The GOP's political incentives on health care are a mess

The Senate Republicans' secret health care bill is, as of this morning, no longer a secret. Though the website GOP senators created for the proposal doesn't appear to working perfectly, the bill is now available for public scrutiny -- with only a week to go before a scheduled floor vote.

But as we start digging in on the blueprint, and await a report from the Congressional Budget Office on its impact, it's worth taking a moment to think about the strange political incentives surrounding the entire initiative.

Because, frankly, I find them baffling.

Senate Republicans have kept the bill-writing process secret, in large part because they recognize how deeply controversial and unpopular their efforts are. GOP leaders have been reluctant to even talk about their own policy ideas, effectively telling their own members, "We better pass this now before anyone realizes how horrible the plan is."

But then what? What exactly do Republicans expect to happen once their regressive ideas are imposed on the nation?

In 2009 and 2010, Democrats wanted the public to know as much about their health care proposal as possible. Dems were desperate for Americans to learn the details, in part because Democratic officials believed people would like what they saw, but also because Dems wanted the facts to counteract the nonsensical rumors and brazen lies touted by the ACA's opponents. What's more, once "Obamacare" was law, Dems were confident that the law's popularity would eventually grow -- which is largely what's happened.

In 2017, however, all of this is reversed. Republicans plainly don't want Americans to get too close a look at their unpopular legislation, and have no real confidence that the public will actually like what GOP officials came up with behind closed doors.

All of which leads to a question that isn't asked often enough: why in the world are they doing this? Or more to the point, why aren't they concerned about a political backlash? As Vox's Ezra Klein put it the other day, "If their plan is so unpopular they can't defend it in theory, how will they defend it in practice? Each day this goes on, it seems less like a legislative process and more like a form of madness."

read more

Ford's production decision causes a political headache for Trump

In early February, just a couple of weeks into his presidency, Donald Trump appeared on Fox News and boasted about Ford Motor Company's decision not to expand production at a new plant in Mexico.

"We're losing our jobs to Mexico," Trump argued, adding, "And I have to tell you I've turned it around, already I've turned it around, you see that. Ford has been phenomenal. They canceled the plan."

What the president neglected to mention is Ford's new plan. The New York Times reported that the American auto giant will "build its next-generation small car in China rather than in the United States or Mexico."

Last year, the company said it planned to shift Focus production to a plant under construction in Mexico, primarily because of lower labor costs. But Ford canceled the project in January after it met stiff opposition from President Trump, who had repeatedly criticized the company for investing in Mexican jobs at the expense of American ones.

Now Ford, the nation's second-largest automaker, after General Motors, is centralizing much of its small-car production in China, where it has available capacity.

This appears to have been a straightforward business decision, unrelated to political pressures. A Wall Street Journal report noted that Ford expects to save $500 million by building its next-generation Focus in China, as compared to the original Mexican plan.

And while it wouldn't be fair to blame the White House for the auto maker's latest move, it does create a political headache for the president who was a little too eager to boast about Ford scrapping its plans south of the border.

read more

Trump's efforts to 'monetize the presidency' grow more audacious

Donald Trump's bid to win a second term as president was well underway before his first term even began. Ahead of his Inauguration Day, Trump's 2020 campaign already had a campaign office, campaign staff, and even an official slogan. The campaign apparatus has hosted a series of campaign rallies -- three-and-a-half years early -- including one last night in Iowa.

And like every modern campaign, Trump's re-election effort is eager to fill its campaign coffers. The New York Times reported a couple of months ago that the Republican "is raising money toward a bid for a second term earlier than any incumbent president in recent history, pulling in tens of millions of dollars in the months after his election and through his inauguration."

But what's amazing about this isn't just the fact that Trump is scrambling for campaign cash; it's also where he's choosing to do so. The Associated Press reported late yesterday on the president headlining a D.C.-fundraiser at his own hotel.

Trump can see the Trump International Hotel from the White House lawn, making it a premier and convenient location for the June 28 major-donor event, his campaign director Michael Glassner said.

But the choice also raises ethics questions, according to conflict of interest attorneys who have been critical of Trump's decision not to cut financial ties with his global business empire.

Norm Eisen, the Obama White House's chief ethics attorney, told the AP that Trump is "becoming more and more brazen in his efforts to monetize the presidency."

read more

Wednesday's Mini-Report, 6.21.17

Today's edition of quick hits:

* Iraq: "The Islamic State on Wednesday night destroyed Mosul's centuries-old Al Nuri Grand Mosque and its distinctive leaning minaret, one of Iraq's most famous landmarks, according to an Iraqi military statement."

* Perhaps the White House should care: "People connected to the Russian government tried to hack election-related computer systems in 21 states, a Department of Homeland Security official testified Wednesday."

* This seems like a good question: "The Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are questioning why the White House didn't suspend the security clearances of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and presidential adviser Jared Kushner, after questions arose about their contacts with Russian officials."

* A story we've been watching: "Vice President Mike Pence has chosen not to use an allied political committee to pay for the private attorney he retained last week to represent him in the special counsel probe of Trump associates' ties to Russia, two people close to Mr. Pence said Wednesday."

* A surprising story about Jay Solomon: "The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday fired its highly regarded chief foreign affairs correspondent after evidence emerged of his involvement in prospective commercial deals -- including one involving arms sales to foreign governments — with an international businessman who was one of his key sources."

read more

After tough talk, Trump is poised to deliver for the drug industry

One of the few key areas on which Donald Trump broke with Republican Party orthodoxy was lowering prices on prescription drugs. In fact, shortly before taking office, he complained bitterly about the pharmaceutical industry's powerful lobbyists, and said drug companies are "getting away with murder."

For some on the left, this offered at least some hope that the Trump administration would be progressive on the issue, though those hopes faded soon after the president took office. In late January, Trump reversed course, saying he no longer wanted to use the government's buying power to lower costs, denouncing such a policy as "price fixing."

Vox explained at the time that the White House's approach appeared to amount to little more than "lowering taxes" and "getting rid of regulations."

That turned out to be exactly right. Five months later, the New York Times reports on a draft of an executive order the president intends to sign on drug prices that "appears to give the pharmaceutical industry much of what it has asked for."

The draft, which The New York Times obtained on Tuesday, is light on specifics but clear on philosophy: Easing regulatory hurdles for the drug industry is the best way to get prices down.

The proposals identify some issues that have stoked public outrage -- such as the high out-of-pocket costs for medicines -- but it largely leaves the drug industry unscathed. In fact, the four-page document contains several proposals that have long been championed by the industry, including strengthening drugmakers' monopoly power overseas and scaling back a federal program that requires pharmaceutical companies to give discounts to hospitals and clinics that serve low-income patients.

This is entirely in line with a Politico report from last week, which said Trump's approach to drug prices would be "industry friendly," and the White House does not intend to push the idea of using federal leverage to negotiate lower prices -- which is what the president vowed to do before he was elected.

read more