US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7312

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration will move forward with the sale of high-tech aircraft to Nigeria for its campaign against Boko Haram Islamic extremists despite concerns over abuses committed by the African nation's security forces, according to U.S. officials.

Congress is expected to receive formal notification within weeks, setting in motion a deal with Nigeria that the Obama administration had planned to approve at the very end of Barack Obama's presidency. The arrangement will call for Nigeria to purchase up to 12 Embraer A-29 Super Tucano aircraft with sophisticated targeting gear for nearly $600 million, one of the officials said.

The officials were not authorized to discuss the terms of the sale publicly and requested anonymity to speak about internal diplomatic conversations.

Though President Donald Trump has made clear his intention to approve the sale of the aircraft, the National Security Council is still working on the issue. Military sales to several other countries are also expected to be approved but are caught up in an ongoing White House review. Nigeria has been trying to buy the aircraft since 2015.

The Nigerian air force has been accused of bombing civilian targets at least three times in recent years. In the worst incident, a fighter jet on Jan. 17 repeatedly bombed a camp at Rann, near the border with Cameroon, where civilians had fled from Boko Haram. Between 100 and 236 civilians and aid workers were killed, according to official and community leaders' counts.

That bombing occurred on the same day the Obama administration intended to officially notify Congress the sale would go forward. Instead, it was abruptly put on hold, according to an individual who worked on the issue during Obama's presidency. Days later, Trump was inaugurated.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said this past week that he supported the A-29 deal to Nigeria as well as the sale of U.S.-made fighter jets to Bahrain that had been stripped of human rights caveats imposed by the Obama administration.

Under Obama, the U.S. said Bahrain failed to make promised political and human rights reforms after its Sunni-ruled government crushed Arab Spring protests five years ago.

"We need to deal with human rights issues, but not on weapons sales," Corker said.

The State Department said in a 2016 report that the Nigerian government has taken "few steps to investigate or prosecute officials who committed violations, whether in the security forces or elsewhere in the government, and impunity remained widespread at all levels of government."

Amnesty International has accused Nigeria's military of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the extrajudicial killings of an estimated 8,000 Boko Haram suspects. President Muhammadu Buhari promised to investigate the alleged abuses after he won office in March 2015, but no soldier has been prosecuted and thousands of people remain in illegal military detention. Nigeria's military has denied the allegations.

The A-29 sale would improve the U.S. relationship with Nigeria, Africa's largest consumer market of 170 million people, the continent's biggest economy and its second-largest oil producer. Nigeria also is strategically located on the edge of the Sahel, the largely lawless semi-desert region bridging north and sub-Saharan Africa where experts warn Islamic extremists like the Nigeria-based Boko Haram may expand their reach.

The aircraft deal also would satisfy Trump's priorities to support nations fighting Islamic uprisings, boost U.S. manufacturing and create high-wage jobs at home. The A-29 aircraft, which allow pilots to pinpoint targets at night, are assembled in Jacksonville, Florida.

"It's hard to argue that any country in Africa is more important than Nigeria for the geopolitical and other strategic interests of the U.S.," said J. Peter Pham, vice president of the Atlantic Council in Washington and head of its Africa Center.

Once Congress is officially notified of the sale, lawmakers who want to derail it have 30 days to pass veto-proof legislation. That's a high hurdle given Corker's support. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also said he backs the sale.

"We've really got to try to do what we can to contain them," McCain said of Boko Haram.

In Trump's first phone call with Buhari in February, he "assured the Nigerian president of U.S. readiness to cut a new deal in helping Nigeria in terms of military weapons to combat terrorism," according to Buhari's office.

A Feb. 15 White House statement that provided a summary of the call said "President Trump expressed support for the sale of aircraft from the United States to support Nigeria's fight against Boko Haram."

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in mid-February he was "leery" of the sale because of the Nigerian military's impunity. Cardin said this week he's not trying to block the deal.

"Ultimately we hope that the sale goes forward," he said. "But there is progress that needs to be made in protecting the civilian population."

On April 10 2017 21:55 Simberto wrote:
Sadly, in a two party system, you are probably fucked because it is way to partisan. You really need a system that allows you to vote for someone else. But you have the choice between two options, so you have to choose the less shitty one, even if it is corrupt or crazy.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has scrapped the tax plan he campaigned on and is going back to the drawing board in a search for Republican consensus behind legislation to overhaul the U.S. tax system.

The administration's first attempt to write legislation is in its early stages and the White House has kept much of it under wraps. But it has already sprouted the consideration of a series of unorthodox proposals including a drastic cut to the payroll tax, aimed at appealing to Democrats.

Some view the search for new options as a result of Trump's refusal to set clear parameters for his plan and his exceedingly challenging endgame: reducing tax rates enough to spur faster growth without blowing up the budget deficit.

Administration officials say it's now unlikely that a tax overhaul will meet the August deadline set by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. But the ambitious pace to figure out a plan reflects Trump's haste to move quickly past a bruising failure to broker a compromise within his own party on how to replace the health insurance law enacted under President Barack Obama.

The White House is trying to learn the lessons from health care. Rather than accepting a bill written by the lawmakers, White House officials are taking a more active role. Administration officials have signaled that they want to pass tax legislation with only Republican votes, yet they've also held listening sessions with House Democrats.

White House aides say the goal is to cut tax rates sharply enough to improve the economic picture in depressed rural and industrial pockets of the country where many Trump voters live. But the administration so far has swatted down alternative ways for raising revenues, such as a carbon tax, to offset lower rates.

Trump, who brands himself as a deal-maker, has not said which trade-offs he might accept and he has remained noncommittal on the leading blueprint, from Rep. Kevin Brady, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Brady, R-Texas, has proposed a border adjustment system, which would eliminate corporate deductions on imports, to raise $1 trillion over 10 years that could fund lower corporate tax rates.

But that possibility has rankled retailers who say it would lead to higher prices and threaten millions of jobs, while some lawmakers have worried that the system would violate World Trade Organization rules.

Brady has said he intends to amend the blueprint but has not spelled out how he would do so.

Other options are being shopped on Capitol Hill.

One circulating this past week would change the House Republican plan to eliminate much of the payroll tax and cut corporate tax rates. This would require a new dedicated funding source for Social Security.

The change, proposed by a GOP lobbyist with close ties to the Trump administration, would transform Brady's plan on imports into something closer to a value-added tax by also eliminating the deduction of labor expenses. This would bring it in line with WTO rules and generate an additional $12 trillion over 10 years, according to budget estimates. Those additional revenues could then enable the end of the 12.4 percent payroll tax, split evenly between employers and employees, that funds Social Security, while keeping the health insurance payroll tax in place.

This approach would give a worker earning $60,000 a year an additional $3,720 in take-home pay, a possible win that lawmakers could highlight back in their districts even though it would involve changing the funding mechanism for Social Security, according to the lobbyist, who asked for anonymity to discuss the proposal without disrupting early negotiations.

Although some billed this as a bipartisan solution, and President Barack Obama did temporarily cut the payroll tax after the Great Recession, others note it probably would run into firm opposition from Democrats who loathe to be seen as undermining Social Security.

The White House would not comment on the plan, but said a value-added tax based on consumption is not under consideration "as of now," according to a White House statement.

The lack of detail about how to significantly rewrite tax laws for the first time in 30 years may provide Trump some time to build consensus among Republicans. But without Trump laying down his hand, lawmakers appear reluctant to back a plan that will likely stir controversy.

"Because there are trade-offs, congressmen need cover from the president to withstand the lobbyists and constituents who are going to complain," said Bill Gale, an economist at the Brookings Institution who worked at the White House Council of Economic Advisers during President George H.W. Bush's administration.

The Trump administration appears to have shut out the economists who helped assemble one of his campaign's tax overhaul plans, which independent analyses show would have increased the budget deficit.

"It's a little frustrating that they feel they have to write a new tax plan when they have a tax plan," said Steven Moore, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation who helped formulate tax policy for the Trump campaign.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said that all of the trial balloons surfacing in public don't represent the work that's being done behind the scenes.

"It's not really what's going on," Portman said. "What's going on is they're working with on various ideas."

Investors are beginning to show some doubts that Trump can deliver. Stocks rallied after his election on the promise of lower taxes and fewer regulations, but the Dow Jones Industrial Average has dipped 1.2 percent over the past month as the path for health care and tax revisions has become muddied.

"The White House is going to need its own clear direction, or it's going to need to defer to Congress, but saying that your plan is forthcoming and then not producing a plan kind of puts everything in stasis," said Alan Cole, an economist at the conservative Tax Foundation.

On April 10 2017 23:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Can they not increase capital gains and investment tax over a certain amount? I think that would be the most beneficial. Cutting payroll, which harms SS, is not going to fly. And a corporate tariff tax will not only increase cost of living countrywide, but lower how far a paycheck goes.
But of course they are only really looking out for the rich in either case. There's no winning with this administration.

On April 11 2017 00:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I won't even pretend to know the tax code and the intricacies of that.

Congressional Republicans had originally intended to return to their districts for the April recess riding high on the victory of fulfilling their years-long promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Instead, they are returning empty-handed, and will spend the next two weeks hammered by negative TV ads, inundated by frustrated constituents from all sides of the political spectrum, and forced to explain why they haven't been able to pass a bill—or even finish writing one—despite control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.

"It's not the best spot to be in," Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) admitted to TPM last week. "We are the governing majority, and they kind of expect us to say, 'This is what we plan to do.' It will be reasonable and understandable if my constituents demonstrate a level of frustration when I come back."

On their last day in session before recess, on Thursday, House Republicans unveiled yet another major tweak to the health care bill, rushed it through a committee markup, and tried to treat it as a major step on the road to passing a health care bill.

"Everybody likes to see some progress," Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) told TPM the day the amendment was introduced, just before leaving Washington. "I've always been very open with my district about where we're at, but this gives me another talking point."

"It's momentum," insisted Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH). "It certainly doesn't hurt."

Behind the scenes, however, Republicans admit they have no viable plan to bring moderates and conservatives together. The latest proposal to attempt to bridge the gap would funnel people with serious illnesses and other pre-existing conditions into something resembling state high-risk pools, which would receive $15 billion over a 9-year period in federal subsidies—far less than the most conservative estimates for how much would be needed to cover that population.

The amendment, unveiled just a couple hours before an emergency session of the House Rules Committee on Thursday, angered the committee's Democrats, who accused Republicans of putting on a cynical show for political cover.

"I guess you don't want to go home for recess without a win, if you can even claim this is a win," scoffed Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA).

A Republican source admitted as much to Fox News, saying the last-minute amendment was "all about saving face.” Another labeled the effort “a lot of noise" and "busywork.”

This latest proposal was drafted by two members of the Freedom Caucus, who argued it would bring down insurance premiums on the individual market by taking high-cost sick people out of the equation. Yet moderates told TPM they were concerned the proposal would mean unaffordable or lower quality health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, and many conservatives feel the bill still does not do enough to curtail federal control of the health care system.

"I think we will find a path forward, but if the question is if I see one, no, I do not," admitted Freedom Caucus member Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA). "If I saw one, I would have already proposed it."

Griffith and other Republican members insisted to reporters that time away from Washington would help them reach an agreement on health care after weeks of late night meetings, threats from President Trump, and last-minute amendments failed to produce a bill with any hope of passing the House.

"You need a cooling off period," said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Republicans' chief deputy whip. "You need people to stop, take a deep breath, and think through the way to yes."

But many lawmakers said it will be a major challenge for members to go home to their districts without progress to show.

"I wish we could stay and fix it," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), one of the conservative holdouts on the bill. "But looking at the polls, people were not happy with the last bill anyway. So I'm not going to get yelled at."

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told reporters members are about to walk into "a pressure cooker" that could make it even harder for Republicans to agree on a plan going forward.

"Some of the folks, Republicans from the Northeast, they’re going to go home and they’re going to hear from their constituents," he said. "And then others, some of the Freedom Caucus guys, will go home, and they’re more likely to be reinforced at home."

Adding to the pressure cooker environment are plans by the national political organizing group Indivisible to keep the heat on Republicans over recess, packing nearly 70 town halls across the country to demand an end to the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Angel Padilla, the co-founder of Indivisible, told TPM he believes the health care bill's failure the first time around was "huge victory" and a testament to the power of constituents pushing back. In particular, the group takes credit for pressuring several key Republicans from swing states to come out in opposition to the bill, including Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), and Barbara Comstock (R-VA).

"We want to see those moderates hold and not vote to take away health care," he said. "We want to see them do the right thing."

In a series of raucous town halls over Congress' February recess, Republicans received a great deal of blowback over their plan to repeal Obamacare, which House members admitted was a major factor in scaring members away from supporting it and prompting GOP leaders to cancel the vote.

But Padilla says instead of gloating about helping to tank the repeal effort, citizens need to stay engaged and take every opportunity to give their members of Congress hell.

"We know the fight isn't over," he said. "Republicans and this president are not going to give up on this stuff, so the pressure needs to stay on. People need to keep showing up. So this week, they’re going to hear from a lot of people who don’t want to lose their health care and don’t want an erosion of benefits."

On April 11 2017 00:53 LegalLord wrote:

She was and she would have. All we are led to realize now is that we never had much of a choice in the matter; our FP apparatus wanted war and they were sick and tired of Obama's wishy-washiness. They had to squeeze out a war by hook or by crook, Clinton or Trump or anyone else.

On April 11 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:
Putin won't meet Tillerson during the Russia trip, so says Kremlin.

On April 10 2017 21:49 Sermokala wrote:

Again political football. Of course that makes sense but there isn't a real way to do it. The second you start actually thinking through that proposal past scoring points in the political game you'd see how dumb it is.