Ed Kilgore had a smart take on President Trump’s address to Congress. Rather than focus on how it polled or some of the theatrics, he looked at it from the point of view of Republican members of Congress. Did the president provide them with any clarity or guidance about their mission for the year or even for Trump’s first term? And, from that perspective, the speech was wanting.
Kilgore reminds us that there are three big issues roiling Republican lawmakers in DC. The first is a seemingly helpless struggle to come up with a plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. On this, Trump only gave one sign of where he wants Congress to go. He signaled that he approves of a plan that was circulated (leaked, actually) last week, promptly panned by a report McKinsey & Company provided to the National Governors Association, and abandoned this week. The plan included refundable tax credits that would very inadequately replace the need-based subsidies provided by Obamacare.
States would also lose a significant amount of federal funding as fewer residents received financial support to help purchase individual coverage. The decline in federal funding through tax credits would be between 65 and 80 percent, according to this report.
It wasn’t the report that caused the House Republican leaders to pull the bill, though, despite the fact that it estimated that 30% of ACA-covered people would lose their insurance in Medicaid-expansion states and 50% would lose it non-expansion states. What proved fatal to the bill was the Freedom Caucus’s objection to even these paltry tax credits. In fact, Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows of North Carolina referred to the tax credits as “a new entitlement program.”
As Kilgore noted, Trump seemed to rebuke this objection by expressing support for a tax credit scheme, but he otherwise was silent or unhelpfully vague on the contentious issues surrounding the effort to kill the Affordable Care Act.
The second biggest item on the Republican to-do list is tax cuts. But Trump didn’t really mention tax cuts at all, at least not in any kind of substantive way. He wants to use the tax code to punish companies that move jobs out of the country, but that’s no easy thing to legislate. And, in any case, there’s an obvious disconnect between the White House and Congress on how highly they’re prioritizing this issue.
Finally, there’s the budget.
Trump repeated his commitment to a big defense-spending increase, and did display an understanding that providing that would mean getting rid of the spending cap agreement under which defense spending would be “sequestered” if budget targets were missed. As to how those caps would be cast aside — something that in the normal course of events would require 60 Senate votes and a lot of Democratic support — we heard nada. And there was also nothing about the rest of the budget, including the fraught subject of which entitlement programs would be on and off the table.
These would be big problems for the GOP under any circumstances, but Trump’s near-silence on them has added significance because they have a major impact on campaign promises that Trump made. It may be possible to hash out compromises that will allow the Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare, pass tax cuts, and enact a budget, but it isn’t at all clear how any of these things can be accomplished without them creating broken promises.
Even if the Freedom Caucus relents on the use of refundable tax credits for health care, millions will lose their plans, which is something that Trump assured us would not happen. Without defining his bottom line on tax cuts, it’s unlikely that they will meet the goals he set out on the campaign. And he can’t fund all his priorities with a budget that doesn’t touch people’s retirement security, which is something he said he wouldn’t do.
The speech may or may not help Trump with his sagging polls, but that’s a blip on the radar. What his speech did not do is move the ball down the field.
My thinking is similar. Politicians and the media focus on the flash and dazzle of whether it sounded presidential or, in this case, if he met the absurdly low test of staying on message (following his script even when Democrats laughed). But I’ve been active in local politics and it was really clear to me that it was hard to get people activated over visionary issues like zoning regs but almost impossible to mollify them when their garbage fees go up $8 per month.
So what’s going to happen when Republicans have to pay the piper? What happens when people lose health coverage and begin dying? That’s a way bigger kick in the nuts than an $8 garbage fee.
As PT Barnum said, there’s a sucker born every minute. People will believe all sorts of bullshit. But there’s no suckering them when they lose their jobs or their health coverage or when they see their taxes spike or their benefits decline. Now you’re messing with people survival and that’s when they go ape-shit all over you. Good luck, assholes!
As No More Mister Nice Blog points out, even the good polling on the speech is below average for such things:
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2017/03/polling-on-trump-speech-wasnt-great-and.html
His entire analysis of the speech and the situation is well worth reading.
In other words, we’re not as screwed as it might have appeared on the surface. That said, the faithful will love him no matter what.
True dat.
I should qualify that last statement – the faithful will love whatever he says for now, and they’ll be the most difficult to break from SCROTUS.
It’s good context that I did not see.
I am not convinced though. Perception of Trump is far more polarized in his first year than was true either for Bush and Obama. It really isn’t surprising his numbers would be lower.
Here is what I don’t understand – the GOP really has a “my way or the highway” attitude about everything, especially the “Freedumb” caucus.
Do they have no understanding that in order to get things done they at least have to attempt to get Dems on board? Do they really believe that, once there is another debt ceiling fight, that they will force the Dems to be the adults in the room and pass something band-aid like because the Freedumb people are anarchists?
I am confounded, but not surprised, that when Obama was in office the Dems were implored to compromise by all those “centrists”, Simpson/Bowles advocates and friends in the media like Ron “Green Lantern” Fournier. Where have they all gone? That is of course a rhetorical question – IOKIYAR rules.
The my way or the highway has granted them unprecedented political power. When were they supposed to learn to compromise?
To the extent that the speech normalized Trump’s bigotry, it will help him.
If Ryan’s Repubs are looking to the unqualified imbecile Trump to solve their legislative dilemmas (in a symbolic speech no less) then they are more incompetent than anyone imagined.
There’s no general brainpower in the Trumper WH and specifically no legislative brainpower. Obviously there was no coordination with Ryan’s Repubs in creating the first Trumpite budget, which was given the DOA label by various Repubs, a moniker one would have thought would be limited to a Dem prez’s budget. So it was already known that Trumper hasn’t advanced the legislative ball one yard, and can’t. He has Rube Rallies(tm) to attend and popular culture to follow and tweet upon.
For legislative experience, Trump has this rightwing reality-challenged Mulvaney as Budget Boy and dummy Pence, who is a Christianist nonentity now being asked to play the role of Serious National Leader. Don’t look to these yokels to solve the budget riddles, Ryan & Co.
I would be interested to learn more about the relationship of the sequester rules and the budget bills passed. I had thought that if a majority can cram something into a budget and pass it, then they can do what they want without worrying about the filibuster. What you wrote seems to mean that Ryan’s Repubs can’t cut taxes and increase military spending while just making up nonsense “growth” numbers to claim the deficit won’t explode. The ACA is a whole other kettle of fish.
The “conservative” Prime Directive is to cut income, corporate and capital gains taxes. Ryan & Co. certainly must to do this, this is what the plutocrats bribed them to do. They also must increase wasteful “defense” spending at the expense of all other programs. These are givens and must be accomplished, by whatever means necessary, and Der Trumper certainly supports both these goals. Don’t they have the power to do this without a single Dem vote?
I would be interested to learn more about the relationship of the sequester rules and the budget bills passed. I had thought that if a majority can cram something into a budget and pass it, then they can do what they want without worrying about the filibuster. What you wrote seems to mean that Ryan’s Repubs can’t cut taxes and increase military spending while just making up nonsense “growth” numbers to claim the deficit won’t explode. The ACA is a whole other kettle of fish.
My limited understanding of the reconciliation rules is that there is a 10-year horizon in which the budget has to be balanced in some fashion. It is why, for example, the Bush tax cuts in 2001 sunsetted in 2010 – the cuts passed via reconciliation because if the tax cuts lasted in perpetuity, the CBO scoring would fail. The ACA actually passed through regular order. One of the main reasons they can’t repeal the ACA through reconciliation is that because of the taxes that it raises that it would blow a sky-high hole in the deficit if the ACA were repealed. I believe that part of the problem is that when the various repeal plans were secretly scored that the CBO, despite “dynamic scoring” fantasy, gave it a proverbial “F”. The fact of the matter is that ALL the Rep. and especially Ryan are a bunch of frauds – Krugman has been singing that song for a long time.
For shits and giggles one should actually read that joke of a “Better Way” plan – it is akin to the same glossy marketing crap as a Trump Hotel brochure.
But there’s Kaine filling that open Lieberman role. Rolling over for the idiot GOP POTUS.
Why single out Kaine?
For starters, why not?
As opposed to Manchin, Hassen, Heitkamp, Bennett, Donnelly and others who have voted similarly to Kaine?
Wasn’t obvious from my comment? Did we see loser GOP VP nominee Ryan rolling over to accommodate Obama in 2013?
I knew what your reason was. Kaine’s seat isn’t as safe as Ryan’s. Kaine has a larger constituency to please than Ryan. And last time I checked, Kaine has never addressed the RNC in support of the republican nominee so the Lieberman analogy isn’t apt.
Lieberman addressed the RNC convention four months after losing the VP slot?
As Clinton/Kaine carried VA, why would he now roll over for Trump’s unacceptable nominees? Who is the real Kaine? That’s what voters have a right to know.
Lieberman was selling out his own ticket during the recount in 2000. What ever sins you imagine Kaine committing, they don’t rise to Lieberman level. I’m also guessing the voters in VA are well aware of who the real Tim Kaine is.
trump’s only cause is applause, so, as far as his intended audience, The Village, is concerned, he scored a touchdown.
Got the impression that at least some subset of veterans saw 45’s politicization of Ryan Owen’s widow much differently than the Village.