrats. That did not happen, and now the White House and Congress belong to the GOP, something that has not happened since 2007.

Heading into Tuesday, there were eight Senate races–out of 34 open seats–presumed to be tossups. From Nevada to Wisconsin, Illinois to North Carolina, Democrats and Republicans were expected to wage bruising battles that could flip either way. In the days preceding Election Day, polls in those eight states were split: Democrats were leading in four. Republicans were leading in four. However, by night’s end, seven of eight ended up in the Republican column, bringing their total number of seats to 51. Democrats control 47 seats. Races in New Hampshire and Louisiana are too close to call.

Democrats were hard pressed to find any good news Tuesday night, though there were some small victories: three states elected a woman of color to the Senate. Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat with Thai and Vietnamese ancestry beat Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois. Women of color, all Democrats, won in California and Nevada as well. Elsewhere in the Senate, Marco Rubio (R-FL) won a decisive re-election bid, which was an uphill battle considering his failed presidential run and his tenuous relationship with Trump.

Republicans will also retain control of the House, and not by a slim margin either: at least 239 seats will be red heading into next year, while 193 will be blue. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who in a speech on Wednesday said Trump now has a “mandate” to govern, held onto his district seat in Wisconsin. A few districts have yet to call a result. The 115th U.S. Congress will convene on January 3, roughly two weeks before Trump is set to take the oval office.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Election 2016: Republicans Retain Control of Congress appeared first on Law Street.

The presidential election will be rigged, Donald Trump has warned his supporters. He has suggested they man polling sites to screen for any fraud. It’s a charge Trump has been hurling for months, one that he is doubling down on, as election day nears and his poll numbers remain behind Hillary Clinton’s. On the Sunday talk shows, and in interviews with media outlets, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have countered Trump’s “rigged” rhetoric and sought to underscore the importance of trusting America’s democratic promise.

Trump’s latest missive came via Twitter on Sunday:

The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016

Representatives of both parties–including a number of Republican secretaries of state–have renounced Trump’s skepticism. “It is so irresponsible because what he’s doing really goes to the heart of our democracy,” Trey Grayson, a Republican and former secretary of state of Kentucky told The New York Times. “What is great about America is that we change our leaders at the ballot box, not by bullets.”

According to an Associated Press poll conducted earlier this month, some Trump supporters, and registered Republicans in general, are also wary of voter fraud. The survey found that of the Republicans who were polled, 49 percent believe there is a “great deal of fraud” in U.S. elections, while only 11 percent said there is “hardly any fraud.” Those percentages are considerably lower among Democrats: 22 percent think there is a a “great deal of fraud” in U.S. elections, and 36 percent said there is “hardly any fraud.”

Given that Republicans, according to the figures in the AP poll, seem to have less confidence in the coming election, Trump preemptively calling the presidential election “one big fix” and “one big, ugly lie,” could underscore that distrust. Trump’s running mate, Governor Mike Pence (R-IN), sent an assuring message on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, where he said he and Trump “will absolutely accept the result of the election.” Though he also called the election “rigged.”

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

So is there any truth to Trump’s voter fraud claims? Recent studies have shown no evidence to support widespread voter fraud, or even any amount of voter fraud that could sway an election any one way. One study examined 2,068 alleged-cases of voter fraud between 2000 and 2012, and found that only 10 of those were voter impersonation cases. Another analysis, conducted by a professor at Loyola Law School in 2014, found only 31 cases of voter impersonation in over one billion ballots cast in all elections (general, primary, special, and municipal) from 2000 to 2014.

Paul Ryan, who has ceased campaigning with Trump and has all but officially withdrawn his endorsement, is also at odds with his party’s torchbearer on this issue. A statement through his spokeswoman said: “Our democracy relies on confidence in election results, and the speaker is fully confident the states will carry out this election with integrity.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawmakers Seek to Restore Voter Confidence after Trump Tweets about “Rigged” Election appeared first on Law Street.

The Internet’s New Darling

After the debate, uncommitted voter and power plant operator Ken Bone from Illinois became an internet sensation. After asking the presidential nominees a question about their energy policies, he was suddenly all over the web thanks to his mild manners, cute mustache, and bright red sweater. The sweater in question actually sold out online.

BREAKING: The Ken Bone sweater has sold out pic.twitter.com/q9FnjeuNPa

— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) October 10, 2016

“Yesterday I had seven Twitter followers and two of them were my grandma,” he said about his very sudden rise to fame. He also said he was supposed to wear a green suit to the debate, but that since he gained some weight he ripped the pants when getting into his car and had to “move to plan B.”

via GIPHY

Ken actually said that he had leaned toward voting for Trump, but that Hillary’s answers and cool way of handling Trump’s personal attacks impressed him. But can’t we just vote for Bone for president?

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 11, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Without explicitly withdrawing his support for his party’s presidential candidate, Donald Trump, Paul Ryan instructed House members on Monday to shift their focus to their own races. “You all need to do what’s best for you in your district,” Ryan said in a conference call with House lawmakers, according to an anonymous member on the call.

In light of a video from 2005 that emerged last week in which Trump made crass remarks regarding women, the Speaker of the House also said he will not defend Trump moving forward, nor will he campaign with him, according to lawmakers and congressional staff.

According to the anonymous source who participated in the call, Ryan said he was “willing to endure political pressure to help protect our majority.” He expressed, with urgency, the need to prevent Hillary Clinton from governing with a Democrat-controlled Congress. With many Senate and House seats up for grabs in November, Ryan wishes for his party to focus on maintaining their majority in the Senate, a rockier prospect than holding on to the House, where the GOP holds a 246 to 186 advantage.

Before Sunday night’s debate, and following the release of the damaging 2005 video, Republican politicians reneged on their support of Trump, the most notable of which was Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Rumors began to spread that Trump’s running mate, Governor Mike Pence (R-IN), would drop himself from the ticket. Pence clarified his position on Monday: “This is a choice between two futures,” he said in an interview on CNN. “I’m honored to be standing with him.”

After the House conference call on Monday, Ryan’s support is murkier. His office did deny that he is ceding the race to Clinton, however. Pro-Trump House members felt Ryan was doing just that; some called Ryan and other conservatives who have disavowed Trump “cowards.”

Ryan, it seems, is aiming for the best of both worlds: distancing himself and his party from the tarnish of Trump, while not abandoning him entirely, perhaps in the hopes his supporters will remain loyal to the party. How that strategy will turn out remains to be seen. It could be a cold winter for Paul Ryan.

For more of Law Street’s debate coverage, head over here.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paul Ryan Shifts Focus to Congress, Won’t Defend Donald Trump Anymore appeared first on Law Street.

A new detail has been drudged up regarding the January prisoner swap between the United States and Iran: as the U.S. hostages boarded their planes, $400 million dollars–divvied into euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currencies–was passed to the Iranians. The cash drop, reported on Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal, drew ire from Republicans opposed to the Iran deal–in which the U.S. lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for reduced nuclear capacity and increased tolerance for outside inspectors–and used it as evidence of why President Obama’s diplomatic handshake with Iran is ill-advised.

“This report makes plain what the administration can no longer deny: this was a ransom payment to Iran for U.S. hostages,” said Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cautioned those who were gnashing their teeth at the report–which he said was still unconfirmed–but said if true, amounted to “another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people to sell this dangerous nuclear deal.”

Obama administration sent plan load of cash to #Iran as ransom as part of deal on hostages. Just unreal. https://t.co/UHfdK4BEyN

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) August 3, 2016

The $400 million cash delivery also reportedly included $1.3 billion in accrued interest. The money dates back to the 1970s, according to U.S. officials involved in the transfer. They said it was a belated return of funds Iran paid for U.S. weapons before the 1979 revolution. At some point during the seventies, Iran paid $400 million for a cache of weapons, but the Iranian government was overthrown by revolutionaries in 1979, and American hostages were taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The weapons deal never went through. But the U.S.–until January 2016–had yet to return the $400 million to Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday defended the cash drop, saying it “saved the American taxpayers potentially billions of dollars.” He added: “There was no benefit to the United States of America to drag this out.”

January’s exchange was primarily a prisoner swap. Iran held five hostages–including a Washington Post journalist, a marine veteran and a Christian pastor–and the U.S. held seven Iranians, six of whom have dual U.S. citizenship. All of those men were held, some already convicted, others awaiting trial, on charges of exporting activities that violated sanctions in place on Iran. All were released in exchange for the U.S. prisoners.

But the timing of the cash drop, which happened at the same time as the prisoner exchange, and as the Iran nuclear deal was being finalized, was enough to prompt outrage from congressional Republicans and a fresh round of tweets from Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, who implicated Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent:

Our incompetent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was the one who started talks to give 400 million dollars, in cash, to Iran. Scandal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 3, 2016

The White House refuted the ransom claims, and portrayed the Republican backlash as no more than an attempt to justify their position against the Iran nuclear deal. John Earnest, White House press secretary, said the Republican response was “an indication of just how badly opponents of the Iran deal are struggling to justify their opposition to a successful deal.” He also reiterated the U.S. policy to not engage in ransom exchanges, adding: “Let me be clear, the United States does not pay ransom for hostages.”

But, what is the official policy regarding securing U.S. hostages?

In June 2015, President Obama announced an executive order that clarified the language on assisting families in negotiating with terrorists who might harbor their loved one. Obama’s order created a new team based at FBI headquarters called the Hostage Response Team, but said the U.S. “will not make concessions, such as paying ransom, to terrorist groups holding American hostages.” Instead, the new team would be “responsible for ensuring that our hostage policies are consistent and coordinated and implemented rapidly and effectively.”

The executive order was designed to shape the rules regarding negotiating with terrorist groups. And while Iran is known to fund terrorist groups, it is a functioning government state. It’s unclear whether the Obama administration’s stance extends to governments, but on Thursday Kerry seemed to insinuate the policy applies to every hostage-taking body: “The United States does not pay ransom and does not negotiate ransoms,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Pays Iran $400 Million: Ransom or Routine? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

#OhioAgainstHate Trends Ahead of the Republican Convention

In response to the RNC and the seemingly imminent nomination of Donald Trump, Ohioan volunteers canvassed their neighborhoods to spread a simple message: #OhioAgainstHate. 

Former Ohio State Sen. @ninaturner explains why #OhioAgainstHate is important to Ohioans. #UnitedAgainstHatepic.twitter.com/FazhRjHBxp

— MoveOn.org (@MoveOn) July 16, 2016

The movement also comes in anticipation of violence and protests at the convention, and the hope that Ohioans and RNC visitors will remain peaceful.

Cleveland welcomes all guests to the #ClevelandRNC but please…respect our city, our people, our officers, our HOME. #OhioAgainstHate

— Kate Mervine (@gil8282) July 16, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 18, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The Tenors Crash ‘O Canada’ With “All Lives Matter” Lyrics

A member of the quartet singing group, The Tenors, decided it was a good idea to change up the lyrics to the Canadian national anthem at the MLB All-Star game in San Diego.

Correction: The Tenors altered O Canada lyrics in support of All Lives Matter. pic.twitter.com/Q0i6qqLB4Y

— Bill Cooney (@BillCooney) July 13, 2016

Awkward, right? Social media immediately lashed out against the obvious political act and the group has since issued a statement apologizing. An update revealed that the All Lives Matter singer acted alone. All Lives Matter is now said to be a countermovement working against Black Lives Matter. Sigh.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Georgia Representative John Lewis (D-Georgia) is currently leading a sit in on the House floor. Lewis is joined by dozens of other Democratic congressmen in a movement now dubbed #NoBillNoBreak, and they’re all vowing to stay seated on the House floor until the GOP allows a vote on gun control measures.

The sit in began after Lewis, a civil rights leader, delivered a fiery speech on gun control, saying:

For months, even for years, through seven sessions of Congress, I wondered, what would bring this body to take action? “We have lost hundreds and thousands of innocent people to gun violence. Tiny little children. Babies. Students. And teachers. Mother and fathers. Sisters and brothers. Daughters and sons. Friends and neighbors. And what has this body done? Mr. Speaker, not one thing.

Then, he took a seat on the floor, and was immediately joined by many of his colleagues.

Unlike so many events that take place on Capitol Hill, footage of the sit-in isn’t being streamed by C-Span’s cameras. Republicans in the House called a recess, essentially shutting off the cameras’ views into the protest. But thanks to social media we still know what’s going on–here are some scenes from the floor:

Time to occupy the House to demand action. #NoBillNoBreak #DisarmHate pic.twitter.com/C7BZpzNvxL

— Rep Donna F Edwards (@repdonnaedwards) June 22, 2016

You won’t see us on CSPAN but we are still here. #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/44HOBT25WQ

— Janice Hahn (@Rep_JaniceHahn) June 22, 2016

Proud to sit with @RepJoeCourtney and others demanding action. #GoodTrouble #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/SNMWlQ0ZfZ

— Rep. John Yarmuth (@RepJohnYarmuth) June 22, 2016

We’ve had almost all if not all of @HouseDemocrats. Currently @ least 3/4 of Caucus & many Senators. #NoBillNoBreakpic.twitter.com/70zlL8edLv

— Rep Donna F Edwards (@repdonnaedwards) June 22, 2016

One house member, Representative Scott Peters, is streaming the sit in live through periscope. 

There’s also been an outpouring of support on social media from other politicians, organizations, and individuals: 

Change only happens when people come together to say the status quo is unacceptable. We stand with you @HouseDemocrats. #NoBillNoBreak

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 22, 2016

I stand with those who Sit-In for gun control. #NoBillNoBreak #Enough

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) June 22, 2016

.@SenatorBoxer just arrived with granola bars. #NoBillNoBreak

— Tina Dupuy (@TinaDupuy) June 22, 2016

So I’m meeting with @keithellison. His scheduler walks in and hands him this note. Meeting ends #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/JwnusZKZuo

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) June 22, 2016

Keep going @HouseDemocrats ! No parent should have a grave site for a child. #NoBillNoBreak#DisarmHatepic.twitter.com/jTAomUHQRE

— Nelba Márquez-Greene (@apricotmamiof2) June 22, 2016

Lewis’s sit in comes just a week after Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) filibustered for a vote on a number of different gun control measures. Those measures were rejected by the Senate on Monday. But Lewis, and his fellow House Democrats, are showing that this fight isn’t over. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #NoBillNoBreak Sit in Started by House Democrats appeared first on Law Street.

It is no large secret that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has had a tumultuous relationship with the issues of poverty and welfare: referring to the “culture problem” of “inner cities,” claiming America is divided into “makers” and “takers,” and making more controversial statements within the last few years.

But following a speech in March 2016 where he apologized for the hateful rhetoric, poverty has become one of his premier issues, especially as he revealed the first part of the House Republican policy brief A Better Way on Tuesday.

The 35-page brief has a simple and not particularly harmful premise; by embracing community-oriented solutions, encouraging work, and customizing welfare services, more individuals in poverty will be able to achieve social mobility. However, in these 35 pages, Ryan offers few policy solutions, poor research, and repackages Republican cut-back proposals under the guise of being “good” for impoverished people in America.

While the proposal includes what is expected of a House Republican brief on poverty–cutting and consolidating welfare programs, blocking grants to states, and tightening work requirements for welfare recipients–the sheer lack of quality research and policy proposals is underwhelming.

Though Ryan has no problem citing sources and statistics on such imperative topics as whether or not Americans believe welfare recipients should have to work, the brief states–without statistics or sources–that “recent data suggests many (SNAP recipients) are not working or preparing for work” and that “recent reports from independent government watchdogs reveal that welfare benefits are often paid to people who are not eligible.”

Poor research aside, let us not forget that House Republicans abhor bureaucracy, but only when it’s inconvenient to their goals. The brief relies heavily on the Work Participation Rate (WPR) as the measurement of TANF success. This is innately unsuccessful because it doesn’t differentiate between states with low WPRs and states where social service workers do not accurately and attentively track WPR. Thus, Ryan’s recommendation to require states to “engage TANF recipients in work” is largely a move to better document and regulate work involvement, despite persistent anti-bureaucracy sentiments throughout the brief.  

While this may be one of the most jarring contradictions Ryan offers, rest assured that it is not the only one. In a paragraph on strengthening higher education, he criticizes the strict academic-year timeline Pell Grant recipients are forced to take and proceeds to call the Pell Grant program unsustainable due to expansion.

Despite Ryan’s vague language, his attempts to criticize efforts such as the fiduciary rule–a Department of Labor proposal which would require retirement advisers to prioritize their clients’ best interests over profit–as well as the CFPB’s regulation of payday loans which have historically placed impoverished people in long-term debt traps, are quickly revealed as partisan interests snuck into a brief on “opportunity” for impoverished people in America.

In a more holistic way, the entirety of this brief is contradictory. Ryan espouses at one point that “this ‘spend more’ approach invests taxpayer dollars in bureaucratic programs without addressing the root cause of poverty.” However, in the brief, Ryan never assesses the root cause of poverty; to do so would invalidate his proposals to cut programs that help vulnerable people receive food and housing, and meet other basic human needs.

Ryan does seem to acknowledge that poverty extends beyond income poverty–that poverty is a culmination of societal forces suppressing social mobility. He is misled, though, in suggesting that services and work requirements can replace financial assistance. Strong community services and work enforcements alone do not feed people, do not pay the rent for their apartments, and to deny cash assistance is to be in denial of what poverty comes down to: not having the money and bargaining power in society to protect and empower oneself.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Ode to Paul Ryan’s Anti-Poverty Brief Mishap appeared first on Law Street.

As Donald Trump continues his rise in the presidential election–from a businessman joking about running for president to the man who will almost certainly be the Republican Party nominee–several Republican leaders have had to decide whether or not they are going to suck it up and support him. While some Republicans have refused to support Trump or have withdrawn their endorsements because of his repeatedly racist rhetoric, many leaders have given him their political blessing as it has become apparent that he is all they have left.

In the beginning, there was obvious hesitation to support trump. Around a month ago, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and highest ranking GOP official, was nowhere near willing to commit to the Donald Trump bandwagon. Ryan had slammed Trump for his plan to ban Muslims from entering the country, pointing out the plan’s unconstitutionality and inherent lack of conservatism. And when Trump refused to disavow David Duke in February, Ryan responded by saying,

If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices.

It seems that Ryan and others have decided to weaken the Republican Party stance on bigotry, however, as several party leaders have now readily accepted Trump as their nominee, brushing off his inappropriate behavior and rhetoric as accidental.

A recent example of this hypocrisy? This week Trump has been under fire for inherently racist comments against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an attack add, Hillary Clinton’s campaign capitalized on Trump’s statement and some Republican Party members’ decision to speak out against him.

The video shows clips of Trump’s racist interview claims that Judge Curiel could not fairly judge his case because of his Mexican heritage. His statements are then followed by different clips of prominent Republicans disapproving of his racist claims.

Paul Ryan admitted that Trump’s statements were textbook examples of racism and that he regretted the comments. Mitch McConnell criticized Trump’s statements as stupid inappropriate. Newt Gingrich labeled the comments inexcusable and Trump an amateur. But, while these Republican leaders are disavowing Trump’s remarks on TV or in the news, the sad thing is they and the rest of the party are continuing to support him nonetheless. Party leaders have repeatedly acknowledged Trump’s blatant bigotry, inappropriate rhetoric, and repeated racism, but they still stand behind him and continue pushing for him to be our next President.

At best, Republican support of Donald Trump is some kind of misguided attempt to hold the party together. At worst, the support is grounded in a firm belief in Trump’s plan to destroy all racial diversity and cultural variety in America. GOP leaders need to wake up and realize that the remarks that Donald Trump keeps making on air and in interviews, time and time again, aren’t just silly mistakes–they are who he is. And, then, if party leaders really want to put the force of their party behind the bigoted monster Trump has become (or has always been), they need to accept the consequences that decision will have for their future as a political party and our future as Americans.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Republican Party Leaders Acknowledge They’re Backing a Racist appeared first on Law Street.

His Republican opponents have faded away. His party has largely–if hesitantly–embraced him, including the top elected Republican, Paul Ryan. A fall showdown with Hillary Clinton seems inevitable at this point. But Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee who has promised his “presidential” side would appear come general election season, has, if anything, intensified his divisive rhetoric. He has doubled down on his controversial remarks from the primary campaign, and rebuffed advice from Republican statesmen who urged him to cultivate a more diplomatic image.

The popular narrative is that Trump’s true backers hardly care how “presidential” he acts, and if anything, they appreciate his bluster and perpetual flame fanning, as these behaviors affirm his outsider status. But what about voters who are on the fence about who to vote for in the coming general contest? What about those who are open to Trump, but only if he proves he can be a unifier, if he shifts his tone? How will they feel about the fact that Trump questioned a federal judge’s neutrality due to the judge “being Mexican” (he’s not–he was born in Indiana) last week and offered a similar analysis of Muslim judges over the weekend? He has made no efforts–at least in public appearances–to act the part of stately negotiator.

Rank and file Republicans–as well as members at the top of the party–have publicly rebuked Trump’s refusal to polish his speech and act like the part he is auditioning for.

“This is no longer the primaries. He’s no longer an interesting contender. He is now the potential leader of the United States and he’s got to move his game up to the level of being a potential leader,” Newt Gingrich said on “Fox News Sunday.” On Monday, Trump called Gingrich’s comments “inappropriate.”

“I think that he’s going to have to change,” said Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) on ABC’s “This Week.” Corker and Gingrich have both been mentioned as potential running mates for Trump. 

Behind the scenes, through closed door meetings when cameras are not rolling and the public is not watching, Trump has made some strides to unite his party. Most recently, after weeks of deliberation, Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, endorsed Trump, albeit more as a vote for the Republican party than the man leading the way. But in the eye of the public, where images are shaped, absorbed, and chiseled into the 24-hour news cycle, Trump has shown little effort to craft his image to appeal to a wider audience.

At a campaign rally in California on Friday, Trump sought to validate his support among blacks by singling out a man in the crowd. “Look at my African-American over here,” Trump said. That man, Gregory Cheadle, was not offended by the remark, even though he is not a Trump supporter, but an undecided voter who was there because “I have an open mind.” But these are questions for the rest of America, voters who receive his image through television appearances and soundbites–how will they perceive such episodes, and how might that affirm or alter their opinions of him?

Last week, at a news conference at the shimmering Trump Tower in New York, Trump essentially answered the question of how he intends to push forward through the summer and into the fall: “I’m not changing.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As General Election Nears, Trump’s “Presidential Side” Still Nowhere To Be Seen appeared first on Law Street.

An already divided Republican Party saw another big name choosing sides between the presumptive party flag bearer Donald Trump and his reluctant new adversary, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

Former Alaskan governor and GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin took to Facebook on Sunday to jab at Ryan, endorsing his opponent for the Wisconsin 1st Congressional District primary in August.

“Rep. Paul Ryan abandoned the district he was to represent as special interests dictated his legislative priorities. Without ever having a real job outside of politics, it seems he disconnected himself from the people, thus easily disrespected the will of the people. It’s time for a change,” she wrote, throwing her support behind businessman Paul Nehlen instead of House Speaker Ryan.

Palin told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday she thinks Ryan will be “Cantored”, in a reference to Eric Cantor, the former House Majority leader who was ousted from that position in a shocking upset in 2014.

In a surprising dissent from nearly a century of Speakers’ supporting presumptive presidential nominees, Ryan stopped short of backing Trump last week, which set off a bit of a feud between the two men. Inaction to unite the Republican party by Trump is what Ryan cited as the reason for his reluctance.

Palin endorsed Trump at a campaign rally in Iowa in January, which explains her taking umbrage at Ryan’s refusal to do the same.

For now, at least, Ryan remains at an impasse in supporting a man with whom he has significant ideological disagreements. As of Monday morning, however, tensions appeared to thaw a bit when Trump distanced himself from Palin’s decision to endorse Ryan’s primary challenger. For his part, Ryan deferred to Trump’s claim that he could unseat him as chairman of the Republican National Convention, telling a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist he would do what he was asked.

A closed door meeting between Trump, Ryan, and other GOP leaders is set for Thursday in Washington. Whether that leads to an endorsement from Ryan remains to be seen, though it would be a positive development for a party being split apart by internecine, seemingly daily conflicts.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Paul Ryan Be ‘Cantored’? Sarah Palin Thinks So appeared first on Law Street.

Good news everyone! In case you were worried or concerned (although, honestly, with this year’s presidential candidate pool, who isn’t concerned?) Paul Ryan has made it very clear that he will not be running for president. That’s right. You’ve heard it correctly. Paul Ryan will not be the next President of the United States, so don’t even think about voting for him.

In a weird press conference last week, Ryan announced his lack of desire for the presidential nomination and his refusal to accept the nomination if it comes down to that. Check out his refusal at the 30 second mark:

He made it very clear in this video that he does not want the delegates nominating him and that he believes only candidates who ran in the primaries should be considered by those delegates, should the nomination decision go to convention this July. “I should not be considered. Period. End of story,” Ryan says affirmatively, before he proceeds to again emphatically state that he is “not going to be our party’s [the republican party’s] nominee.” It’s okay Paul! Calm down! No one is going to force you to be president if you don’t want to be, buddy!

Why was Ryan being so oddly repetitive and assertive as he announced his non-candidacy for president? Well, if we think back to last fall, Ryan pulled the same stunt when there were rumors flying around of him stepping into John Boehner’s role as Speaker of the House. Time after time, Ryan denied any desire to be the Speaker. There was even Twitter evidence that Ryan was dead set on not accepting the Speaker position.

Ryan spox to NBC News: "Chairman Ryan appreciates the support he's getting from his colleagues but is still not running for Speaker."

— Alex Moe (@AlexNBCNews) October 9, 2015

And, what happened in that situation? Less than a month later, Ryan flopped and stepped into his new role as Speaker of the House, despite numerous attempts to convince the public he really did not want the job.

This sudden change in heart last fall makes it hard to believe Ryan’s current media pleas, no matter how earnest and heartfelt they seem. But, don’t worry America, not too many people are falling for this shenanigan Ryan has pulled–even “SNL” called Ryan out on his nonsense in a skit that parodied his not a campaign announcement.

This “anti-campaign ad,” which features Taran Killam as Paul Ryan, hams up Ryan’s not running for president shtick. What starts as Ryan claiming he will not be America’s next president, under any circumstances, quickly transforms into what is essentially a campaign ad. This hilarious spoof directly mirrors Ryan’s “not running” campaign announcement, where he began by claiming he wasn’t running and then basically gave a presidential campaign speech immediately following the announcement. It’s a brilliant example of why satire and parody really are the best kinds of humor.

Will he be the nominee? Won’t he be the nominee? It really is too hard to tell in the midst of Ryan’s broken “not running” promises and confusing not campaigning announcements. The one thing that is certain, is that the Republicans are gearing up for a Convention nominee because it’s looking like that’s what the end of the Republican race will require. And, even though Paul Ryan is “not running,” I think we all know he could be just what this country needs after months and months of watching the zodiac killer (read: Ted Cruz) and America’s biggest bully (read: Donald Trump) duking it out.

So, anyways, we get it Paul! You’re not running for president just like we’re all not voting for you and not sick of the rest of the Republican presidential candidates. Your secret is safe with us.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Paul Ryan is Not, Under any Circumstances, Running for President appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s sort-of second Super Tuesday led to even more of a mess for the GOP than I think anyone thought possible just a few months ago. As of last night, Marco Rubio has officially bowed out of the race. Donald Trump is certainly doing well, but he hasn’t quite locked up the nomination yet. And John Kasich’s win in his home state of Ohio means that he’s still holding on. Then, with the chance that there’s a brokered convention, literally anything could happen at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this summer. So…who’s still left in the race for the GOP nomination, and what’s next?

Donald Trump

Trump is, quite obviously, the man to beat. Trump is the only Republican candidate left in the race who has a realistic path to the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination before the convention–he currently has 646. While Kasich’s win in Ohio denied Trump 66 delegates, which certainly makes that path harder,  Trump is still in an enviable position.

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz is still in it, with 397 delegates. He’s positing himself as the only one who can beat Trump, and is seemingly trying to push Kasich out of the race to scoop some of those “absolutely never voting for Trump under any circumstances” voters. He’s also claiming that he’ll do well in closed-primary states that are coming up, where only pre-registered Republicans can vote. We’ll have to see if now that the field has narrowed a bit if Cruz can make good on those promises.

John Kasich

John Kasich somehow managed to stay alive last night by winning his home state, Ohio. However, Cruz and Trump are both promising that their delegate counts will keep him out of the convention. But Kasich may still see some room for himself at a contested convention. As Politico’s Kyle Cheney put it:

Kasich’s campaign foreshadowed its plans for a convention brawl late Tuesday, naming Stu Spencer and Charlie Black — two veterans of the last contested convention, the 1976 fight between President Gerald Ford and an insurgent Ronald Reagan — to his national strategy team.

Paul Ryan? Jeb! Bush?

With the prospect of a contested convention, there’s always the chance that another contender sneaks up through the side. In this case, all eyes would appear to be on current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Former Speaker John Boehner has stated:

If we get to the convention and we don’t have a nominee that can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above. They all ran, they all had a chance to win, none of them won, so I’m for none of the above.

Ryan himself doesn’t seem particularly in favor of the concept, but it sounds like he hasn’t totally ruled it out, either. He told CNBC:

You know, I haven’t given any thought to this stuff. People say, ‘What about the contested convention?’ I say, well, there are a lot of people running for president. We’ll see. Who knows?

Then there are people who say that Jeb! Bush could make a comeback at a convention, at least according to Rush Limbaugh.

The Ghost of Ronald Reagan?

Honestly, at this point, it may be one of the more plausible and palatable options.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Could Still End Up with the GOP Nomination? appeared first on Law Street.

First, Donald Trump wanted to ban Mexicans. “Build a wall” he said, and make the Mexican government pay for it. And despite the long list of inherent problems with said plan, a large number of people rejoiced at this supposed fix for America’s “immigration problem.”

Now, Trump has moved on from just banning nationalities and has opted for religions as well. On Monday, the current leader in the race for the Republican presidential nomination voiced that he would call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” until we can “figure out what’s going on.” That’s right folks, all Muslims. 

Watch Trump’s Comments Below

These seemingly unconstitutional comments marked a swift change from Trump’s usual anti-Muslim rhetoric, quickly distancing the mogul from his GOP counterparts. Now politicians, celebrities, and entire countries are coming out in droves to denounce Trump’s statements and even ban him from certain parts of the globe.

People for Banning Trump

Several American mayors have begun voicing the desire to ban Trump from entering their respective cities–despite having no legal power to actually do so. St. Petersburg, Florida’s Mayor Rick Kriseman announced the decree on Twitter and Sunnyvale, California’s Mayor Jim Griffith quickly followed suit. Kriseman told NBC News on Tuesday that he felt Trump’s statement deserved an equally “ridiculous” response.

I am hereby barring Donald Trump from entering St. Petersburg until we fully understand the dangerous threat posed by all Trumps.

— Rick Kriseman (@Kriseman) December 8, 2015

Ya know, I think Mayor Kriseman is on to something here… https://t.co/txdhBwBlFS — Mayor Jim Griffith (@JimGriffith_SV) December 8, 2015

It’s not just Americans hoping to ban Trump. As of this afternoon, a petition to prohibit Trump from entering the UK has reached 200,000 signatures and is climbing. The petition first went up on Parliament’s website Tuesday, and only needed 100,000 signatures in order to be automatically considered for debate in Parliament.

The GOP Takes a Stand

Many in the Republican Party wasted no time informing the public that Trump’s statement was not indicative of the party as whole. Speaker Paul Ryan was praised after holding a press conference where he simply stated “this is not conservatism.” Fellow presidential hopefuls Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich also called the proposal “unhinged,” “offensive,” and “outrageous” on social media.

Donald Trump is unhinged. His “policy” proposals are not serious.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 7, 2015

I disagree with Donald Trump’s latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 8, 2015

pic.twitter.com/noMfFeL3vq

— John Kasich (@JohnKasich) December 7, 2015

Emotional Response

New York Daily News took a more emotionally charged stance on the offensive proposal in the form of a political cartoon comparing Trump to Hitler on Wednesday’s cover. The cartoon was modeled after Pastor Martin Niemöller famous poem, “First They Came,” and drew similarities to Nazi Germany.

Today’s @NYDailyNews cover accompanied by an emotional guest column about @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Ue4IXx97gr pic.twitter.com/X9xLdSlaYG — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) December 9, 2015

The Downright Hilarious

However, J.K. Rowling proved she is the master of all things Twitter yet again, with one single tweet that perfectly captured what everyone else was thinking.

How horrible. Voldemort was nowhere near as bad. https://t.co/hFO0XmOpPH — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) December 8, 2015

Even though politicians, countries, and celebrities are strongly against Trump becoming the next president of the United States, a large portion of America still seems to love him. It appears that the more outrageous the statement, the better Trump polls, and his ability to capture the approval of non-traditional voters has proved he’s more than just a sideshow, he’s an actual contender. But will people finally say “enough is enough” when Trump starts condemning more nationalities, ethnic groups, and religions?

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Reactions to Trump’s Idiotic Plan to Block Muslims From Entering U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

The Social Security program was enacted in 1935 to provide post-retirement income security for workers and their families. Since then, it has grown to become the world’s largest government program with a total expenditure of $768 billion in fiscal year 2012. Americans are seriously concerned about the sustainability of Social Security, which has led to questions about whether privatizing the system could be wise. Read on to learn about Social Security privatization efforts, and the arguments for and against such a move.

The Current Status of Social Security

Social Security isn’t in great shape right now. Various reports have estimated different dates at which the entitlement program may have difficulty paying out full benefits to those who should receive them, but the current most cited year is 2033. One of the big reasons for why Social Security is in big trouble is because of our changing demographics and health statistics. When Social Security was first introduced pre-World War II, people did not live nearly as long as they do today. In addition, the post-World War II Baby Boom led to a glut in our population size. Social Security’s forecasting methods weren’t able to accurately predict the situation we’re in now, where there are many healthy people retiring who will live longer than ever before. To put this into context, in 1960, there were about 5.1 workers paying into the system for every retiree; now the ratio has shifted to under 3:1.

What does “privatizing” Social Security mean?

Given Social Security’s current state, there have been solutions suggested to try to fix it. One of the most popular is privatizing the system. That would most likely mean creating individual private accounts for the workers. Those private accounts will be subject to more control by those who are paying in, and would be able to interact with the private market. The funds could be invested in things like private stocks, which advocates point out would boost workers’ rate of return.

The proposition of its privatization came into the limelight when George W. Bush proposed the Growing Real Ownership of Workers Act of 2005. The bill aimed at replacing the mandatory payouts from workers’ checks with voluntary personal retirement accounts. In 2010, Paul Ryan, a major supporter of privatization, attempted unsuccessfully to reignite interest in the idea in his Roadmap for America’s Future budget plan.

What are the arguments for privatization?

Proponents of privatization argue that the current program significantly burdens fiscal debt and will lead to increased debt and taxes for future generations. They claim that privatizing it will keep the program from collapsing in the future. It would actually lead to higher post-retirement earnings for workers or, at the very least, keep earnings at a relatively stable rate. Additionally, it would empower workers to be responsible for their own future.

Advocates for privatizing social security also point out that in the past, funds in Social Security have been diverted to pay for other things the government has needed to pay for, and then replaced in time. If Social Security was privatized into individual accounts, the government wouldn’t be able to take such actions. According those who want to privatize Social Security, doing so would also help minimize the bureaucracy involved in the process.

Case Study: Chile

Chile’s post-privatization success is used as an example that the United States can learn from. Chile transferred to a new program in which  workers put 10-20 percent of their incomes into private pension funds. When the worker retires, an insurance company gets involved to help with the dispensation of money, but even at that step the Chilean worker has a lot of choice and flexibility. Although long term effects of the plan have yet to be discovered, the short term effects are positive.

What’s the argument against privatizing the Social Security system?

Opponents worry that privatizing social security will lead to risk and instability in post-retirement earnings and cause significant reductions in the same. They argue that privatization can also potentially place minorities at a disadvantage, as well as anyone who doesn’t have the time, knowledge, or desire to effectively manage their account. Many also claim that the media has exaggerated the program’s financial demise and that its balance is currently in surplus with most Baby Boomers currently in the workforce.

Those who argue against Social Security privatization have also expressed concern about the financial and logistical resources that would be needed to start a privatized Social Security program. They also believe that a move toward privatization would create more, not less bureaucracy, because of the complexity of private markets. Several groups and individuals, such as the Center for American Progress and economist Robert Barro oppose the idea.

Conclusion

It’s no secret that Social Security is currently struggling, and if something is not done, it will continue only get worse. There’s no easy answer, but privatization is one frequently suggested option in the public debate. Exactly how privatization would occur, what its benefits and downsides would be, and its overall effectiveness are still up for debate, but for now it’s definitely an idea that we can expect to see on the list of possible solutions for the foreseeable future.

Resources

Primary 

Social Security Administration: A Program and Policy History

Social Security Administration: The Social Security Act of 1935

Social Security Administration: Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2012

Social Security Administration: The 2013 Annual Report of the Broad of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds

Social Security Association: Privatizing Social Security: The Chilean Experience

Additional 

Daily Signal: Social Security’s Unfunded Obligation Rises by $1 Trillion

CATO: Still a Better Deal: Private Investment vs. Social Security

Safe Haven: Privatize Social Security Before I Spend Your Pension

Sun Sentinal: Privatization Would Help But Liberals Resist Changes

Independent: Privatizing Social Security the Right Way

Freedom Works: Chilean Model of Social Security

NCPSSM: The Truth About Privatization and Social Security

Economic Policy Institute Report: Saving Social Security With Stocks: The Promises Don’t Add Up

Fortune: Privatizing Social Security: Still a Dumb Idea

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: What the 2013 Trustees’ Report Shows About Social Security

CATO: Speaking the Truth About Social Security Reform

AARP: In Brief: Social Security Privatization Around the World

National Bureau of Economic Research: Social Security Privatization: A Structure for Analysis

NEA: Social Security Privatization: A Bad Deal for Women

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Social Security Privatization Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The amount of prison time doled out by courts to perpetrators of non-violent, drug crimes are often excessively severe, sometimes more than 100 years in prison. In one particular case, a man was sentenced to a lifetime behind bars for possessing a bag with traces of cocaine. In another case, a man with no prior record is now serving a 25-year prison term for selling his pain pills to an undercover informant. These two individuals are just a few of the many serving years in prison due to harsh mandatory sentencing laws.

Keeping non violent criminals incarcerated for decades leads to overcrowded conditions and billions of taxpayer dollars. The mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses have led to prisons vastly exceeding their maximum capacity. The United States has seen a 500 percent increase in the number of inmates in federal custody over the last 30 years.

The goal of these harsh laws is to deter would-be criminals from committing crimes when they realize that they could spend for the rest of their lives behind bars. This plan sounds good in theory, but has failed in practice. Hosting them is not cheap; it costs around $50,000 to keep one person in prison for one year in California alone. Although America has only five percent of the world’s population, it hosts 25 percent of the world’s prison inmates.

The issue of overcrowded prisons is alarmingly prominent in the United States, as other countries have adopted more effective means of dealing with individuals who commit minor offenses. For example, in 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, and since then many countries around the world have followed suit. Drug users in Portugal are also provided with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute found that in the five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers declined, the rate of HIV infections transmitted via drug use dropped, deaths related to hard drugs were cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction doubled.

Finally, the United States has realized the gravity of the situation and decided to take action. Recently, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin and Senator Mike Lee introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act to reduce the number of harsh drug sentencing policies in the United States. Essentially, the goal of the Smarter Sentencing Act is to reserve the use of federal resources for the offenders of the most serious crimes. Lawmakers supporting this bill hope that it will cause judges to use less harsh punishments such as community service or drug therapy. Making these changes could save taxpayers billions in the first years of enactment alone.

Specifically, the Smarter Sentencing Act would amend the federal criminal code so that defendants without prior record who did not commit a violent crime receive a less severe sentence. The bill also aims to reduce the chance that prisons reach their maximum capacities and lower prison housing costs.

How would the Smarter Sentencing Act impact current laws?

Under current guidelines, a first-time drug offense involving at least 10 but not more than 20 grams of methamphetamine has a recommended sentence range of 27-33 months. Under the new guidelines, the same quantity of methamphetamine would have a sentence range for a first-time offense of 21-27 months.

Attorney General Eric Holder is urging lawmakers to fast track a solution to this problem, stating that “this over-reliance on incarceration is not just financially unsustainable. It comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.”

Because Democrats and Republicans agree that the extreme sentencing problem is a serious one, prospects are good that this bill has a chance for success. Both parties more or less concede that there is a problem when looking at the prison system in the United States. Former Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan is one of the prominent conservatives expressing his support for reform of current mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

I think we had a trend in America for a long time on mandatory minimums where we took away discretion from judges. I think there’s an appreciation that that approach has some collateral damage—that that approach is missing in many ways…I think there is a new appreciation that we need to give judges more discretion in these areas.

-Paul Ryan

The push to pass the Smarter Sentencing Act is gaining momentum, as almost a year has passed since its introduction in the House in October 2013. Hopefully, with continued support for this legislation, it will soon become law and alleviate the growing problems associated with extreme mandatory minimum drug sentences.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Barnellbe via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Nearing the End of Failed Mandatory Minimum Sentences? appeared first on Law Street.