| March 4, 2015 | |
 |  |
|
|
|
|
It's been a busy week so far in American politics -- the Netanyahu speech, the end to the DHS fight, the latest in the 2016 race, and even David Petraeus' guilty plea. But the biggest and most significant political story of the week is playing out today at the Supreme Court, which at 10am ET hears oral arguments in a case to decide whether Americans who live in the 30-plus states that didn't set up their own health marketplaces should be allowed to receive subsidies under the health care law. What's at stake: If the Supreme Court ultimately invalidates these subsidies, more than 9 million Americans would lose nearly $30 billion in tax credits and cost-sharing reductions by 2016, according to the Urban Institute; the uninsured ranks would increase by 8.2 million Americans; and the average Obamacare premium will increase by more than 200% (!!!). And if that happens, it's going to produce a mad political scramble (in Washington and state capitals) to pick up the pieces for Americans who will paying higher health care costs due to the court's ruling. But if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government -- that yes, the law was always intended to award subsidies to all Americans, no matter where they live -- it could bring an end to the great Obamacare War. If this doesn't take down the law, after all, it's hard to see what else will. That's why the stakes are so high here - and why both sides have been working the refs (ie the justices) so aggressively.
Why Republicans could be playing defense if the court strikes down the subsidies
If the court strikes down the subsidies, Republicans could find themselves playing defense. According to an NBC/WSJ poll released last night, 54% of Americans say that if the court guts the Obamacare subsidies, Congress should pass a law helping lower- and middle-income Americans in ALL states to regain their financial assistance. By contrast, 35% say that Congress shouldn't pass a law here. Of course, this largely cuts across partisan lines, with 81% of Democrats but just 26% of Republicans wanting Congress to help those on the federal marketplace. But here is where the politics are tricky for Republicans: 60% of women, 52% of independents, and even 50% of whites say Congress should pass a law helping Americans regain their financial assistance. Those are significantly stronger poll numbers than what you usually see when it comes to Obamacare. And it's clear that some Republicans are nervous about this case. We've seen GOP leaders-- whether it's Orrin Hatch in the Senate or Paul Ryan in House -- propose to help if the Supreme Court strikes down the subsidies. Here's the rub, however: They don't contain specific details or legislative language.
Considering the long-term impact of a Supreme Court nix of subsidies
One last point on the Supreme Court's arguments today: It's worth asking what kind of precedent the court would be setting if it rules that the law doesn't actually allow the federal subsidies. The health care law's backers insist that the legislation always intended for the federal government to provide the aid if states didn't set up health care exchanges, and they insist that the plaintiffs are trying to exploit what amounts to a typo in the law. In a future world where, let's say, a GOP president and Congress pass a tax or entitlement reform bill, would Democrats feel then empowered to challenge some piece of the law based on a similar argument and try to push the Supreme Court to invalidate the legislation entirely?
DHS fight began with a bang, and it ended with a whimper
After last week's eleventh-hour showdown and an embarrassing failed vote for House leaders, the furious fight over the Department of Homeland Security came to a relatively quiet end Tuesday, with a vote on the "clean" year-long funding bill carried mostly by Democrats. One reason for the very muted reaction: GOP leaders managed to execute what we call a Friday Night News Dump - on a Tuesday. The timing of the vote - coming on the same day as a highly-anticipated speech from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the day before this super-high-stakes Supreme Court argument - meant that there was simply little left of the news hole for conservative complaints about Boehner's "cave" on the immigration fight. By the way, last week's meltdown underscores that, even if Republicans are talking about an Obamacare fix, does anyone really think that a GOP House could pass *anything* having to do with health care without Democratic help?
Netanyahu: How will it play in Israel?
The first, second and third audiences for Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday might have been voters in his own country. The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg makes this observation: Netanyahu "will be returned to power on March 17 if he can convince a large enough number of Likud-oriented voters to stick with his party ... Right-wing voters in Israel aren't upset by Netanyahu's thumb-in-the-eye approach to President Obama. Many of them actually like it, and they will like to see that Netanyahu is more-or-less correct when he argues that Congress has Israel's back." There's certainly the suggestion in some Israeli media that Netanyahu was much more interested in his domestic political concerns than in his diplomatic goals. How is it going to play at home for him?
Email problems create a big distraction for Hillary Clinton...
Team Clinton appears set to be turning on the lights of a formal campaign in a matter of weeks, and they're already in the position of playing major defense when it comes to this email story. The latest development: The AP reports that Clinton ran her own computer system for her emails. It's a big distraction that threatens to stick around for a long time if Clinton doesn't address this fast. Republican members of Congress are sure to push for hearings, subpoenas - any way to keep forcing this controversy back into the headlines again and again. The question is: What can the Clinton team do to get ahead of it? Are they designing a web site right now that's all about disclosing the emails? What's the next step?
"Words do hurt."
In the wake of the suicide of Missouri gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth - not only perhaps the most respected Missouri politician but one of the most venerated former U.S. senators -- didn't hold back in linking the death to bullying and the worst impulses in politics in Missouri, and perhaps, by extension, in our country as a whole. "The death of Tom Schweich is the natural consequence of what politics has become," Danforth said while delivering Schweich's eulogy. "I believe deep in my heart that it's now our duty, yours and mine, to turn politics into something much better than its now so miserable state." Decrying what he called an anti-Semitic whisper campaign against Schweich, he said politicians should disown the idea of "winning at any cost." "Words do hurt. Words can kill," he added. We're just starting what's going to be a messy, hotly contested and no-doubt-nasty-at-times presidential election. Some messiness is all part of the process, of course, but Danforth's warnings about the ugliest tactics in politics are worth keeping in mind for all of us. Perhaps before you write that next nasty tweet, that next attack email, or that new oppo research hit, re-read Danforth's eulogy.
Click here to sign up for First Read emails. Check us out on Facebook and also onTwitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @carrienbcnews
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
OBAMA AGENDA: The stakes in King v. Burwell
NBC's Pete Williams previews this morning's arguments in King v. Burwell: "The health insurance industry warns that if the challengers succeed this time, the Affordable Care Act would enter a "death spiral" - with costs rising for a shrinking number of participants, eventually causing the system to collapse."
The Washington Post looks at Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's efforts to keep the health care law alive today.
New NBC News poll numbers out last night show that a majority of voters believe that Congress should pass a law to aid millions of lower-income Americans who could lose their health care coverage if the Supreme Court invalidates the subsidies they receive for living in states that didn't establish their own insurance marketplaces.
Here's our roundup of Netanyahu's speech and what the president had to say about it.
The New York Times ed board calls Netanyahu's speech "unconvincing." But the Washington Post says that Obama should answer Netanyahu's arguments about why the Iran deal would "pave the way" to the bomb.
The Washington Post's Anne Gearan notes that the lawmakers who attended Netanyahu's speech yesterday don't have a lot of say in stopping a deal with Iran.
The Alabama Supreme Court has ordered a halt to same-sex marriage licenses in the state.
OFF TO THE RACES: The Clinton email story continues
BUSH: The Washington Post: "An unusual request has gone out to wealthy donors writing large checks to support former Florida governor Jeb Bush: Please don't give more than $1 million right away. The requested limit, confirmed by multiple people familiar with the amount, may mark the first time that a presidential hopeful has sought to hold off supporters from contributing too much money. The move reflects concerns among Bush advisers that accepting massive sums from a handful of uber-rich supporters could fuel a perception that the former governor is in their debt."
CARSON: In an interview with CNN, Dr. Ben Carson said: "Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question."
CLINTON: The latest on the Clinton email controversy, from the Washington Post:"Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have operated in violation of what the White House said Tuesday was "very specific guidance" that members of the Obama administration use government e-mail accounts to carry out official business."
And from the AP: "The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails - on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state - traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press."
Our own Perry Bacon Jr. talked to aides to former top officials and finds that Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email account was different from how most of them communicated with their staffs.
She didn't weigh in on the flap last night but did drop some more 2016 hints.
WALKER: The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: "Gov. Scott Walker on Tuesday embraced a move to ban abortion after 20 weeks after repeatedly declining to spell out where he stood on the issue in last year's re-election campaign."
And from around the country...
ILLINOIS: Ben LaBolt pens this op-ed in The Daily Beast: The Progressive Case for Rahm's Re-Elect
PROGRAMMING NOTES.
*** Wednesday's "News Nation with Tamron Hall" line-up: Today on News Nation, Tamron Hall speaks with Constitutional lawyer Kenji Yoshino about The Supreme Court once again looking at the Affordable Care Act, POLITICO's Senior Writer Glenn Thrush about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using her private email address to discuss State Department business during her time in office, Alderman from St. Louis Antonio French to discuss a possible announcement by the Department of Justice today concerning police tactics in Ferguson MO., Former MLB pitcher Curt Schilling about cyber bullies who targeted his daughter on Twitter and how he tracked them down, and Jason Padgett, a man who after an accident and brain injury became a mathematical genius for our 7 Days of Genius series this week
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of a non-government email account to send messages to her staff during her time as Secretary of State is a break from what other top officials have done, raising concerns from both Democrats and Republicans about the propriety of the practice.
Aides to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former President George W. Bush said neither official routinely sent e-mails to staffers while they held those posts. Rice "did not use her personal e-mail for official communication as Secretary" and instead exclusively used her State Department account, according to a top aide who did not want to be quoted publicly.
Attorney General Eric Holder regularly uses his government account, according to spokesman Brian Fallon, as does Valerie Jarrett, one of President Barack Obama's top advisers.
As Clinton aides have noted, Colin Powell did regularly use a personal e-mail account while Secretary of State.
A Powell aide confirmed that information, saying, "General Powell used a personal email account during his tenure as Secretary of State. He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State."
Other former office holders rarely used email accounts - personal or official - at all during their tenure.
"President Bush never used email in the White House. We only ever spoke on the phone or in person, or through memos, of course. I think it was the same at the Treasury Department, too. I never emailed with any of the three secretaries I worked with," said Tony Fratto, a former Deputy White House Press Secretary in the George W. Bush administration. Fratto is supporting Jeb Bush's 2016 presidential run.
"Everyone in government is wary of email," he added. "I'm surprised that Secretary Clinton used a personal account. I'm surprised she used email at all, to be honest. It's so hard to keep it secure."
Steve Clemons, a foreign policy expert at The Atlantic, said he has "never dealt with anyone at the highest levels of government who didn't have an official email address."
"The issue of disclosure here is that private email addresses are easily penetrated. The issue here is not so much that she had a private email address, but rather how much the Chinese and Russians got from her private email address conversations, as they no doubt were tracking her," Clemons added.
Clinton aides have not indicated why exactly the former Secretary of State did not use a State Department e-mail address. It's not clear what e-mail system she used, or if it was more or less secure than those run by the government.
"There is shock at what Secretary Clinton did because the most likely explanation of her intent seems clear - she created a system designed to avoid accountability, potentially in violation of the law," said John Wonderlich, policy director of the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation.
A story in the New York Times, published Monday, described how Clinton had "exclusively" used a personal e-mail account during her four years as Secretary of State.
Generally, letters and e-mails written by federal officials in their official positions are conducted on government accounts. They are archived and can sometimes be accessed by congressional committees or the public.
The disclosure about Clinton's emails, in fact, comes as the House of Representatives is investigating the attack on the U.S diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, while Clinton was still secretary of state. Clinton has released thousands of pages of her e-mails from this account to the State Department.
"Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials," said Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesman, in a statement. "For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained. When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes."
He added, "Both the letter and spirit of the rules permitted State Department officials to use non-government email, as long as appropriate records were preserved. As a result of State's request for our help to make sure they in fact were, that is what happened here."
White House officials also defended Clinton, arguing she was making her e-mails accessible. At the same time, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest noted in a press briefing on Tuesday that "very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees in the Obama administration should use their official e-mail accounts when they're conducting official government business."
For Clinton, who is expected to officially start her presidential campaign in the next few months, the email disclosure could be a political blow, although she remains the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Republicans, including GOP contender Jeb Bush, have sharply attacked Clinton about the controversy, arguing that her use of a personal email account was an intentional move to obscure her communications.
And a prominent Democrat, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, said Tuesday that Clinton's use of the account is "highly unusual."
"I think it's something they're going to have to explain in good measure today and probably figure out how to get a lot of those emails, or as many as they can back into the archive," he said on NBC's TODAY Show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress on Tuesday that a potential nuclear deal being negotiated by major powers including the United States "paves Iran's path to the bomb."
Netanyahu, who vehemently opposes the Obama administration's ongoing negotiations with Iran, said that world leaders must instead work to "stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror."
"It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb," he said of the potential deal as he appeared at the Capitol in front of hundreds of American lawmakers. "It paves Iran's path to the bomb. "
"For over a year we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal," he added. "Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We are better off without it."
He rejected the idea that the only alternative to a nuclear agreement would be war, instead proposing that world leaders should seek a better deal.
Netanyahu opened his remarks with a nod to the controversy over his appearance, saying "I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention."
Before Netanyahu even arrived in Washington, the speech laid bare a largely partisan divide over the delicate relationship between Israel and the United States. House Republican leaders extended the invitation to Netanyahu without first consulting the White House, a move considered to be a breach in protocol. Many Democrats viewed the invitation as a transparent attempt by more hawkish Republicans to undermine Obama's efforts to forge a nuclear deal with Iran. And other critics accused Netanyahu of attempting to use Congress as a backdrop to boost his political standing at home just over two weeks from his own hotly contested election.
More than 50 Democrats boycotted the speech. And neither President Barack Obama nor Vice President Joe Biden, who was traveling in Central America, attended. The White House has cited a long-standing precedent of avoiding the perception of interfering in foreign elections, noting Netanyahu's upcoming contest.
Both Obama and Netanyahu have tried in recent days to downplay their frayed relationship, each emphasizing that the two countries remain steadfast allies. But a stark difference of approaches to the Iran issue has remained.
On Monday, Netanyahu previewed his critique of the Iran negotiations when he addressed a group of thousands of pro-Israel activists in Washington D.C.
"I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them," he said. "For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless." He added: "Today, we are no longer silent. Today, we have a voice. And tomorrow, as prime minister of the one and only Jewish state, I plan to use that voice."
Obama suggested in an interview with Reuters later Monday afternoon that Netanyahu's previous dire warnings about a 2013 interim deal with Iran did not come to fruition.
"Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting 50 billion dollars worth of relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement. None of that has come true," he said. "It has turned out that in fact, during this period we've seen Iran not advance its program. In many ways, it's rolled back elements of its program."
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
A majority of voters believe that Congress should pass a law to aid millions of lower-income Americans who could lose their health care coverage if the Supreme Court invalidates the subsidies they receive for living in states that didn't establish their own insurance marketplaces.
A new NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll shows that 54 percent of those surveyed say that, if the Supreme Court guts the subsidies, Congress should act to ensure that eligible people in all states are able to receive the federal aid. Thirty-five percent say that Congress should not pass such a law.
The findings come on the eve of arguments in the Supreme Court case known as King vs. Burwell, in which plaintiffs contend that the federal government is violating the law by offering subsidies to lower-income health care enrollees who live in states that have not set up health care "exchanges" or marketplaces. More than 30 states have not set up an exchange.
Defenders of the law argue that the intent of the legislation has always been that all qualified Americans - whether those on state or federal marketplaces - are eligible for subsidies.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Republicans -- who largely disapprove of the Obama-backed health care law -- are far less likely to back a new law if the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration. Just one in four GOP voters say Congress should step in to provide the subsidies, compared with 81 percent of Democrats.
But there is a dramatic gap between how men and women view the issue. Women are much more likely to say Congress should help provide the health care help. Six in ten women say lawmakers should provide a legislative fix, while 27 percent disagree. Men are much more evenly split, with 48 percent backing congressional action and 44 percent opposing it.
About six in ten Americans said that they have read, seen or heard news reports about the upcoming Supreme Court case, although only 21 percent say they have heard "a lot" about the issue.
Overall views of the health care law remain largely divided on partisan lines.
Forty-seven percent of those surveyed (including 81 percent of Democrats) said that the law is working well or needs only minor modifications. Fifty-one percent (including 86 percent of Republicans) said that the law needs a major overhaul or should be totally eliminated.
The survey of 800 registered voters was conducted February 25-28 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.46 percent. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| More from First Read: | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기