Angry and inspired: Democrats train new wave of candidates

Participants give their stump speeches at the graduation event of the Emerge Oregon training program for Democratic women to enter politics, in Portland, Oregon, U.S. July 22, 2017. Picture taken July 22, 2017. REUTERS/Steve Dipaola

By John Whitesides

ROCKVILLE, Md. (Reuters) – The 100 Democratic women who packed into a suburban Maryland conference room recently for a one-day training on how to run for political office were more than activists eager to battle President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans.

The teachers, students and business leaders were also a window into the future for a Democratic Party desperate for new blood, and into the booming effort to turn the left’s grassroots anti-Trump activism into a new wave of Democratic officeholders.

As thousands of potential first-time candidates explore political bids in what Democratic veterans say is an unprecedented surge of activity, a broad but informal network of groups is beefing up efforts to train them for the task.

The goal: turning neophytes into successful politicians who can win, giving the party a deep and diverse bench of up-and-coming progressive talent at all levels of government.

“This era of Trump has made everybody just want to run for office, and it’s not easy,” said Josh Morrow, executive director of 314 Action, which since its founding last year has heard from about 6,000 scientists, engineers and mathematicians exploring political runs and trained nearly 500 of them.

“No matter how accomplished people are, they need help when they first run,” Morrow said.

The surge of interest has given dispirited Democrats, long criticized as a top-heavy party lacking fresh faces, hope for a renaissance at the local and state levels after repeated setbacks under President Barack Obama.

Building from the ground up, from the school board to the statehouse, is a party priority after losing nearly 1,000 state legislative seats in the last eight years. Republicans also control the White House, both chambers of Congress and 33 governor’s offices, the most in nearly a century.

“Local offices matter, and as Democrats we have sort of forgotten that,” said Amanda Litman, a staffer on Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign who founded the group Run for Something after the 2016 election to recruit and prepare millennials for office.

For first-timers, the initial enthusiasm for public service can quickly give way to worried questions about the logistics of building a fundraising list, utilizing social media and crafting a message.

“I knew I had a steep learning curve,” said Thereasa Black, a lawyer and Navy veteran running for the U.S. Congress from Maryland. She attended the Rockville session run by Emerge America, which prepares women for office.

“This is a way to find people who are like-minded and going through what you are, and can help you,” she said.

A Republican spokesman said Democrats would need more than training and fresh faces to gain ground in next year’s midterm elections given the losses of first-time Democratic candidates in special congressional races in Georgia and Montana earlier this year.

“The challenges that Democrats face go much deeper and come down to fundraising and messaging,” said Rick Gorka, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, which sponsored a training program for about 4,500 volunteer field staff and operatives last year.

‘SO MANY THINGS I DIDN’T KNOW’

Geoffrey Dittberner, 30, said he had volunteered on campaigns before deciding to run for the Minnesota legislature, but he was still unprepared for being a candidate before he was accepted into Run for Something’s training program.

“There were so many things I didn’t know – fundraising, setting up a campaign organization – but they made it pretty easy,” he said. The group’s Slack application gave him access to a variety of resources, from tutorials to mentors and peer networks, discussion groups and on-call experts, he said.

Aside from new groups like 314 Action and Run for Something, about a dozen established organizations that have long offered training to progressive candidates also have been flooded with interest since Trump’s election.

Emily’s List, which for years has trained women candidates who favor abortion rights, has hired five more staffers this year for a reconstituted training unit. It already has heard from 16,000 women interested in becoming candidates this year, compared to 920 in 2016.

Emerge America has seen applications jump by 87 percent and added five new state chapters. The Maryland state chapter, which ran the one-day course in Rockville, had trained 250 women by mid-year. Last year, it trained 55.

At Emerge’s Rockville session, candidates were encouraged to listen more than they talk and delve into their own experiences to explain what motivated them to run.

“When we tap into our own personal story, we relate better to people in our community,” Diane Fink, executive director for Emerge Maryland, told the class. She asked them to put together a three-minute story that explains how they got started.

While Democrats nationally have battled over their core message, most of the training programs say they avoid telling candidates specifically what issues to emphasize.

“First and foremost you should be talking about what matters to voters, not to you,” said veteran Democratic strategist Kelly Dietrich, who founded the National Democratic Training Committee last year to offer free online training for any Democrat running for any office.

So far, more than 6,000 have signed up.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Democrats protest Senate Republican healthcare secrecy

FILE PHOTO - U.S. President Donald Trump (C) turns to House Speaker Paul Ryan (3rdL) as he gathers with Congressional Republicans in the Rose Garden of the White House after the House of Representatives approved the American Healthcare Act, to repeal major parts of Obamacare and replace it with the Republican healthcare plan, in Washington, U.S., May 4, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Democrats took to the Senate floor on Monday to throw a spotlight on behind-the-scenes efforts by the Republican majority to repeal former President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, known as Obamacare.

In a series of floor motions, inquiries and lengthy speeches, Democrats criticized the closed-door meetings that Republicans have been holding to craft a replacement for Obamacare, formally known as the Affordable Care Act. They called for open committee hearings and more time to consider the bill before a Senate vote, which Republicans say could come in the next two weeks, although a draft bill has yet to emerge publicly.

Lacking the votes to derail or change the Republican process, the maneuvers by the Democratic minority seemed more aimed at highlighting Republican efforts on a controversial issue. Polls have said that a majority of Americans disapprove of the Obamacare replacement that has passed the House of Representatives and that Senate Republicans are now considering.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said that the closed-door Republican meetings on healthcare amounted to “the most glaring departure from normal legislative procedure that I have ever seen.”

“Republicans are writing their healthcare bill under the cover of darkness because they are ashamed of it,” Schumer charged. The resulting legislation would likely throw millions out of health insurance, he said, while granting “a big fat tax break for the wealthiest among us.”

Senators are not obligated to hold meetings in the open, but Democrats pointed out that there were lengthy committee meetings and many days of floor debate on Obamacare before it passed in 2010.

Several Democrats moved for the healthcare legislation to be referred to Senate committees for hearings, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused.

McConnell said all Republican senators have been involved to some degree in healthcare meetings and that Democrats would have a chance to amend the legislation they produce, once it is brought to the Senate floor.

“We’re going to have a meeting on the Senate floor, all hundred of us, with an unlimited amendment process,” McConnell said. “So there will be no failure of opportunity.”

Senate Republican leaders would like a vote on healthcare legislation in July, before the July 4 recess if possible. But Republicans have struggled to coalesce around a bill, with moderates and conservatives pushing in different directions.

Senate Republicans also face pressure from the right. In the House, conservatives have written to McConnell to express concern about reports that say the Senate may water down the House bill.

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Leslie Adler)

U.S. lawmakers to press intel chiefs on Russia ahead of Comey hearing

FILE PHOTO - FBI Director James Comey waits to testify to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on "Russia's intelligence activities" on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. January 10, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

By Patricia Zengerle and Dustin Volz

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Top U.S. intelligence officials will face questions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election and fallout from the firing of former FBI director James Comey when they appear at a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee’s open hearing will feature officials closely tied to President Donald Trump’s abrupt firing last month of Comey, which sparked accusations that the Republican president had dismissed him to hinder the FBI probe and stifle questions about possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the second-ranking official at the Department of Justice who signed a letter recommending Comey’s dismissal, will testify, a day ahead of Comey’s own hotly anticipated testimony in the investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election.

Rosenstein’s public testimony will be the first since he appointed – in the face of rising pressure from Congress – former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel investigating possible links between Russia and the election.

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who took over after Comey was fired, will also be at the hearing.

The probe has hung over Trump’s presidency since he took office in January and threatens to overwhelm his policy priorities.

The Kremlin denies U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Moscow tried to tilt the election campaign in Trump’s favor, including by hacking into the emails of senior Democrats. Trump has denied any collusion.

“I know that there are going to be members who want to hear from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about his involvement in the (Comey) firing,” Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told Reuters.

National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats will also be present at the hearing originally set to discuss a foreign surveillance law.

“My hope will be that Admiral Rogers and Director Coats won’t try to hide behind executive privilege … about the press reports about the president asking them to downplay the Russia investigation,” Warner said.

The Washington Post reported on May 22 that Trump had asked the officials to help push back against the FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and Moscow, citing current and former officials.

The two refused to comply with the request, which they regarded as inappropriate, the Post report said.

The Washington Post separately reported on Tuesday that Coats told associates in March that Trump asked him if he could intervene with then FBI Director Comey to get the FBI to back off its focus on Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, in its Russia probe, according to officials.

The intelligence officials are also expected to defend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — the stated topic of the hearing — which will expire on Dec. 31 unless Congress votes to reauthorize it.

Section 702 allows the NSA to collect digital communications of foreigners believed to be living overseas whose communications pass through U.S. telephone or Internet providers. Information about Americans is also sometimes incidentally gathered, such as when someone is communicating to a foreign target which privacy advocates have long argued evades Constitutional protections against warrantless searches.

U.S. surveillance practices have come under increased scrutiny amid unsubstantiated assertions by Trump and other Republicans that the White House under former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, improperly spied on Trump or his associates.

There is no evidence that political motives drove Obama administration officials to request the names of Trump associates in any intercepts. The requests underwent every required evaluation, and they produced nothing out of the ordinary, according to four current and former officials who have reviewed the materials.

(Additional reporting by John Walcott; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Lisa Shumaker)

In Texas legislature, tempers flare over immigration crackdown

By Alex Dobuzinskis

(Reuters) – Tensions between Republicans and Democrats boiled over on the floor of the Texas Legislature on Monday as protesters filled the gallery on the last day of the session to denounce a new law cracking down on cities giving sanctuary to illegal immigrants.

With the state House of Representatives in Austin preparing to adjourn, a bystander’s video showed one lawmaker appearing to shove a colleague as about a dozen others rushed together in an angry clutch before tempers cooled and the two sides separated.

Afterward, one of the legislators at the center of the confrontation said in a statement on Facebook that he was physically assaulted by a Democratic colleague while a second Democrat threatened his life.

Republican Matt Rinaldi’s statement said this occurred after he told Democratic lawmakers that he had tipped off federal agents about defiant protesters who were holding signs declaring their illegal immigration status.

Rinaldi did not immediately return calls or emails seeking further comment.

The incident highlights the raw emotions stirred by Republican efforts to put Texas in line with the priority that President Donald Trump has given to combating illegal immigration. Democrats, mostly representing urban centers that have defied federal policy, have condemned the crackdown.

Texas, which has an estimated 1.5 million illegal immigrants and the longest border with Mexico of any U.S. state, has been at the forefront of the immigration debate.

A bill, which both chambers of the Republican-dominated legislature approved on party-line votes and Governor Greg Abbott signed into law on May 7, aims to punish local authorities who fail to honor requests to turn over suspected illegal immigrants to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

It also allows police to ask people about their immigration status during a lawful detention, even for minor infractions like jay-walking.

Democrats have warned that the Texas law could lead to unconstitutional racial profiling. Civil rights groups have promised to fight it in court.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles, Editing by Frank McGurty and Dan Grebler)

California governor proposes more money to fight Trump

FILE PHOTO - California Governor Jerry Brown speaks in Sacramento, California, U.S. on January 9, 2014. REUTERS/Max Whittaker/File Photo

By Dan Levine

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California governor Jerry Brown on Thursday proposed a funding increase for the state attorney general to create more than 30 new positions dedicated to combating President Donald Trump’s policies.

Democratic attorneys general in states across the country have assumed lead roles in opposing some of the Republican president’s agenda. State attorneys general in Washington and Hawaii successfully sued to block Trump’s executive orders restricting travel from some Muslim-majority countries, and California attorney general Xavier Becerra has pledged to defend the state’s environmental standards and health care access.

Brown has been particularly outspoken against Trump’s policies. In budget revisions released on Thursday, Brown’s office proposed a $6.5 million increase for California’s Department of Justice, enough to fund 31 positions to address “various actions taken at the federal level that impact public safety, healthcare, the environment, consumer affairs and general constitutional issues.”

The department has expended over 11,000 hours of legal work in response to federal issues since Trump’s inauguration in January, according the governor’s office.

Brown’s proposals would have to be approved by California’s legislature, which is dominated by Democrats.

At a press conference, Brown repeatedly expressed the need to fight the Trump administration on health care reforms under discussion in Washington. The potential loss of funds for the state’s Medicaid program alone would be enough to fund the University of California system for a year, Brown said.

Given that backdrop, Brown said Becerra deserves “some latitude” in pursuing litigation.

A spokeswoman for Becerra could not immediately be reached for comment.

Brown’s budget also proposed a $15 million increase to expand legal services for immigrants seeking assistance securing legal status in the United States and fighting deportation.

(Additional reporting by Sharon Bernstein in Sacramento; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

How one U.S. state is leading the charge to dismantle Obamacare

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, sitting with Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin (L), discusses the American Health Care Act during a meeting with local business leaders at the Harshaw-Trane Parts and Distribution Center in Louisville, Kentucky, U.S. on March 11, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston/File Photo

By Yasmeen Abutaleb and Robin Respaut

FRANKFORT, Ky./SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – For nearly three years, Democrats and former President Barack Obama pointed to Kentucky as one of the Affordable Care Act’s biggest success stories.

A poor, rural state that straddles the North and South, Kentucky was an early adopter of the healthcare law commonly known as Obamacare and saw one of the country’s largest drops in the uninsured rate.

Now Kentucky is poised for a new distinction: to be the first state to save money by reducing the number of people on Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor and disabled and a central tenet of Obamacare.

If successful, Kentucky would provide a roadmap for other states who are worried about paying an increasing share for people on Medicaid.

A new Republican health law that passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, along with state initiatives like Kentucky’s, would dramatically change the national healthcare system and cut more than $800 billion from Medicaid over the next 10 years.

The Republican bill still faces a long road ahead in the U.S. Senate and its final passage is far from assured, making initiatives like Kentucky’s all the more important.

Kentucky has proposed to lessen its financial burden before it grows by reducing the number of residents on Medicaid by nearly 86,000 within five years, saving more than $330 million in the process. (For a graphic click http://tmsnrt.rs/2on0HVK)

Kentucky’s plan also calls for new work requirements for able-bodied adults to get insurance. Plus, it would establish new fees for all members based on income and lock out some people who miss a payment or fail to re-enroll.

By following these proposed rules, Kentucky believes Medicaid enrollees will over time graduate from Medicaid to private and employer insurance plans.

“One of the most remarkable lies that has perpetrated in recent years in the healthcare community in America is that expanded Medicaid was working well in Kentucky,” Republican Governor Matt Bevin, who is leading the state effort, told Reuters from the governor’s mansion in Frankfort, Kentucky.

That view is in line with President Donald Trump’s administration, which has criticized Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and urged states to pursue similar Medicaid reforms to what Kentucky is now attempting.

“If Kentucky is successful, you’ll see this spread through the more conservative-leaning states. It’s possible even a Democratic blue state could do it,” said George Huang, director and senior municipal healthcare research analyst at Wells Fargo Securities. “It’s the flexibility that some states are seeking.”

INSURING THE POOR AT A PRICE

Kentucky, a state Trump won handily last November, has been devastated by the loss of coal mining jobs and an opioid epidemic. The state sits near the bottom of health rankings for smoking rates, cancer deaths and diabetes.

“To me, morally, it was the right thing to expand Medicaid, but I had a responsibility to not to do something that would bankrupt the state,” said former Governor Steve Beshear, a Democrat, referring to the increased costs of caring for a larger population with Medicaid insurance.

More than 30 states, about a dozen of which are led by Republican governors, expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. In Kentucky, more than 400,000 people gained health insurance through the program, the highest growth rate of Medicaid coverage of any state.

Beshear commissioned independent studies by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte on the financial and health impacts of expanding Medicaid. Both studies found health and economic gains. Deloitte reported that 90,000 newly covered residents received cholesterol screening and 80,000 got preventative dental care within a year. It estimated Kentucky would see an economic boost of $30 billion and 40,000 new jobs by 2021.

Beshear’s successor, Republican Governor Bevin, was elected in 2015 on a promise to repeal and replace the healthcare law on the view that thousands of Kentuckians had unaffordable premiums and only one health insurer to choose from.

He dismissed the projections in the Beshear-commissioned studies as “preposterous,” and says the state’s share of expanded Medicaid – $74 million in 2017 and totaling $1.2 billion over five years – was too expensive and unsustainable.

“We want this to be a helping hand for people at a time when they need it, but then be able to return to the commercial marketplace,” Bevin said.

Last year, Bevin submitted the waiver to restrict Medicaid eligibility by requiring enrollees to work or volunteer at least 20 hours per week and to pay monthly premiums based on income. He’s still awaiting approval.

Bevin said he has spoken with several governors about the waiver and has had extensive conversations with Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price about fast-tracking the approval process in order for other states to quickly adopt similar programs. Such conversations are occurring across the country in response to encouragement from the new administration to reform state Medicaid programs, said Alleigh Marre, a Health and Human Services spokeswoman.

Louisiana and Wisconsin are considering work requirements for Medicaid enrollees. The Obama administration rejected previous attempts by other states, including Ohio and Arizona, to require work programs and monthly premiums for Medicaid, historically a free program for those eligible.

“Every state is watching this to see what happens,” said Bevin of Kentucky’s waiver. “It’s the first one in the queue.”

SIGNS POINT TO “YES” FOR KENTUCKY WAIVER

The odds look good for Kentucky to get the waiver in the coming months, based on the track records of health officials that Trump named after his inauguration.

Seema Verma, the new head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which approves Medicaid waivers, said during congressional testimony that the agency will usher in “a new era of state flexibility and leadership.”

Verma helped craft Kentucky’s waiver, but said she will recuse herself from the approval process to avoid conflicts of interest.

She and Tom Price wrote a letter to governors in March encouraging Medicaid reforms that more closely resemble commercial insurance plans. In the letter, they suggested features such as premium fees, health savings accounts, and emergency room co-payments that encourage the use of primary care.

CMS declined to comment on Kentucky’s waiver and said it does not speculate on the process while ongoing.

Under federal law, waivers must promote Medicaid’s objective of delivering healthcare services to vulnerable populations who cannot otherwise afford them.

“Waivers have never been used to cut people from the rolls,” said Emily Parento, associate professor at the University of the Pacific’s law school and the former executive director of Kentucky’s Office of Health Policy.

But Verma’s office is encouraging changes to Medicaid that make the government program look more like private insurance policies – goals that are similar to Bevin’s in Kentucky.

“I think what will happen is that other states will look at it and go, ‘We want everything they got,’” Bevin said.

(This story has been refiled to fix spelling in paragraph 3.)

(Reporting by Yasmeen Abutaleb in Kentucky and Robin Respaut in San Francisco; Editing by Caroline Humer and Edward Tobin)

Top U.S. officials to testify in Trump-Russia probe reboot

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), accompanied by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chairman of the committee, speaks at a news conference to discuss their probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 29, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

By Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee said on Friday it had invited FBI, NSA and Obama administration officials to testify as it restarts its investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

After stalling over the committee chairman’s ties to President Donald Trump’s White House and disagreements over who should testify, the bipartisan committee said it sent a letter inviting James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Admiral Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, to appear behind closed doors on May 2.

A second letter invited three officials who left the government as President Barack Obama’s administration ended – former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates – to appear at a public hearing to be scheduled after May 2.

The planned hearings are the first the committee has announced since its chairman, Republican Representative Devin Nunes, recused himself from the Russia investigation on April 6 after receiving information at the White House about surveillance that swept up some information about members of Trump’s transition team.

Echoing Trump, Nunes suggested that Obama’s administration had handled that information incorrectly.

Nunes remains the committee’s chairman.

TIES TO TRUMP

Comey and Rogers testified in a public hearing on March 20. At that hearing, Comey confirmed for the first time that the FBI was investigating possible ties between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia as Moscow sought to influence the election.

Nunes was a supporter of Trump’s campaign and a member of his transition team. His decision two days after the public hearing to hold a press conference about the information and discuss it with Trump before disclosing it to Democrats raised questions about whether he could lead a credible investigation.

Committee Democrats also were angered when Nunes scrapped a scheduled public hearing with Brennan, Yates and Clapper. A planned closed hearing with Comey and Rogers also was put off.

The House panel is examining whether Russia tried to influence the election in Trump’s favor, mostly by hacking Democratic operatives’ emails and releasing embarrassing information, or possibly by colluding with Trump associates.

Russia denies the allegations, which Trump also dismisses.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting a separate, similar investigation.

Senate investigators currently are interviewing analysts and intelligence agents who prepared public and classified reports in January that concluded that Russia had interfered in last year’s election on Trump’s behalf, an official familiar with the congressional activity said.

At this point they are a long way from scheduling interviews or hearings with any principal witnesses from either the Obama or Trump administrations, the official said.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle, additional reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Mary Milliken)

Trump, Republicans face tricky task of averting U.S. government shutdown

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump's overview of the budget priorities for Fiscal Year 2018 are displayed at the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) on its release by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Washington, U.S. on March 16, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

By Richard Cowan and David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans who control Congress face their first major budget test next week, with the threat of a U.S. government shutdown potentially hinging on his proposed Mexican border wall as well as Obamacare funding.

With Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, keeping the federal government operating is a basic test of their ability to govern, but their task could become even more complicated if they insist on using the spending legislation to bring about contentious policy changes.

Not only must Republicans overcome intraparty ideological divisions that stopped major healthcare legislation last month, but they will have to win over some opposition Democrats with provisions that could be distasteful to conservatives.

With the Senate reconvening on Monday and the House of Representatives on Tuesday after a two-week recess, lawmakers will have only four days to pass a spending package to keep the government open beyond April 28, when funding expires for numerous federal programs.

“I think we want to keep the government open,” Trump said on Thursday, adding he thinks Congress can pass the funding legislation and perhaps also a revamped healthcare bill.

Democratic support depends on what provisions Republicans demand in the bill. Democrats have signaled they would not cooperate if it contains money for one of Trump’s top priorities, a southwestern border wall intended to combat illegal immigration, or if it ends federal subsidies to help low-income people buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, which Republicans want to repeal.

Democrats also want federal funds maintained for Planned Parenthood, which many Republicans oppose because the women’s healthcare provider performs abortions. Another obstacle would be if Trump demands large defense spending increases coupled with deep cuts to domestic programs Democrats want to protect.

BALANCING ACT

Late on Thursday, leading House Democrats were voicing skepticism a deal could be reached by the deadline. In a telephone call for House Democrats, Representative Nita Lowey, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said: “I don’t see how we can meet that deadline” and avoid having to pass a short-term extension, according to an aide on the call.

The second-ranking House Democrat, Representative Steny Hoyer, told his fellow Democrats that they should only support such a short-term measure if a deal on long-term bill is reached and only finishing touches remained, the aide said.

Republican leaders face a familiar balancing act: satisfying the party’s most conservative members while not alienating its moderates.

Rules in the 100-seat Senate mean Trump’s party also would need the support of at least eight Democrats even if the Republicans remain unified, giving the opposition party leverage. House Republican leaders would need some Democratic votes if the most conservative lawmakers object to the bill, as they did to the healthcare plan championed by Speaker Paul Ryan.

With congressional elections looming next year, Republicans acknowledge the stakes are high.

“Even our most recalcitrant members understand that if you shut down the government while you’re running it and you control the House and the Senate, you can’t blame anybody but yourself,” said Representative Tom Cole, a senior House Appropriations Committee Republican.

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said the Trump administration was willing to talk to Democrats about funding for Obamacare subsidies in exchange for their agreement to include some Trump priorities such as the wall, the defense hike and more money for immigration enforcement.

“It is ripe for some type of negotiated agreement that gives the president some of his priorities and Democrats some of their priorities. So we think we’ve opened the door for that,” Mulvaney said.

Democrats reacted negatively.

“Everything had been moving smoothly until the administration moved in with a heavy hand. Not only are Democrats opposed to the wall, there is significant Republican opposition as well,” said Matt House, a spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.

FURLOUGH ‘LADY LIBERTY?’

The government was last forced to close in October 2013, when Republican Senator Ted Cruz and some of the most conservative House Republicans engineered a 17-day shutdown in an unsuccessful quest to kill Democratic former President Barack Obama’s healthcare law.

“These kind of bills can’t pass without a reasonable number of the party of the minority in the Senate, and we are optimistic we will be able to work all that out,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the start of the spring recess.

A deal is needed because Congress was unable to approve funding for the entire 2017 fiscal year that ends in September and has relied on stop-gap spending legislation.

Congress has passed no major legislation since Trump took office in January, and he has ambitious hopes for major tax-cut legislation, infrastructure spending and other bills.

With the difficulty passing a bill with so many divisive elements, lawmakers next week might need to buy time by passing a short-term bill lasting possibly one to three weeks, maintaining current spending levels.

“That would be a setback: not catastrophic, but not a good thing, and a sign that you can’t govern,” Cole said.

A federal closure would shutter National Park Service destinations like the Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon. Government medical research would be suspended. Thousands of federal workers would be furloughed with thousands more working without pay until the shutdown ends, including homeland security personnel. Some veterans benefits could be suspended.

Time would stand still in the U.S. Capitol with nobody on duty to wind the 200-year-old “Ohio Clock” just outside the Senate chamber.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan and David Morgan; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Will Dunham)

Democrats aim to ‘make Trump furious’ in Georgia election

Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff for Georgia's 6th Congressional District special election speaks during an election eve rally in Roswell, Georgia. REUTERS/Kevin D. Liles

By Andy Sullivan

SANDY SPRINGS, Ga. (Reuters) – For U.S. President Donald Trump, an off-year congressional election on Tuesday in the reliably Republican northern suburbs of Atlanta could spell trouble if Democratic upstart Jon Ossoff pulls off a surprise victory.

A 30-year-old political novice, Ossoff is running as the lone Democrat against a field of 17 Republicans for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives vacated when Trump named Tom Price as his health secretary.

An Ossoff win would not tip the balance of power in the Republican-controlled House but could weaken Trump’s already shaky hold on his party there by encouraging those in competitive districts to distance themselves from him.

Ossoff faces formidable odds. Georgia’s 6th District has elected Republicans to the House since the late 1970s. Trump won the Southern state by about 5 percentage points in November’s election.

Still, opinion polls show Ossoff leading his many rivals. With the slogan “Make Trump Furious,” he aims to galvanize opposition to a president struggling with low approval ratings.

“We have an amazing chance here, an extraordinary moment for Georgia,” Ossoff told campaign volunteers as they headed out for a final round of door-knocking on Monday afternoon.

Ossoff raised a stunning $8.3 million in the first quarter, forcing Republicans to spend heavily against him. Those in the race are split among Trump supporters and candidates trying to hold the president at arm’s length.

Trump defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton last year, and Republicans have controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress since January. But they have yet to enact major legislation to fulfill campaign promises.

The president’s approval rating has not topped 50 percent since he took office on Jan. 20, Reuters/Ipsos polling shows.

Trump, a businessman and TV celebrity who previously had not held political office, has blasted Ossoff as a “super Liberal Democrat.”

In several tweets on Tuesday, he said Ossoff was “very weak on crime and illegal immigration, bad for jobs and wants higher taxes” and urged Republicans to vote to force a run-off.

Ossoff aims to win an outright majority in Tuesday’s vote, a “jungle primary” with all 18 candidates from both parties on the same ballot. If no one reaches 50 percent, the top two vote-getters square off on June 20.

Republicans say they could beat Ossoff in a one-on-one contest. The party avoided embarrassment last week when it narrowly held a conservative Kansas seat vacated when Trump tapped Republican Representative Mike Pompeo to head the Central Intelligence Agency.

(Reporting by Andy Sullivan; Additional reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Lisa Von Ahn)

With ‘nuclear option,’ Senate ends Democratic blockade of Trump court pick

FILE PHOTO - U.S. Supreme Court nominee judge Neil Gorsuch testifies during a third day of his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 22, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Republicans on Thursday crushed a Democratic blockade of President Donald Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee in a fierce partisan brawl, approving a rule change dubbed the “nuclear option” to allow for conservative judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation by Friday.

With ideological control of the nation’s highest court at stake, the Republican-led Senate voted 52-48 along party lines to change its long-standing rules in order to prohibit a procedural tactic called a filibuster against Supreme Court nominees. That came after Republicans failed by a 55-45 tally to muster the 60-vote super-majority needed to end the Democratic filibuster that had sought to deny Gorsuch confirmation to the lifetime post.

The Senate’s action paved the way to confirm Gorsuch by simple majority, with a vote expected at roughly 7 p.m. (2399 GMT) on Friday. Republicans control the Senate 52-48. The rule change was called the “nuclear option” because it was considered an extreme break with Senate tradition.

Trump had encouraged Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to “go nuclear.” Confirmation of Gorsuch would represent Trump’s first major victory since taking office on Jan. 20, after setbacks on healthcare legislation and his blocked order to prevent people from several Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States.

“This will be the first and last partisan filibuster of the Supreme Court,” McConnell said on the Senate floor, accusing Democrats of trying to inflict political damage on Trump and to keep more conservatives from joining the high court.

“In 20 or 30 or 40 years, we will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court, a day when we irrevocably moved further away from the principles our founders intended for these institutions: principles of bipartisanship, moderation and consensus,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Schumer ridiculed McConnell’s contention that the Democratic action was unprecedented, noting that the Republican-led Senate last year refused to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama’s nomination of appellate judge Merrick Garland for the same high court seat that Trump selected Gorsuch to fill.

Senate confirmation of Gorsuch, 49, would restore the nine-seat court’s 5-4 conservative majority, enable Trump to leave an indelible mark on America’s highest judicial body and fulfill a top campaign promise by the Republican president. Gorsuch could be expected to serve for decades.

A conservative-majority court is more likely to support gun rights, an expansive view of religious liberty, abortion regulations and Republican-backed voting restrictions, while opposing curbs on political spending. The court also is likely to tackle transgender rights and union funding in coming years.

THREE DEMOCRATS

In the end, three Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018 in states won by Trump last year – Indiana’s Joe Donnelly, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp – broke with their party and voted with Republicans to bring about a confirmation vote, though they opposed the rule change.

The nine-seat Supreme Court has had a vacancy since conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016.

Republicans have called Gorsuch superbly qualified and one of the nation’s most distinguished appellate judges, and they blamed Democrats for politicizing the confirmation process.

Democrats accused Gorsuch of being so conservative as to be outside the judicial mainstream, favoring corporate interests over ordinary Americans in legal opinions, and displaying insufficient independence from Trump.

The 60-vote threshold that gives the minority party power to hold up the majority party has forced the Senate over the decades to try to achieve bipartisanship in legislation and presidential appointments.

What Republicans did to Obama’s nominee Garland was worse than a filibuster, Schumer said. Schumer said Republicans denied “the constitutional prerogative of a president with 11 months left in his term.”

“The nuclear option was used by Senator McConnell when he stopped Merrick Garland. What we face today is the fallout,” Democratic Senator Richard Durbin added on the Senate floor.

McConnell blamed the escalation of fights over judicial nominees on the Democrats and their opposition starting three decades ago to nominees made by Republican former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

McConnell called the Democratic effort against Gorsuch “another extreme escalation in the left’s never-ending drive to politicize the court and the confirmation process.” He accused Gorsuch’s opponents of “a singular aim: securing raw power no matter the cost to the country or the institution.”

Experts said eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments could make it more likely that presidents, with little incentive to choose centrist justices who could attract support from the other party, will pick ideologically extreme nominees in the future.

Ending the filibuster also would make it easier for future Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed when the president and Senate leadership belong to the same party.

The filibuster in one form or another dates back to the 19th century but assumed its current form in the 1970s.

While Democrats opposed the rule change and accused Republicans of a power grab, it was their party that first resorted to the nuclear option when they controlled the Senate in 2013. In the face of Republican filibusters of Obama appointments, they barred filibusters for executive branch nominees and federal judges aside from Supreme Court justices but still allowed it for Supreme Court nominees and legislation.

The Republican-backed rule change maintains the ability to filibuster legislation.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan, Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)