From The Monkey Cage: President Trump couldn’t pass Obamacare repeal. This is why.

For 2305.

President Trump is coming to terms with the limits of presidential power.

- Click here for the article.

The decision to pull the American Health Care Act (AHCA) from the House floor on Friday is a telling reminder of the limits of presidential power when it comes to leading the legislature. Our separated system makes it hard for presidents to translate their preferences into policy, even on priority matters. As Lyndon Johnson put it, complaining about the Kennedy staff’s inability to get bills moving: “You can’t start yelling ‘frog’ at everybody and expect ‘em to jump!”

A quick review of political science literature on presidential success in Congress gives us several lenses through which to view Friday’s happenings. One consistent finding is that presidential personality — and the schmoozing of legislators, etc. — matters mostly “at the margins,” as George Edwards put it. In a close vote, those margins surely might matter. But systematic factors were also at play:

Read on for detail.

From the NYT: House Republicans Unveil Plan to Replace Health Law

It begins.

- Click here for the article.

House Republicans unveiled on Monday their long-awaited plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, scrapping the mandate for most Americans to have health insurance in favor of a new system of tax credits to induce people to buy insurance on the open market.

The bill sets the stage for a bitter debate over the possible dismantling of the most significant health care law in a half-century. In its place would be a health law that would be far more oriented to the free market and would make far-reaching changes to a vast part of the American economy.

The House Republican bill would roll back the expansion of Medicaid that has provided coverage to more than 10 million people in 31 states, reducing federal payments for many new beneficiaries. It also would effectively scrap the unpopular requirement that people have insurance and eliminate tax penalties for those who go without. The requirement for larger employers to offer coverage to their full-time employees would also be eliminated.

People who let their insurance coverage lapse, however, would face a significant penalty. Insurers could increase their premiums by 30 percent, and in that sense, Republicans would replace a penalty for not having insurance with a new penalty for allowing insurance to lapse.

House Republican leaders said they would keep three popular provisions in the Affordable Care Act: the prohibition on denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, the ban on lifetime coverage caps and the rule allowing young people to remain on their parents’ health plans until age 26.

Republicans hope to undo other major parts of President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, including income-based tax credits that help millions of Americans buy insurance, taxes on people with high incomes and the penalty for people who do not have health coverage.

Medicaid recipients’ open-ended entitlement to health care would be replaced by a per-person allotment to the states. And people with pre-existing medical conditions would face new uncertainties in a more deregulated insurance market.

The bill would also cut off federal funds to Planned Parenthood clinics through Medicaid and other government programs for one year.

For graphical looks at what will and wont change:

- NYT: The Parts of Obamacare Republicans Will Keep, Change or Discard.
- WAPO: How the House Republicans’ proposed Obamacare replacement compares.

From GovTrack: A constitutional amendment to reapportion House seats based on citizenship, not residency.

Here's focus on a resolution introduced to change a key component of the Constitution.

- Click here for the article.

Seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are apportioned based on the number of residents of each state. That includes undocumented immigrants, green card holders, and other non-citizens. House Joint Resolution 30, introduced by Rep. Steve King (R-IA4), is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change House apportionment to be based upon citizenship instead of residency.

What the constitutional amendment would do

A 2015 Congressional Research Service report analyzed the effect such a change would produce, using 2013 citizenship figures. Compared to the current numbers, California would lose four House seats, while Texas, Florida, and New York would each lose one. Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Virginia would each gain one seat. The total of 435 seats in the House is fixed by a 1929 law.

The report also adds: “Using citizenship status to apportion the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives tends to benefit states with smaller immigrant populations and cost states with larger immigrant populations.” This is likely the real motivation here, as King has also introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act, which would end the policy of automatic citizenship to anybody born on U.S. soil regardless of parental citizenship.

The bill failed in years past, but the tide may turn under Trump

Rep. Candace Miller (R-MI10), who served until this past year, introduced a similar amendment three times before, in 2005, 2007, and 2009. If cosponsors are any indication, the idea actually became less popular by the year, as the amendment received 37 cosponsors, then 31 cosponsors, and 28 cosponsors. The resolutions proposing the amendment never received a vote in the House Judiciary Committee, and no member of Congress introduced it after that — until this year.

But now has the tide turned? The populist election of President Trump and a newly emboldened and more-conservative Republican congressional majority are resulting in new policies taken against non-citizens such as a Muslim refugee ban and withholding federal funding from sanctuary cities.

From Politico: Doubts grow that GOP can repeal Obamacare - Probably only Donald Trump can whip the party's warring factions in line, but so far he's sent vague and conflicting messages.

Repeal is tougher than it seems.

- Click here for the article.

Republicans have reached a gut check moment: After spending more than six years vowing to fix the flagging patient that is Obamacare, it’s the GOP’s own repeal effort that’s on life support.

Undoing the health care law despised by conservatives seemed to be a straightforward proposition for the party after it won the White House and retained control of both chambers of Congress. Instead, Republicans are sniping over how much of the law to scrap, what to replace it with and when. At this moment, it's far from a sure thing any plan could get through Congress.

Consider Paul Ryan's feel-good meeting with Senate Republicans on Tuesday. The House speaker trekked across the Capitol to reassure senators that lawmakers are making more progress toward repealing the health care law than the media are reporting.

But not everyone was buying it. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) left before it was over, having heard enough of a conversation that he says centers around keeping Obamacare's Medicaid expansion intact and creating tax credits that he called a "new entitlement program," though a Republican in the room rebutted the notion that the topic of Medicaid expansion came up in the Tuesday meeting with Ryan.

“I hear things that are unacceptable to me,” Paul said in an interview afterward. “If they don’t seem to care what conservatives think about complete repeal of Obamacare, they’re going to be shocked when they count the votes.”

From the Houston Chronicle: Woodlands crowd grills Brady over ACA repeal

Repealing Obamacare may not be as popular as some had hoped.

- Click here for the article.

U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, faced a skeptical and at times testy crowd Tuesday as dozens of people arrived at an afternoon meeting to make sure he knew they would not let the Affordable Care Act end without a fight.

The hourlong session, tucked away in a back meeting room at The Woodlands Area Chamber of Commerce headquarters, was not publicly announced and was billed by Brady's staff as a chance for "local people affected by ObamaCare" to "share their experiences with rising costs and loss of coverage and choice."

Brady, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is a vocal critic of the law known as Obamacare and is among the conservative congressional leaders determined to repeal it quickly and replace at an unspecified later date.

But if he was expecting a completely friendly, like-minded group, he quickly found something else from many in the 50 or so who crowded the room.

"Don't lie!" shouted Emily Hoppel, a 39-year-old with her 2-year-old son perched on her hip, when Brady moved from one goal of dismantling ACA to another of defunding Planned Parenthood, which he said used taxpayer money for abortion.

From the Hill: Republicans vote to weaken federal regulatory powers

Reigning in the federal bureaucracy seems at the top of the Republican to do list.

- Click here for the article.

Empowered by President-elect Donald Trump, Republicans lawmakers are moving to gut the vast regulatory powers federal agencies enjoyed during the Obama administration.

On Wednesday, the GOP-controlled House passed the Regulatory Accountability Act which puts a ceiling on the regulatory costs coming out of Washington by instructing federal agencies to craft the "least expensive" rules they possibly can. It passed 238-183 on a largely party line vote with five Democrats crossing the aisle.

This would give Congress more control over federal agencies.

“Some of the most significant decisions in Washington --- those that most affect the lives of the public --- are made by those who don’t stand for election,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said.

“What happens when the EPA imposes rules that deprive people of their property rights? Or when the Department of Health and Human Services tries to force nuns to violate their religion? Or when the VA perpetuates a system that lets veterans die while they wait for care?” McCarthy asked.

“The people can’t vote out the bureaucrats who write rules at the EPA or at the Department of Health and Human Services. They can’t vote out bad leaders at the VA,” he added. “And these bureaucrats know it.”

Regulatory reform is a key part of Trump’s economic agenda, and Republican lawmakers are working quickly to reshape the way in which regulations are developed before the president-elect takes office next Friday.

McCarthy indicated the House would begin repealing specific regulations after the inauguration.

What is a vote a rama?

It was referred to in two of the posts below, so it deserves a definition.

- From the Political Dictionary:

U.S. Senate rules include a special section for consideration of the annual Budget resolution. The Budget is not subject to filibuster, but all amendments must be germane and are voted on consecutively without real debate.

During a vote-a-rama, each amendment is considered and voted on for about 10 minutes until they are finished with all amendments. It’s an exhausting process that many senators have said makes it impossible to know what is actually being considered.

Keith Hennessey: “The vote-a-rama is an unusual cultural institution within the Senate. All 100 Senators are on the floor, in the cloakrooms, or right outside the Senate Chamber for hours and hours upon end. Another 100-ish staff are packed onto tiny staff benches in the rear of the Chamber, one for Republican staff and another for Democratic staff. Everyone is usually exhausted during the vote-a-rama, which comes near the end of an arduous and usually conflict-ridden legislative battle.”

Here's a more exhaustive definition from the person who coined the term.

- Click here for it.

Here's a negative appraisal of the process

- Senate 'vote-a-rama': A charade with consequences: The late-night vote marathon is aimed mainly at making the other party look bad in elections.

Republicans will have to go on record against giving minimum-wage workers a raise and potentially vote against a plan meant to defend pregnant workers from discrimination. Democrats will take sides on Iran’s nuclear talks, with Republicans daring them to side against Israel.

And each party is trying to outdo the other on how much it loves Medicare.
The Senate’s famous budget “vote-a-rama” on Thursday won’t change any laws — far from it, it’s a daylong, only-in-Congress charade, the main purpose of which is to make the other party look bad and score political points.

And yet it has the potential to be among the most consequential days in Congress this year. Some of the roll calls are bound to show up in campaign ads and talking points and floor speeches: Just ask Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who was attacked by her GOP opponent, Scott Brown, two weeks before her 2014 reelection for voting to “pave the way” for a carbon tax, a vote that was more than 18 months old at the time.

From Roll Call: The Convoluted Process for Dismantling Obamacare

A unique take on the bill making process

- Click here for the article.

In the early hours of Jan. 12, the Senate took the first step in the convoluted process of dismantling and replacing the 2010 health care law. To overcome the potential filibuster power of Senate Democrats, GOP lawmakers are relying on budget reconciliation, the same procedural mechanism their counterparts across the aisle used seven years ago to implement parts of the health care overhaul.

The budget reconciliation process is filled with procedural complications — and in this case, political uncertainty — as GOP leaders and President-elect Donald Trump have signaled various ideas about the timing of changes.

The graphic below explains the budget resolution and reconciliation process and how it could play out.

From Roll Call: Why 3 House Republicans Voted Against Repealing Obamacare

We discussed "instrumentalism" in the dual credit classes last week, which is the idea that political behavior has a purpose. Everything that is done, is done for a reason - though that reason might not seem initially obvious.

Here's one author's explanation of why three Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the vehicle that would have allowed for a repeal of Obamacare - the budget reconciliation process. It should be noted that all three are from states that voted for Hillary Clinton.

- Click here for the article.

House Republican leaders gave their freshmen members a political gift Tuesday: The chance to vote "yes" on a symbolic bill to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

For three new Republican representatives, however, the repeal vote was an opportunity to vote "no." Republicans Bruce Poliquin of Maine, John Katko of New York and Robert Dold of Illinois were the lone three defections in either party on what's being billed as the chamber's 56th vote since 2011 to undo parts of the 2010 health law.

The defectors' rationale? They might hate Obamacare, but Republicans still haven't put forward a legislative proposal that would act as a substitute in the event the law ever got repealed.

"I am against Obamacare. It is hurting jobs, hurting our families, limiting choices," Poliquin told CQ Roll Call as he left the House floor Wednesday afternoon. "But I need to see a tangible, free-market replacement and this bill does not give us that. I need to see how we're gonna fix this and not just be someone who votes for the 56th time to repeal this.

"Show me a fix," Poliquin said, "and you'll have my support."

Katko went to Facebook to explain his "no" vote: "I am disappointed that the bill taken up by Congress today did not provide a real solution to the rising costs of healthcare, but I will continue to fight for comprehensive, bipartisan healthcare reform for Central New York in Congress."

He added that a campaign promise was to vote against Obamacare repeal votes that did not also include a replacement.

For more on the small number of Republicans voting against the repeal measure click here:

- Mixed Bag of Republicans Vote Against Obamacare Repeal Vehicle.

For future lectures, this article points out some of the caucuses in the House and Senate and the positions they are taking on repeal,.

From the New York Times: Senate Takes Major Step Toward Repealing Health Care Law

They began a process that allows the repeal to be considered as a reconciliation bill which makes it filibuster proof.


- Click here for the article.

Senate Republicans took their first major step toward repealing the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, approving a budget blueprint that would allow them to gut the health care law without the threat of a Democratic filibuster.

The vote was 51 to 48. During the roll call, Democrats staged a highly unusual protest on the Senate floor to express their dismay and anger at the prospect that millions of Americans could lose health insurance coverage.

One by one, Democrats rose to voice their objections. Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington said that Republicans were “stealing health care from Americans.” Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said he was voting no “because health care should not just be for the healthy and wealthy.”

The presiding officer, Senator Cory Gardner, Republican of Colorado, repeatedly banged his gavel and said the Democrats were out of order because “debate is not allowed during a vote.”

The final vote, which ended just before 1:30 a.m., followed a marathon session in which senators took back-to-back roll call votes on numerous amendments, an arduous exercise known as a vote-a-rama.

The approval of the budget blueprint, coming even before President-elect Donald J. Trump is inaugurated, shows the speed with which Republican leaders are moving to fulfill their promise to repeal President Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement — a goal they believe can now be accomplished after Mr. Trump’s election.

The action by the Senate is essentially procedural, setting the stage for a special kind of legislation called a reconciliation bill. Such a bill can be used to repeal significant parts of the health law and, critically, is immune from being filibustered. Congress appears to be at least weeks away from voting on legislation repealing the law.

From Washington Post: Trump may unwittingly agree to tie his hands, limit executive power

Here's commentary on efforts Congress seems to ne making in order to reign in the executive branch. In 2305 we will discuss the expansion of executive power over American history. This happened largely because Congress allowed it to happen by establishing new agencies and department to fulfill new functions. The growth began in the late 19th century, and picked up steam in the 30s (the New Deal) and the 60s (the Great Society).

A goal of conservatives has been to limit this growth, if not turn it back. The following article discusses how Republicans in Congress, seeing an opportunity to do so, are developing strategies to make it a reality.

This involves the use of something called the Congressional Review Act, a law that was part of the Contract with America. It is specifically designed to allow Congress the opportunity to undo rules passed by the bureaucracy.

- Click here for the article.

Donald Trump is eager to score some early wins, so that he can look like an effective leader, and congressional Republicans are fixing to give him bills he can sign immediately upon taking office. But, for the new president, some might bring unintended consequences.

The Congressional Review Act is such an incredibly powerful tool that it has only been used once in the two decades it has been on the books. In the next couple months, it will probably be used about half a dozen times.

Somewhere around 150 rules finalized by the Obama administration – going as far back as last June – could be overturned under the CRA, if Congress passes a “joint resolution of disapproval” and the new president signs off.

High on the chopping block: Regulations which would curb methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, prohibit coal-mining companies from engaging in activities that permanently pollute streams used for drinking water and increasing the salary threshold below which employees are entitled to overtime pay. Industry lobbyists are also pushing GOP lawmakers to get of nondiscrimination and fair pay rules for federal contractors.

And a bunch of companies are trying to drum up AstroTurf support for rescinding Energy Department efficiency standards for dehumidifiers, battery chargers and air conditioners.
But here’s the rub: the executive branch may never again be allowed to regulate on these subjects if the Congressional Review Act is employed. It is hard to overstate what a big deal that is and how much it raises the stakes. If the overtime rule gets rescinded, for example, any new overtime requirements would need to pass Congress. If you know anything about the Hill, you know that will happen – when pigs fly…

Every modern president, no matter his party, has not been able to resist expanding the regulatory state and trying to usurp Congress’s power, at least to some degree. The power that comes with controlling the executive branch has tended to seduce even the most conscientiously conservative appointees once they get their security details.

From the Washington Post: Trump faces growing tension with key Republicans over national security issues

A look at the next four years.

- Click here for the article.

President-elect Donald Trump, who clashed with leading Republicans throughout his campaign, faced growing tumult in his national security transition team on Monday as key members of his own party appeared to question his views and personnel choices.

Former congressman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), a respected voice on national security thought to be a leading candidate to run the CIA, was among those pushed out of the team over the past two days, two individuals with direct knowledge said, in a series of moves that have added to the anxiety across the upper ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies.

The changes came as Trump met Tuesday with incoming Vice President Mike Pence to discuss Cabinet and top White House personnel choices. Pence last week replaced New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) as head of Trump’s overall transition efforts, and Christie’s associates — who had been Trump’s link to the GOP mainstream for months — now find themselves losing influence.

A first look at the demographics of the 115th Congress

Roll Call: Party Diversity Gap to Remain in 115th.

The Hill: 115th Congress will be most racially diverse in history.

From Roll Call: Republicans Restructure Panel for Selecting Committee Assignments

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution about committees, so the staffing process can change as parties see fit.

- Click here for the article.

House Republicans on Wednesday restructured the panel of representatives that select committee chairmen and members, removing at-large seats in favor of more regional slots.

The move was the final piece of plan to restructure the Republican Steering Committee that the conference agreed to last November. The overhaul was part of Speaker Paul D. Ryan's promise to change GOP rules and procedures to give rank-and-file members more input.

The steering committee in December will, among other things, decide the next chairmen of two of the most influential legislative panels on Capitol Hill, House Appropriations and Energy and Commerce.

When Republicans began the restructuring last year, they removed all but one Steering Committee seat set aside for committee chairmen and replaced those seats with six at-large seats. The plan was always to switch the at-large seats for six new regional slots this year in preparation for the 115th Congress.

From Roll Call: Senate Leadership Elections Set Stage for 2017

Senate party leadership is set for the 115th Congress.

- Click here for the article.

The Senate’s leadership elections went off without a hitch Wednesday, with victorious Republicans keeping their top echelon intact.

Democrats elevated Charles E. Schumer to the role of minority leader for the next Congress, as anticipated, but the most interesting development might be that the Brooklyn lawmaker is going to need a bigger meeting table.

In what appeared to be an effort to respond to the 2016 elections with a more ideologically diverse team, Democrats added Vermont independent Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin as representatives of a more progressive faction and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia representing a more centrist contingent. Sanders will be chairman of outreach, Baldwin will serve as conference secretary and Manchin will be vice chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, an advisory board to leadership.

. . . There probably would not have been suspense on the Republican side even if the GOP had lost the majority, but the outcome was even more predictable given the election results.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was re-elected as the chamber’s Republican leader Wednesday during a closed-door organizational meeting.

The Kentucky Republican was nominated by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Sen.-elect Todd Young of Indiana, and received a standing ovation from the caucus.
Young said he highlighted his faith in McConnell’s leadership in his remarks to the caucus. “I trusted Mitch McConnell because I had direct interaction, especially over recent months,” Young said.

The top GOP leaders are all white men. But in the 114th Congress McConnell did appoint four counsels to broaden the discussion at the leadership table, which included two female senators.

Nebraska’s Deb Fischer, who served as one of the counsels, expects those positions to continue in the next Congress. She was also not concerned with the lack of diversity at the top.

“I think it’s important that we put the best person in the job,” Fischer said. “Diversity is good, whether it’s age or prior work experience, life experiences, gender, whatever, that’s always good to have it in the mix. When it comes down to a certain position, I think you always have to look at the qualities of the individuals.”

From Politico: GOP insiders to Trump: Leave the policy to Paul Ryan

If this is true, then the big winner seems in this election was House Speaker Paul Ryan. It also suggests that the powers of the presidency might be weakened - or at least curtailed - by a Trump presidency. Assuming he listens to insiders of course, but the president has little control over Congress, so there may be a point here.

ALl this assumes also that Ryan remains speaker.

- Click here for the article.

Voters in the battleground states swept Donald Trump into the White House this week. But Republican insiders in those states want House Speaker Paul Ryan, not the newly elected president, driving the policy agenda in GOP-dominated Washington next year.

That’s according to The POLITICO Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states, seven of which Trump captured on Election Day or is ahead in the ongoing vote count.

Roughly two-thirds of Republican insiders, 65 percent, think Ryan, who is expected to serve as speaker in the new Congress, should have more influence over policy when Trump is inaugurated next January.

“The GOP needs to lift its eyes and spread its wings if we expect to grow,” said a Colorado Republican — who, like all insiders, completed the survey anonymously. “Ryan and his allies are the people to create and share that vision.”

“Donald Trump and policy-making don't really belong in the same sentence,” an Iowa Republican added. “Paul Ryan will make policy and Donald Trump can Make America Great Again.”