GOP Leaders Release Details of Plan to Replace Obamacare


The Ferguson Forum note: Any plan that keeps Medicaid, which is fiscally unsustainable, is socialized medicine.  This plan also creates a taxpayer-funded health insurance entitlement for people with pre-existing conditions, which is fiscally unsustainable socialized medicine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Republican leaders mapped out their proposal for how Obamacare will be repealed and replaced in a closed-door meeting Thursday, outlining plans for Medicaid reforms and refundable tax credits for Americans.
Joined briefly by newly confirmed Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden presented the details to members.
The plan comes amid mounting frustration from the chamber’s conservative wing, who want to see their leaders move faster on repealing Obamacare and decided to coalesce around their own replacement plan Wednesday after discussions over potential changes to the health care system slowed.
GOP lawmakers said repeatedly they would unwind Obamacare—a promise repeated by President Donald Trump on the campaign trail—but the conference has yet to come together on which parts of the law would be repealed and how.
And members are likely to face questions on Obamacare’s future from constituents on both sides of the aisle when they head home for the Presidents Day recess.
Ryan told reporters on Thursday that upon returning to Washington at the end of the month, lawmakers would introduce the repeal and replace legislation.
However, he noted that GOP lawmakers are waiting on cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation
“What we’re proposing is a patient-centered system where the patient designs their plan. The patient gets to decide what they want to do,” Ryan said. “The nucleus is the patient and her doctor versus the nucleus of the system being the government in Obamacare’s sake.”

According to a copy of the 
presentation leaders gave to Republicans that was obtained by The Daily Signal, the plan calls for Congress to pass legislation that repeals Obamacare’s taxes, individual and employer mandates, and subsidies. It also stresses that the Medicaid expansion, which loosened program eligibility requirements, would also be changed.
Then, it maps out four key components of a replacement: modernize Medicaid, use State Innovation Grants, expand health savings accounts, and provide portable, monthly tax credits.
Specifically, Americans purchasing coverage on the individual market would receive an advanceable, refundable tax credit based on age.
The plan also expands the use of health savings accounts, a policy that is the hallmark of nearly every proposal Republicans have presented over the last six years.
Brady and Walden’s replacement plan calls for an increase in the maximum contribution Americans can make to their health savings accounts. Currently, individuals can contribute $3,400 each year to a health savings account, but the Republicans’ plan would raise that limit to $6,500.
Republicans are generally in agreement on the expansion of health savings accounts and even on providing Americans some form of financial assistance, but GOP members are more divided on how to handle changes to Medicaid.
Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia expanded Medicaid, and had 100 percent of Medicaid costs for those who are newly eligible covered by the federal government from 2014 to 2016. Now, GOP senators representing some of those states have pushed for the expansion to remain in place.
The plan put forth by House Republican leaders would pare down the match rates for the expanded Medicaid population over time, but allow states to continue enrolling new beneficiaries under the expansion’s eligibility. Republicans then propose changing it to either a per-capita allotment or block grant program.
The proposal provides a transition period, though not defined, for states that did expand Medicaid.
To ease the concerns of leaders from expansion states, Ryan said Walden and Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, have been working with Republican governors to discuss potential changes to the program.
The last item in the GOP’s replacement plan calls for the creation of high-risk pools, which would be funded by federal dollars allocated to the states and can be used to help those with pre-existing conditions.
Republicans plan to repeal Obamacare using a budget tool called reconciliation, which fast-tracks legislation in the Senate and allows it to pass with 51 votes.
Their plan is to start with a repeal bill that passed both chambers in 2015, but was ultimately vetoed by President Barack Obama.
GOP leaders are planning to build on the 2015 bill by including parts of Obamacare’s replacement.
Late last month, Ryan mapped out a timeline for Obamacare’s repeal, telling GOP colleagues the House would dismantle the bill in March or April.
But House conservatives are becoming frustrated with the speed leaders are moving and want to see action before then.
On Monday, the approximately 40 members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus voted unanimously to back the 2015 Obamacare repeal bill, and on Wednesday, they endorsed an Obamacare replacement plan released by Sen. Rand Paul.
This article has been updated to clarify the proposal’s changes to Medicaid expansion.

Report by The Daily Signal's Melissa Quinn.  Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Trump Blasts #FakeNews and ‘Failing’ Media Outlets


President Donald Trump went toe-to-toe with the media at a White House press conference Thursday, using terms such as “fake news” and “failing” to describe many of the recent stories about his administration.

“I turn on the TV, open the newspapers, and I see stories of chaos, chaos,” Trump said. “Yet it is the exact opposite. This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine, despite the fact that I can’t get my Cabinet approved.”

He also said, “In other words, the media’s trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made and they’re not happy about it for whatever reason.”

During the press conference, CNN’s Jim Acosta asked, “Aren’t you concerned, sir, that you are undermining the people’s faith in the First Amendment, freedom of the press, the press in this country, when you call stories you don’t like ‘fake news?’”

Trump said, “I’m changing it from fake news, though. Very fake news.”

Trump continued:

It’s so important to the public to get an honest press. The press—the public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you.

Trump said, “I mean, you have a lower approval rate than Congress. I think that’s right.”

Trump singled out CNN more than any other news outlet, saying, “I mean, I watch CNN, it’s so much anger and hatred and just the hatred.”

Acosta later said, “Just for the record, we don’t hate you. I don’t hate you.”

Trump responded, “Ask [CNN President] Jeff Zucker how he got his job. OK?”

Major media figures, such as NBC’s Chuck Todd, expressed alarm at Trump’s comments.
However, Jeff Mason, the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association who covers the president for Reuters, had a more reserved view.
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group, who has in the past been a critic of Trump, said some aspects of the press conference amused him.
This marks the third press conference for Trump this week, after holding two prior press conferences with foreign leaders.

Regarding the story about Trump’s recent firing of national security adviser Michael Flynn and his communication with a Russian ambassador, Trump said: “The leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.”

Trump went on to denounce reports that his campaign aides communicated with Russians.

“The failing New York Times wrote a big, long front-page story yesterday and it was very much discredited, as you know,” Trump said. “It was—it’s a joke, and the people mentioned in the story, I notice they were on television today saying they never even spoke to Russia. They weren’t even a part, really—I mean, they were such a minor part. They—I hadn’t spoken to them.”

He later talked about a Wall Street Journal story that said intelligence officials didn’t trust the president.

“And just while you’re at it, because you mentioned this, Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New York Times’ story yesterday.”

Trump said he’s actually having fun speaking to the press:

I’m actually having a very good time, OK? … I won with news conferences and probably speeches. I certainly didn’t win by people listening to you people. That’s for sure. But I’m having a good time. Tomorrow, they will say, ‘Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.’ I’m not ranting and raving. I’m just telling you. You know, you’re dishonest people. But I’m not ranting and raving. I love this. I’m having a good time doing it.

Report by The Daily Signal's Fred Lucas.  Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Moscow Issues Its First Nuclear Challenge to Trump

Almost right out of the gate, the Trump administration is facing its first arms control challenge from Moscow.
Russia has reportedly deployed its new cruise missile in an apparent violation of the Reagan-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, in effect since 1988.
The treaty prohibits the possession of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Russia’s ground-launched SSC-8 cruise missile has been under development and testing for several years.
Russia initially violated the treaty by testing the missile during Barack Obama’s presidency. Despite becoming aware of this apparent violation, the Obama administration did not take any forceful action to bring Russia back into compliance with the treaty, merely sending President Vladimir Putin a letter of concern in July of 2014.
The Obama administration was less than forthcoming in discussing challenges that the treaty violation poses for the United States and its allies. The State Department’s annual compliance reports prior to July 2014 wrongly led Americans to believe there was no reason for concern over the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, even though the missile has reportedly been tested as early as 2008.
The Trump administration must do better.
The missile range limit of 500 kilometers is significant for U.S. allies in Europe situated close to the Russian borders and to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave that borders Poland and Lithuania. The presence of Russian intermediate-range missiles would considerably complicate any U.S. efforts to defend its allies in the Baltics and Central and Eastern Europe should Russia decide to violate their territorial integrity.
Such a scenario is not as far-fetched as it might seem. Russia has a recent history of violating other nations’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also periodically issues nuclear threats against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and conducts military exercises that simulate nuclear strikes against Poland.
Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of Supreme Allied Command Europe and of U.S. European Command, said NATO allies are “concerned” over the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty issue and argued that violations “can’t go unanswered.”
For its part, Russia accuses the United States of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty violations. But Russian accusations are baseless. U.S. missile defense systems do not violate the treaty because the treaty itself contains an exception for them.
Neither do U.S. drones violate the treaty, as they are simply not mentioned by the treaty at all.
The Trump administration has a range of options to respond to the Russian treaty violations. Purely diplomatic measures to address the violation first begun during the Obama administration may not be sufficient.
Historically, arms control tends to limit how the United States learns about military systems and their interactions in a broader context. This is why terminating the treaty is a viable option.
Currently, Moscow is doing whatever it deems necessary to its strategic interest regardless of the treaty, while the United States continues to abide by it. The administration should not ponder any future arms control initiatives and nuclear weapons reduction agreements at least until this issue is resolved.

Commentary by Michaela Dodge. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

4 Broken Obamacare Promises Town Hall Protesters Should Remember


 While the House and Senate plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, members of Congress are hosting town hall meetings with their constituents and have been greeted by hostile crowds.
These folks seem to have amnesia about Obamacare’s glaring failures.
Here’s a quick refresher on Obamacare’s top four broken promises.
1. Costs are exploding.
President Barack Obama promised that his reform proposal would cut typical family costs by $2,500 annually. That, of course, never materialized.
The typical family today pays about 35 percent of their income for health care.
The small group and individual insurance markets were hit hard by big premium increases. An eHealth report concluded that from 2013 to 2017, the average individual market premium increases were 99 percent for individuals and a jaw-dropping 140 percent for families.
Costs have also increased for those with employer-sponsored insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, from 2010 to 2016, average family premiums for employer-sponsored plans nearly increased 32 percent.
Higher premiums are not the only shock. Out-of-pocket costs in the Obamacare exchanges, particularly deductibles, have been stunning. HealthPocket analyzed that for the lowest tier bronze plans in 2017, the average deductible for an individual is $6,092 and $12,383 for a family.
2. Competition and choice are declining.
Obama told America his proposal would increase competition in the health insurance markets but that hasn’t happened either.
On Tuesday, news broke that Humana will be leaving the Obamacare exchange markets next year. This was just the latest in a growing list of insurers who are jumping ship from this massive public policy failure.
Town hall audiences should take a good look at county-level data. A new Heritage Foundation analysis found that Obamacare’s exchanges, in their fourth year of operation, offer Americans little health insurer choice.
The downward slide in competition means that in 2017, consumers in 70 percent of U.S. counties are left with just one or two insurer options on the exchanges. The 70 percent figure is way up from 36 percent in 2016.
3. Forget about keeping your plan.
Perhaps the most famous health care promise of all, Obama’s promise: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.” In fact, there were 37 instances where Obama or a high-ranking administration official repeated that infamous promise to keep you plan and your doctor.
Rarely has there been such a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. In 2014, the first year that Obamacare was fully implemented, the Associated Press reported that there were at least 4.7 million canceled policies across 30 states. The law’s insurance rules and mandates forced many insurers to cancel plans that people liked and wanted.
Sadly, the disruption only continued from there. For example, hundreds of thousands of people signed up for plans offered by insurers under Obamacare’s co-op program.
But 18 out of 23 of these federally-funded insurers have already collapsed, meaning taxpayers are highly unlikely to be repaid the more than $1.9 billion in loans they received—not to mention the thousands of co-op enrollees that lost their health care plans, some in the middle of the year.
Not exactly a proud moment in public policy.
4. No, you can’t necessarily keep your doctor.
Obama promised patients that they would be able to keep their doctors. For many patients, that also turned out to be untrue.
Obamacare’s rising costs, and its limited flexibility in federally fixed benefit designs, resulted in plans resorting to narrow provider networks. Narrow networks limit access to doctors and other medical professionals as a way to contain costs.
Enough is enough. For seven years, Obamacare has proved to be one giant bundle of broken promises and policy failures. Congress needs to get serious—quickly—and repeal Obamacare.
This is a crucial first step in moving America toward the patient-centered health care system our country deserves.

Commentary by Jean Morrow. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Trump versus reality: Is this claim even remotely true?


Trump, today: "It was the biggest Electoral College win since Reagan."
Reality: It was one of the smallest Electoral College wins since Reagan


ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES
525 - 1984, Reagan 
489 - 1980, Reagan 
426 - 1988, Bush 
379 - 1996, Clinton 
370 - 1992, Clinton 
365 - 2008, Obama
332 - 2012, Obama
304 - 2016, TRUMP
286 - 2004, Bush 
271 - 2000, Bush 

ELECTORAL COLLEGE MARGIN
512 - 1984, Reagan 
440 - 1980, Reagan 
315 - 1988, Bush 
220 - 1996, Clinton 
202 - 1992, Clinton 
192 - 2008, Obama
126 - 2012, Obama
77 - 2016, TRUMP
35 - 2004, Bush 

5 - 2000, Bush 

EPA staff told to prepare for Trump executive orders - sources

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt testifies before a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee confirmation hearing on his nomination to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, U.S., January 18, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
By David Shepardson, Timothy Gardner and Richard Valdmanis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have been told that President Donald Trump is preparing a handful of executive orders to reshape the agency, to be signed once a new administrator is confirmed, two sources who attended the meeting told Reuters on Wednesday.

A senior EPA official who had been briefed by members of the Trump administration mentioned the executive orders at a meeting of staffers in the EPA's Office of General Counsel on Tuesday, but did not provide details about what the orders would say, said the sources, who asked not to be named.

"It was just a heads-up to expect some executive orders, that's it," one of the sources said.

The second source said attendees at the meeting were told Trump would sign between two and five executive orders.

Trump administration officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump has promised to cut U.S. environmental rules - including those ushered in by former President Barack Obama targeting carbon dioxide emissions - as a way to bolster the drilling and coal mining industries, but has vowed to do so without compromising air and water quality.

Trump has also expressed doubts about the science behind climate change and promised during his campaign to pull the United States out of a global pact to combat it. Since his election in November, he has softened that stance, saying he would keep an "open mind" to the climate accord.

Trump's pick to run the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is scheduled to face a Senate confirmation vote on Friday, according to a Senate aide, after a contentious hearing last month in which lawmakers pressed Pruitt on his ties to the oil industry. Pruitt sued the EPA more than a dozen times to block its regulations while he was the top prosecutor for the oil and gas producing state.

Trump and Pruitt's positions have worried EPA staff, who are concerned the new administration will cut the EPA's budget, critical programs and scientific research. [nL1N1FR1JK]

Some Republican lawmakers, emboldened by Trump's election, have raised pressure on the EPA in recent days.

On Tuesday, Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, asked the EPA's inspector general to investigate whether EPA staff were using encrypted messages to coordinate efforts to derail the new administration's agenda, in possible violation of federal records laws.

Earlier this month, Rep. Matt Gaetz introduced a 45-word bill to "terminate" the EPA - a piece of legislation that is not expected to pass.

US Economic Freedom Has Hit a Historic Low. What Happened?

It’s already been eight years since the Great Recession, yet the U.S. economy has been just inching along, with its productivity flagging and millions being locked out of the labor market.

One critical underlying factor for this lack of economic dynamism has been the startling decline of America’s economic freedom, an unfortunate legacy of Barack Obama’s eight-year presidency.

The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of Economic Freedom—an annual global study that compares countries’ entrepreneurial environments—highlights the urgent need for the U.S. to change course. For the ninth time since 2008, America has lost ground.

According to the 2017 index, the U.S. ranks 17th out of 180 rated economies, lagging behind other comparable advanced economies such as Switzerland (fourth), Australia (fifth), Canada (seventh), and the United Kingdom (12th).

The U.S. remains mired in the ranks of the “mostly free,” the second-tier economic freedom status into which it dropped in 2010.

Since 1995, the index has measured a nation’s commitment to limited government and free enterprise on a scale of 0 to 100 by evaluating four critical policy pillars, including rule of law and regulatory efficiency.

These commitments have powerful effects: Countries achieving higher levels of economic freedom consistently and measurably outperform others in economic growth, long-term prosperity, and social progress. Those losing freedom, on the other hand, risk economic stagnation, high unemployment, and deteriorating social conditions.


In fact, America’s standing in the index had dwindled steadily during the Obama years. This largely owed to increased government spending, regulations, and a failed stimulus program that enriched the well-connected while leaving average Americans behind.

Registering its lowest economic freedom score ever, America continued its string of discouraging trends in the 2017 index. Obama’s Washington-first, government-centric approach to policymaking has inflicted long-term damage to U.S. economic growth.

A substantial expansion in the size and scope of government under the Obama administration—including through new and costly regulations in areas like finance, health care, and the environment—has hit wide swaths of the economy, affecting almost every American in some way and reducing opportunities for nongovernmental production and investment.

The growth of government has been accompanied by increasing cronyism that has undermined the rule of law and perceptions of fairness.

Our nation’s fiscal health has been grossly dented as well. The national debt has nearly doubled since 2009, growing from $10.6 trillion to around $20 trillion. In dollar terms, this is the largest increase in the national debt in U.S. history.

In practice, all of these negative developments that undercut America’s economic freedom have amounted to a gradual slide toward a more heavily bureaucratic state and an increasingly politicized economy over the past eight years.

Today, the imperative to restore America’s economic freedom and thereby revitalize vibrant entrepreneurial growth is stronger than ever. Americans deserve better, and they can do better.

It should be noted that free-market capitalism built on the principles of economic freedom does not just conserve the status quo. In many cases, it overturns and transforms. It pushes out the old to make way for the new so that real and true progress can take place. It leads to innovation in all realms: better jobs, better goods and services, and better societies.

The 2016 election was a game-changer. America has been given an incredible and unique opportunity to move away from Obama’s failed liberal policy agenda and toward an agenda that strives to restore America’s economic freedom and spur dynamic growth.

The Heritage Foundation has introduced such a plan, called “Blueprint for Reform: A Comprehensive Policy Agenda for a New Administration in 2017.”

It is time to act on this plan and once again unleash economic freedom and flourishing in America.

Commentary by Anthony B. Kim (@AKFREEDOM). Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Trying to quit? Tips from former smokers can help you succeed


(BPT) - Since the Surgeon General released the first report on smoking in 1964, the smoking rate among adults has decreased from 42 percent to 15 percent. Though great strides have been made, more than 36 million adults in the United States continue to smoke cigarettes, claiming nearly half a million lives a year and leaving 16 million others to live with an illness or disease caused by smoking. There are now more former cigarette smokers than current smokers in the United States, and more than half of all people who have ever smoked have quit, according to the CDC.

If you're still smoking and would like to quit, you're not alone. Nearly seven out of 10 cigarette smokers want to quit for good. Although each person's journey to a tobacco-free life is different, knowing what's worked for others could help you find what works for you. Participants from CDC's Tips From Former Smokers(TM) campaign share what worked best for them in their journeys to quitting smoking.

Choose a quit date and support team

Tiffany Roberson, 35, of Louisiana started smoking when she was just 19, despite having watched her own mother, a smoker, die of lung cancer. Over the years, Roberson tried to quit multiple times but struggled to stay quit for good. When her own daughter turned 16, she was inspired to try again. This time, a combination of tactics helped her succeed.

* A nicotine patch helped control her cravings. She chose it because it was discrete and easy to use.

* She chose a quit date. To avoid the temptation to smoke, she stayed busy on that day.

* She told her daughter and another relative she was quitting so she would be accountable for staying smoke-free. Her relatives supported her with a daily text of encouragement, noting the day of her progress-"Day 2 without smoking" and, eventually, "Day 365 without smoking."

* During work breaks, she drank water instead of smoking.

Create accountability

Beatrice Rosa-Swerbilov, 40, from New York tried her first cigarette at just 7 years old, and became a regular smoker at age 13. Although she had tried many times before, she quit for good after her 11-year-old son wrote her a letter asking her to quit smoking. Here are her success strategies.

* Avoiding triggers-things or situations that made her crave a cigarette. For example, going out for drinks with friends was a trigger, so Rosa-Swerbilov gave up doing that for a while.

* Creating accountability for herself by telling everyone that she was quitting. Her hope was that if someone did see her smoking, they would say "Oh, I thought you quit," thus holding her accountable for her decision to quit smoking.

Manage stress

Amanda Brenden, of Wisconsin, began smoking in fifth grade and was a daily smoker by age 13. She would duck outside during the day - even during Wisconsin winters - to smoke. By college, she was smoking a pack a day. When she got engaged and found out she was pregnant, she tried to quit, without success. The stress of being a pregnant college student drove her back to cigarettes. Her daughter was born two months premature and today still struggles with asthma. Breathing problems like asthma are common in premature babies.

* Stress was a trigger for Brenden, as it is for many smokers. In a smoking cessation class, she learned stress reduction techniques. She also relied on support from her family.

* When Brenden feels frustrated, she exercises to release her negative energy rather than reaching for a cigarette.

Substitute positive for negative

James Fulton, 40, of New York, began smoking at 14 to emulate his father, a smoker who was well-respected in their community. When decades of smoking began to affect his health, Fulton created a plan for quitting that included replacing negative behaviors with positive ones.

When he felt a craving for a cigarette, he used a nicotine patch or chewed sugar-free gum. He's learned to rely on exercise, becoming an avid cyclist and swimmer.

Rebecca Cox-MacDonald, 57, of Texas, also found exercise to be helpful in quitting. Surrounded by a family of smokers, she started smoking as a teenager. Multiple events inspired her to try quitting a final time; her father died of a smoking-related illness, she watched the health of other relatives who smoked deteriorate, and she developed severe gum disease-a risk for smokers-that required her to get bone grafts and dental implants.

She quit and committed to a healthier lifestyle that included regular exercise like running and getting treatment for the depression that had been a major factor in keeping her smoking.

The CDC's Tips From Former Smokers campaign brings together science-backed health information and quitting tips drawn from the real-life experiences of former smokers. For more information about how you can quit smoking, including tips from successful former smokers, visit the CDC's Quit Guide online.

Killing the Klan with Kindness

By David Gornoski

As part of my ongoing project to introduce Jesus's ethic of nonviolence to the public, I've launched my new A Neighbor's Choice media platform and, with it, a very enjoyable radio discussion I had with Daryl Davis, star of the new documentary Accidental Courtesy. The film is available in select theaters. It will debut on Itunes on Feb. 21. 

Watch the film's trailer:





A vaunted African American blues musician who has played with some of the all-time greats, Daryl Davis uses his love of music and Americana to reach out and befriend leaders of the KKK. "How can you hate me if you don't even know me?" he asks them.


My interview with Daryl Davis showcases the difference between Jesus's personhood ethic and collectivism. In it, Davis recounts a lifetime of courage and daring encounters leaders of the Klan. Instead of writing them off due to their nasty ideology, he patiently gets to know them. Many of the Klansmen end up bonding with Daryl and, as a result, renouncing their membership in the KKK.

Daryl Davis's insistence on seeing ideologues as persons pierced through the deep-seated veil of collectivism and brought human compassion to his enemies. Some leaders of leftist groups like the NAACP and Black Lives Matter have attacked him for the same reason the Pharisees attacked Jesus: they are focused on winning and beating the enemy group. Daryl wasn't.

Ironically, his face-to-face fellowship approach over collective fear and anger caused real transformation and renunciation of violence. He models a beautiful path towards racial healing and respect for individual persons. Please enjoy my interview with Daryl Davis.




David Gornoski
David Gornoski
David Gornoski is your neighbor – as well as an entrepreneur, speaker and writer. He recently launched a project called A Neighbor’s Choice, which seeks to introduce Jesus’ culture of nonviolence to both Christians and the broader public.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Unions Play Politics While Membership Tanks

Union memberships keep declining. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report on union membership found the trend has not changed. This time, it's declined to the lowest point in United States history since the agency began keeping track.

In 2015, the public and private sector union membership rate was 11.1 percent of the combined workforce. It dropped to 10.7 percent in 2016, a loss of 240,000 union members.


For some perspective on the staggering losses unions have suffered, in 1983, the first year comparable data is available, labor unions had 17.7 million members. In 2016, there were only 14.6 million members. The hollowing out of union membership would be much worse if not for the public sector, where the membership rate is five times higher than the private sector.


Why the Decline?


Why is union membership, especially in the private sector, on a continuous decline? In part, many labor unions, like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), have become appendages of the Democratic Party and reliant on government to ease union organizing rather than provide value to workers.


For example, the SEIU spent tens of millions of dollars worth of membership dues on politics in the past couple of election cycles, with nearly all the contributions going to Democrats. Such political bias is a turnoff to many union members. A large minority of union members vote Republican every election, and that was no different in this past election.


Additionally, if union membership continued to fall during the Obama administration, which did everything in its power to help unions at the expense of worker choice, then it's obvious something is wrong. Unions need to switch up the playbook on how to attract members. Perhaps use more membership dues on activities that directly benefit workers, like training and education, instead of politics and corporate campaigns.

But so far, the SEIU and their ilk have chosen to double down on politics and smear tactics.

Over the last several years, the SEIU spent millions of dollars funding the "Fight for $15," a union front group, and paying high-profile consulting firms like Berlin Rosen to attack companies they wish to organize. While its primary purpose is to advocate for a $15 an hour minimum wage, its second purpose is to smear companies that the SEIU wants to organize.
Instead of organizing with the intent of gaining worker support, the SEIU applies public pressure and attempts to intimidate employers into signing card-check neutrality agreements, which take away workers' right to a secret-ballot election.

Focus on the People

Politically minded unions should heed the advice of one of their own, United Auto Workers Secretary-Treasurer Gary Casteel:

This is something I've never understood, that people think right-to-work hurts unions … To me, it helps them. You don't have to belong if you don't want to. So if I go to an organizing drive, I can tell these workers, 'If you don't like this arrangement, you don't have to belong,' versus, 'If we get 50 percent of you, then all of you have to belong, whether you like to or not.' I don't even like the way that sounds, because it's a voluntary system, and if you don't think the system's earning its keep, then you don't have to pay."
Unions need to stop forcing themselves on workers and seeking government privilege to do so. The only way to reverse Big Labor's downward spiral is for unions to prove their worth to workers, something unions generally seem unwilling to do.

Trey Kovacs
Trey Kovacs
Trey Kovacs is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on the economic impacts of labor policy.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Republicans Are Already Trying to Raise Taxes

Republicans in the House of Representatives are inadvertently setting a nasty political and economic trap for Donald Trump. Yes, it’s the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are ready to administer an unnecessary black eye to the new President. That’s not their intention, but it manifestly will be the result.

The vehicle for this unwitting GOP punch is a new exaction called the border adjustability tax. This levy will cost American consumers at least a trillion dollars over the next ten years. Knowing how Washington politicians calculate these things, you can bet the amount will end up being considerably more. Prices for everyday items, such as socks, shoes and household appliances, will go up. So will tech devices like the iPad, not to mention automobiles and trucks. Gasoline? Millions of Americans will pay an additional 30 cents or more per gallon at the pump. Lower-income and struggling middle-class Americans will get hit the hardest.


Few people are even aware of what the Republicans are getting ready to hit them with. There has been virtually no debate or public discussion about this new, horrible tax, yet in one of those strange fits of collective, self-destructive behavior, numerous GOP lawmakers are ready to enact it.


Here’s how, in essence, this sneaky, anti-consumer tax works. Importers will no longer be allowed to deduct an item as a business expense. To simplify things, let's say a store imports a pair of sneakers for $40 and then sells them for $50, making a $10 profit on which it would owe taxes. Under the Republican plan, however, the retailer wouldn't be able to deduct the $40 it paid for the sneakers. In fact, it would owe taxes on the entire $50! And who, ultimately, pays this tax? You, the consumer, in the form of higher prices or fewer choices of where you can shop. Retailers and their customers will be hit.


Many oil refiners import crude oil to turn into gasoline. This new tax will sharply raise their costs, which will spell pain when you fill up your tank. Worse, some could be forced out of business or have to sharply curtail operations, as drivers cut back on buying the suddenly more expensive fuel.

Companies like BMW, Toyota, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai have major manufacturing operations in the U.S. that employ tens of thousands of workers in good-paying jobs. These companies’ costs will soar because they import numerous parts for the vehicles their workers assemble.

The Loophole of All Loopholes


But wait, it gets worse. Another feature of this bizarre GOP scheme gives exporters a gargantuan tax break by, in effect, not taxing their export revenues. Let's say a corporation sells a piece of machinery to Iran for $5 million, which cost only $4 million to produce. That means $1 million in taxable profit. Under the new Republican scheme, however, that $5 million received from the mullahs wouldn’t be taxable. Instead of a $1 million profit, the corporation, for tax purposes, would have a $4 million loss. Loophole doesn't begin to describe this "tax break."


No wonder companies like Boeing, GE and other big exporters are orgasming over this GOP "reform."


Big breaks for big companies, higher prices for beleaguered consumers. Why are the Republicans doing this? They say the revenue raised will help finance a huge tax cut, such as getting rid of the death tax and the horrific alternative minimum tax, cutting the corporate tax rate from its disastrous 35% to a highly stimulative 20% or less and very meaningfully lightening the tax burden on individuals. These are all extremely exciting ideas and would do wonders for the economy.

But enacting a big, brand-new tax to finance cuts in old taxes is a dangerous business, especially in the way the Republicans are going about it. Democrats will gleefully remind voters why prices are going up, conveniently ignoring the tax cuts. Moreover, the GOP border adjustment tax is a but a small step away from a full-blown value added tax, which has financed the bloating of governments around the world. Democrats will someday be back in power, and they won't hesitate to either ramp up this GOP-created tax or go for the VAT. This would be hypocritical--rip apart the Republicans over this tax, and then go on to compound their felony. A VAT would crush future U.S. economic growth rates, just as it has in Europe and elsewhere.


Consider this astonishing fact: In the mid-1960s government spending in Europe as a proportion of their economies wasn't much different from our own. Growth rates matched or exceeded ours. Then Europe discovered the VAT. Spending ballooned and growth slowed to a crawl, consistently clocking in at significantly lower levels than Uncle Sam's.


Republicans also claim their new tax would help exports. In the real world it would do no such thing, as astute tax expert Dan Mitchell has explained (see this and this).


The GOP should drop this tax scheme. Why create unnecessary conflict and damage our new President? Republicans shouldn’t be constrained by the Congressional Budget Office's antiquated way of measuring the economic impact of changes in taxes. Drop the green eye shades, and go for big cuts that would turbo-charge the economy.

Republished from Forbes.
Steve Forbes
Steve Forbes
Steve Forbes is an American publishing executive, who was twice a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for President. Forbes is the Editor-in-Chief of Forbes, a business magazine. Forbes was a Republican candidate in the 1996 and 2000 Presidential primaries. Forbes is the son of longtime Forbes publisher Malcolm Forbes, and the grandson of that publication's founder, B.C. Forbes.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Kremlin dismisses report of Trump campaign contacts with Russian spies

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) sits next to retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (L) as they attend an exhibition marking the 10th anniversary of RT (Russia Today) television news channel in Moscow, Russia, December 10, 2015. Sputnik/Mikhail... REUTERS

By Maria Tsvetkova and Alessandra  Prentice

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia dismissed on Wednesday as groundless a U.S. media report that said members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign had contacts with Russian intelligence officials.

The report, from the New York Times, has boosted concerns about Russia's role in influencing the outcome of the United States' election. U.S. intelligence agencies have already accused Russia of being behind the hacking of Democratic Party emails in order to help Trump, a Republican, to win.

U.S-Russia relations are under particular scrutiny following the inauguration of Trump, who pledged in his campaign to improve ties with the Kremlin after they deteriorated to their worst level since the Cold War under the Obama administration.

The New York Times, citing four current and former U.S. officials, reported on Tuesday that phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Trump's campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.

"Let's not believe anonymous information," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a conference call with reporters, noting that the newspaper's sources were unnamed.

"It's a newspaper report which is not based on any facts."

In a rare comment to media, Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service told the TASS news agency the report consisted of "unsubstantiated media allegations".

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denied there had been any inappropriate contact between Trump representatives and Russian state agencies during the campaign.

She told a daily news briefing the latest allegations looked like part of a domestic U.S. political tussle that Russian officials have suggested is designed to damage the chances for better U.S.-Russia ties.

"We're not surprised by anything anymore. This information once again proves that a very deep political game is playing out within the United States," said Zakharova.

The prospect of a swift rapprochement between Russia and the United has lessened since Trump's inauguration due to scandals including the resignation on Monday of national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was seen in Moscow as a leading advocate of softer U.S. policy towards Russia.



 (Writing by Andrew Osborn and Alessandra Prentice; Editing by Gareth Jones)

NY Times says Trump campaign had repeated contact with Russian intelligence

US President Donald Trump listens to a translation during a joint news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the White House in Washington, US, February 10, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

(Reuters) - Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing four current and former U.S. officials.

U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said, according to the Times.

The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election, the newspaper said.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said they had seen no evidence of such cooperation so far, it said.

However, the intercepts alarmed U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Trump was speaking glowingly about Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, and Sergei I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, the Times said.

During those calls, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December. Flynn misled the White House about those calls and was asked to resign on Monday night.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for comment on the Times story.

The Times reported that the officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other Trump associates.

On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the Russian government outside the intelligence services, the officials told the Times. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified, the newspaper reported.

The officials said one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Russia and Ukraine, the Times said. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.

Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the accounts of the U.S. officials in a telephone interview with the Times on Tuesday.

Several of Trump's associates, like Manafort, have done business in Russia. It is not unusual for U.S. businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society, according to the Times.

Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business, the Times said.

Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, which Russian intelligence officials were on the calls, and how many of Trump's advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Trump himself, the Times said.



 (Writing by Eric Beech; Editing by Paul Tait)