Latest news with #Democrat-turned-Republican
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
GOP moderates send warning shot to Republican leaders
House GOP moderates are telling Republican leaders they will not walk the plank and vote for Medicaid cuts in the party's 'big, beautiful bill' only to see the Senate strip them out — their latest warning shot in the effort to enact President Trump's legislative agenda. In the past, GOP leaders have corralled the conference around more conservative pieces of legislation to gain leverage over the upper chamber, cajoling centrists to take politically painful votes with hopes that they would help realize a more right-leaning final product. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) deployed the strategy in February during negotiations over the budget resolution, and former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) did the same amid the debt limit standoff in 2023. This time around, however, moderates are putting their foot down, making clear that they will not back a more conservative Trump agenda bill that includes poison pill measures — namely drastic changes to Medicaid — as a negotiating tactic. 'That's the vote we're trying to avoid,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said of the intermediary step. 'There is a specific appetite amongst 20-plus Republican members to vote only on something that is real and that could actually become law rather than this more conservative thing that can't get the vote.' 'The members with whom I most frequently speak do not want to go down that path,' he added of first passing a conservative bill. 'We feel like we've done that heavy lifting already, and members like me prefer to only vote on a bill that could actually become law.' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), a Democrat-turned-Republican, said such a situation would be the 'worst' sequence of events. 'The worst scenario of all would be for the House of Representatives to vote for a bill, get it out, and then it goes to the Senate and the president, and they say we're not doing it, it's a bad bill,' Van Drew told The Hill. 'I think we've emphasized that to the Speaker, and I think at this point he agrees, we have to be in communication with them to make sure that we're all on the same page, or at least damn close.' The cautionary signal comes as House Republicans are still haggling over spending cuts for their package full of Trump's domestic policy priorities, with potential changes to Medicaid emerging as one of the biggest sticking points. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, is directed to find at least $880 billion in cuts, a figure that the Congressional Budget Office says cannot be reached without slashes to the social safety net program. The matter has plagued the House GOP conference: Hard-line conservatives are pushing for changes to Medicaid, sounding the alarm about the ballooning deficit, while moderates are pumping the brakes on any aggressive reforms that would hurt beneficiaries in their districts. A majority of Republicans in the Senate, meanwhile, are apprehensive about the steep Medicaid cuts, a dynamic that helps the centrists. The disagreement is holding up progress on the Trump agenda bill. The Energy and Commerce Committee initially planned to advance its portion of the package this week, but the vote was delayed amid the continued discord over potential Medicaid cuts. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a moderate lawmaker who has been opposed to significant Medicaid changes, said leadership has tried to get centrists on board with the Medicaid changes by assuring them that the Senate will remove the provisions once the package clears the House and heads to the upper chamber — the exact situation the group is trying to avoid. 'Here's the tactic they've been using: 'Don't worry about the Senate. They'll fix it.' And now we're getting ready to take our third vote on this,' he told The Wall Street Journal. 'We feel like we're being pushed up to the edge of the cliff here.' Asked if he was concerned about supporting a package with Medicaid cuts to kick off negotiations with the Senate, only to see the upper chamber remove the provisions, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) responded: 'No, because I'm not doing it.' It remains unclear what Medicaid changes will make it into the final package. The party is largely united around imposing work requirements, six-month registration checks and barring those who entered the country without authorization from the social safety net program, a source told The Hill, and Johnson informed reporters Tuesday night, after a meeting with the moderates, that a controversial plan to directly reduce the enhanced federal match for states that expanded Medicaid, known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, was off the table. Other questions remain, however, including if the bill will include 'per capita caps,' which would shift a massive cost to the states. Johnson told reporters Tuesday night 'I think we're ruling that out as well' when asked about the per capita caps, but House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) on Wednesday said the idea was 'still kind of alive.' Asked about the discrepancy Wednesday afternoon, Johnson demurred. 'He's the chairman, they're working through it,' the Speaker told reporters. 'I said likely for a reason because it's not a final decision and I'm, at the end of the day I defer to my chairs, but we've got to build consensus around all the ideas, so we'll see.' Hard-liners, meanwhile, are also concerned about what the Senate will do with the reconciliation package once it reaches the upper chamber. If steep Medicaid cuts do make it in the final bill — which looks unlikely based on comments from the moderates — the deficit hawks are worried they will get stripped out. 'That's always a concern, that's why early on we wanted to get a commitment from Thune and why we insisted on that before we had the vote,' Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), said referring to remarks made by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) shortly before the House approved the compromise budget resolution, during which the South Dakota Republican said 'we're certainly going to do everything we can to be as aggressive as possible' when it comes to spending cuts. 'The fact that he gave us a verbal commitment and then went in front of the press was at least giving us a little bit of reassurance,' Burlison added. Johnson, meanwhile, is aware of the concerns surrounding what the Senate will do. During the House GOP's closed-door conference meeting on Tuesday, Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) stood up and asked if House leaders are coordinating with their Senate counterparts, as that way those in the lower chamber would not have to support measures that the upper chamber will later remove, a source told The Hill. Johnson responded that the Senate will take the House's bill and maybe make changes, but they will be minor, the source said. Asked during the press conference shortly after how much of the bill he expects the Senate to change, the Speaker touted the close cooperation between the two chambers. 'We're going to be very proud of the product we send over there. I don't expect that it will take much modification, I hope that there's very little at all and that we can have an agreement,' Johnson said. 'But the difference now and in years past, perhaps, is that our colleagues over there know exactly what we're doing; we're in careful, close communication, and with the White House team as well.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
The Hill
07-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
House GOP moderates warn: We won't walk the plank for Senate to change Trump bill
House GOP moderates are telling Republican leaders they will not walk the plank and vote for Medicaid cuts in the party's 'big, beautiful bill' only to see the Senate strip them out — their latest warning shot in the effort to enact President Trump's legislative agenda. In the past, GOP leaders have corralled the conference around more conservative pieces of legislation to gain leverage over the upper chamber, cajoling centrists to take politically painful votes with hopes that they will help bore a more right-leaning final product. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) deployed the strategy in February during negotiations over the budget resolution, and former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) did the same amid the debt limit standoff in 2023. This time around, however, moderates are putting their foot down, making clear that they will not back a more conservative Trump agenda bill that includes poison pill measures — namely drastic changes to Medicaid — as a negotiating tactic. 'That's the vote we're trying to avoid,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said of the intermediary step. 'There is a specific appetite amongst 20 plus Republican members to vote only on something that is real and that could actually become law rather than this more conservative thing that can't get the vote.' 'The members with whom I most frequently speak do not want to go down that path,' he added of first passing a conservative bill. 'We feel like we've done that heavy lifting already, and members like me prefer to only vote on a bill that could actually become law.' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), a Democrat-turned-Republican, said such a situation would be the 'worst' sequence of events. 'The worst scenario of all would be for the House of Representatives to vote for a bill, get it out, and then it goes to the Senate and the president, and they say we're not doing it, it's a bad bill,' Van Drew told The Hill. 'I think we've emphasized that to the Speaker, and I think at this point he agrees, we have to be in communication with them to make sure that we're all on the same page, or at least damn close.' The cautionary signal comes as House Republicans are still haggling over spending cuts for their package full of Trump's domestic policy priorities, with potential changes to Medicaid emerging as one of the biggest sticking points. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, is directed to find at least $880 billion in cuts, a figure that the Congressional Budget Office says cannot be reached without slashes to the social safety net program. The matter has plagued the House GOP conference: Hardline conservatives are pushing for changes to Medicaid, sounding the alarm about the ballooning deficit, while moderates are pumping the brakes on any aggressive reforms that would hurt beneficiaries in their districts. A majority of Republicans in the Senate, meanwhile, are apprehensive about the steep Medicaid cuts, a dynamic that helps the centrists. The disagreement is holding up progress on the Trump agenda bill. The Energy and Commerce Committee initially planned to advance its portion of the package this week, but the vote was delayed amid the continued discord over potential Medicaid cuts. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a moderate lawmaker who has been opposed to significant Medicaid changes, said leadership has tried to get centrists on board with the Medicaid changes by assuring them that the Senate will remove the provisions once the package clears the House and heads to the upper chamber — the exact situation the group is trying to avoid. 'Here's the tactic they've been using: 'Don't worry about the Senate. They'll fix it.' And now we're getting ready to take our third vote on this,' he told The Wall Street Journal. 'We feel like we're being pushed up to the edge of the cliff here.' Asked if he was concerned about supporting a package with Medicaid cuts to kick off negotiations with the Senate, only to see the upper chamber remove the provisions, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) responded: 'No, because I'm not doing it.' It remains unclear what Medicaid changes will make it into the final package. The party is largely united around imposing work requirements, six-month registration checks and barring those who entered the country without authorization from the social safety net program, a source told The Hill, and Johnson informed reporters Tuesday night, after a meeting with the moderates that a controversial plan to directly reduce the enhanced federal match for states that expanded Medicaid, known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), was off the table. Other questions, however, remain, including if the bill will include 'per capita caps,' which would shift a massive cost to the states. Johnson told reporters Tuesday night 'I think we're ruling that out as well' when asked about the per capita caps, but House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) on Wednesday said the idea was 'still kind of alive.' Asked about the discrepancy Wednesday afternoon, Johnson demurred. 'He's the chairman, they're working through it,' the Speaker told reporters. 'I said likely for a reason because it's not a final decision and I'm, at the end of the day I defer to my chairs but we've got to build consensus around all the ideas so we'll see.' Hardliners, meanwhile, are also concerned about what the Senate will do with the reconciliation package once it hits the upper chamber. If steep Medicaid cuts do make it in the final bill — which is trending unlikely based on comments from the moderates — the deficit hawks are worried they will get stripped out. 'That's always a concern, that's why early on we wanted to get a commitment from Thune and why we insisted on that before we had the vote,' Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), said referring to remarks made by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) shortly before the House approved the compromise budget resolution, during which the South Dakota Republican said 'we're certainly going to do everything we can to be as aggressive as possible' when it comes to spending cuts. 'The fact that he gave us a verbal commitment and then went in front of the press was at least giving us a little bit of reassurance,' Burlison added. Johnson, meanwhile, is aware of the concerns surrounding what the Senate will do. During the House GOP's closed-door conference meeting on Tuesday, Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) stood up and asked if House leaders are coordinating with their Senate counterparts that way those in the lower chamber do not have to support measures that the upper chamber will later remove, a source told The Hill. Johnson responded that the Senate will take the House's bill and maybe make changes, but they will be minor, the source said. Asked during the press conference shortly after how much of the bill he expects the Senate to change, the Speaker touted the close cooperation between the two chambers. 'We're gonna be very proud of the product we send over there. I don't expect that it will take much modification, I hope that there's very little at all and that we can have an agreement,' Johnson said. 'But the difference now and in years past, perhaps, is that our colleagues over there know exactly what we're doing; we're in careful, close communication, and with the White House team as well.'
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House resurrects bid to restore attorney fees in insurance disputes
In an effort to keep alive their bid to resurrect the availability of so-called 'one-way attorneys fees' in lawsuits against insurers, the Florida House adopted a bill that added their proposal to an unrelated Senate bill on Friday. But if the House had hoped the amended bill would slip by the Senate, proponents of reforms that reduced insurers' legal costs are urging senators to reject it when it comes back to them in the coming days. 'I hope the Senate will do the right thing and be the adults in the room,' said Stacey Giulianti, chief legal officer at Boca Raton-based Florida Peninsula Insurance. The effort to restore the right of plaintiffs to claim attorneys fees in lawsuits against insurers has overshadowed dozens of other insurance-related bills introduced for the session, leaving only a handful with minor impacts poised for enactment. Citizens Insurance's letters broil frustrated customer in a 'depopulation' stew New insurer says it will be open to South Florida homeowner business It's time once again for insurers vs. attorneys in Florida's Legislature Until the late bid emerged, the Senate seemed content to ignore bills that would require insurers to once again pay fees incurred by policyholders who sue them. In arguing for the reforms three years ago, insurers said that the industry had become unprofitable due to an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits filed under a century-old Florida law. That law required insurers to pay legal fees if they agreed to settle litigation by paying as little as $1 over their original settlement offer. However, insurance customers were held harmless if they sued their insurers and lost. The reforms placed Florida's legal system on equal footing with most of the country, insurers said. Plaintiffs who sue are now required to pay attorneys out of their own pockets or a percentage of what they win. But attorneys say that leaves plaintiffs unable to challenge denials or underpayments of small claims because attorneys can't make enough money to justify taking their cases. Knowing that emboldens insurers to treat policyholders unfairly, attorneys say. A bill introduced prior to the current Legislative session by state Rep. Hillary Cassel, a Broward County Democrat-turned-Republican who is also a plaintiffs attorney, was approved by two House committees but still awaited a hearing by a third committee. Typically, bills must pass three committee hearings in both the House and Senate. But the Senate — potentially responding to warnings from insurance industry leaders, the state's insurance commissioner and Gov. Ron DeSantis — failed to schedule it for a single committee hearing. The Senate also ignored a bill by its former president, Don Gaetz, that would also have empowered judges to award attorney fees to plaintiffs who prevail in their lawsuits. On Wednesday, House member Berny Jacques attached language from the Cassel bill to an unrelated bill approved by the Senate clarifying that certain levels of radiation must be recorded before lawsuits could be brought against owners of former phosphate mines. Rather than 'one-way attorney fees,' supporters insist that the bill should actually be called a 'prevailing party' or 'loser pays' measure. It would require insurers to pay plaintiffs' attorney fees if a court awards them more than an amount offered by insurers, but plaintiffs would be required to pay insurers' fees if a court awards them less than the insurer proposed. During debate over the bill on Friday, Rep. Michael Gottlieb, who represents part of Broward County, predicted the prevailing party provision would 'discourage litigation because you're not going to want to, number one, prolong litigation, and number two, get involved in litigation that you're going to lose.' Rep. Tyler Sirois, from Brevard County, said the bill would reinstate 'balance.' He added, 'We made it too easy for insurers to delay, deny and underpay claims — making it harder for honest Floridians, whether they're carrying a hammer or a calculator, to fight back.' During the debate, no member of the House spoke against the amended bill and it was adopted by a vote of 80-20. As part of the back-and-forth that must occur to get a unified bill approved by the entire Legislature, the amended bill now goes back to the Senate, which could vote on the House's version, remove or change the amendment, or just let it die. Jacque's filing of the amendment on Wednesday set off a flurry of activity by industry supporters who again warned that passage would undermine progress tracked since the reforms were enacted, drive up litigation and force insurers to increase premiums. It also prompted Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworsky to send an email warning Peter Cuderman, Gov. DeSantis' director of legislative and intergovernmental affairs, that the bill could dismantle 'the hard-won progress' achieved by the 2022-2023 reforms. That progress, Yaworsky wrote, includes declining reinsurance costs for insurers, 65 rate filings that were either reduced or included no increases, introduction of 12 new insurers into Florida's market, and a 23% decrease in lawsuit filings year over year. Potential impact of the House's bill, he warned, included increases in lawsuits, insurer costs, reinsurance rates, private investment, and the population of state-owned Citizens Property Insurance Corp., the insurer of last resort. After the vote, the pro-industry Florida Chamber released a statement saying it would continue fighting to stop the bill, which also removes restrictions on medical claims by patients, from becoming law. 'Going backwards is the wrong move for Florida,' the statement said. 'We should allow these reforms to continue to work, not re-allow scamsters to artificially drive up medical costs to inflate verdicts and incentivize litigation over small dollar amounts with the promise of attorneys' fees for the people on the billboards.' Brian Murphy, who owns a Brightway insurance agency franchise in Palm Beach Gardens, said after the hearing that he favored keeping the reforms as they are. If positive trends continue, he said, 'it's a sign that the state's efforts to revitalize the insurance landscape are working.' Dulce Suarez-Resnick, an insurance agent based in Miami, said supporters predicted reforms wouldn't be felt for three years. 'We are two years in and I've already seen a lot of impact,' she said. 'The Legislature needs to be patient. We have one more year to go.' William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, said the House proposal would bring back 'one-way attorney fees.' 'Unless an insurer gets a zero verdict, they're going to end up paying attorneys fees,' he said. Also troublesome, Large said, is a provision of the bill that would allow attorney fees to be awarded if a plaintiff wins a 'declaratory judgment,' which is simply a declaration by the court that an insurer is responsible for paying a claim. It's 'going to create an incentive for attorneys to litigate declaratory judgment actions to generate fees,' Large said. The handful of bills headed to the governor's desk after approval by both chambers include: — SB 114 / HB 1097 — Transfers hurricane loss projection modeling from Florida International University to Florida State University. — SB 1076 / HB 715 — Expands roofing contractors' scope of work to include evaluation and enhancement of roof-to-wall connections; narrows cancellation window for contracts signed after emergencies. — SB 176 / HB 1041 — Limits property tax increases for homes elevated to prevent flood damage if voters approve constitutional amendment in November 2026. — SB 948 / HB 1015 — Requires landlords to provide flood risk information to tenants before signing leases. Gives tenants 30 days after a flood to terminate a lease if the disclosures are not provided and the tenant suffers flood damage. Meanwhile, a long list of bills received no hearings in committee, made it through fewer than the required number of committee stops, or were ignored by one or the other chamber. Giulianti doesn't want to see any of them enacted this year. 'It's best for the Legislature to continue to let all the (2022 and 2023) changes work their way through the system through all of the insurance renewal cycles, and then decide next year if anything needs tweaking,' he said. Property insurance bills left on the table would have allowed policyholders to: — Hold the owners of fallen trees responsible for damage to their properties. — Protect personal information entered into Uniform Mitigation Verification Inspection forms. — Access rate transparency reports or see rating examples for their counties in filings to the Office of Insurance Regulation. — Learn how their premiums are being distributed among subsidiaries, captive vendors, management companies and reinsurers. — Require that their insurer pay specific fees for services provided by affiliates. — Tap into a $500 million emergency trust fund if they are having trouble paying their insurance bill. — Hold their surplus lines insurer responsible to pay up to the full amount of the insured value set in their policy. — Require that their insurer participate in mandatory dispute resolution hearings prior to litigating. — If they are a Citizens customer located outside of a FEMA flood zone, get out of the new requirement to hold flood insurance. — Weigh advice from an Insurance Solutions Advisory Council or have access to a consumers guide to homeowner insurance. — Be protected from cancellation while trying to repair damage from floods or hurricanes. — Seek reimbursement for wind and flood damage mitigation projects through the My Safe Florida Home program. Ron Hurtibise covers business and consumer issues for the South Florida Sun Sentinel. He can be reached by phone at 954-356-4071 or by email at rhurtibise@
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
GOP Lawmaker Tells Trump He May Vote Against Budget Bill Over Medicaid Cuts
Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew gestures toward President Donald Trump during a campaign rally in New Jersey in 2020. Credit - Saul Loeb—AFP/Getty Images Around a dozen House Republicans are uneasy about the prospect of voting for their party's budget proposal over potential cuts to Medicaid, according to several people familiar with the conversations. And with only a narrow majority in the House, GOP leaders are now navigating an increasingly volatile path, where the fate of the budget, and the possibility of a government shutdown, hinges on resolving these internal divisions. Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a former Democrat from New Jersey turned Trump-supporting Republican, tells TIME that he's prepared to vote against the sweeping budget plan on Tuesday, claiming its proposed $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid are too extreme—even if it helps pay for tax cuts and new national security spending. 'Working class people receive Medicaid as they are working,' Van Drew says of the government health insurance program that serves over 72 million Americans. 'This is not just lazy people who are sitting around not doing their job.' Van Drew says he called President Donald Trump on Monday evening to express his opposition to the budget resolution: 'I told him I very well may not vote for this, and I'm certainly waiting until the last minute to see if some changes can be made, because I'm very unhappy.' During that call, Van Drew says Trump did not ask him to change his mind and vote for the House GOP's budget resolution or push back on his concerns about potential Medicaid cuts. 'He listened and he understood my concerns,' Van Drew says. 'I believe it's bad for him because he made a commitment,' referring to Trump's repeated pledges during his campaign and his presidency to protect Medicaid, a promise that many Republicans feel he is now at risk of breaking. Trump has long positioned himself as a defender of entitlement programs, including Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. Throughout his political career, he has consistently vowed not to make cuts to Medicaid, even as his administration has pursued broader budget reductions. 'We're going to love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,' Trump told reporters on Jan. 31. Yet, only days later, he endorsed the GOP-led House budget proposal, which includes significant cuts to Medicaid. The apparent contradiction has left members like Van Drew caught between their loyalty to Trump and the political realities of representing districts where Medicaid is deeply important. In recent days, protestors have lined up outside Van Drew's South Jersey district office. The uncertainty surrounding Trump's stance on Medicaid cuts has created further rifts within the GOP, as some lawmakers fear alienating the very constituents that helped Trump win crucial swing states. 'I don't want to see him go through this,' Van Drew says. House Speaker Mike Johnson plans to hold a vote Tuesday on the measure, which calls for $2 trillion in cuts over a decade. But it's uncertain to pass given the fierce opposition from lawmakers representing districts with high Medicaid enrollment, many of whom are facing pressure from constituents who depend on the program for vital health care services. At recent town halls across the country, constituents have voiced their discontent over spending freezes and federal worker firings spearheaded by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. Some fear that voting in favor of these cuts could cost Republicans re-election support in 2026 by alienating their voters—many of whom voted for Trump and have benefited from Medicaid. The ideological divide within the GOP runs deep. On one side, budget hawks argue that Medicaid is an 'open checkbook' contributing to the nation's $34 trillion debt, and they view this moment as a crucial opportunity to curb the nation's ballooning deficit. The proposed solution includes capping Medicaid spending, imposing work requirements, and targeting fraud—all of which would save an estimated $880 billion over the next decade, House Republicans estimate. Critics say that if the Medicaid cuts are approved by the House and Senate, millions of Americans will lose coverage, including children, new moms, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities. Medicaid pays for 6 out of 10 of residents in nursing homes, with 5.6 million Americans counting on Medicaid for their long-term care bills. Rep. Nick Begich, a Republican who represents Alaska's only congressional district, where a third of residents are enrolled in Medicaid, tells TIME that he wants 'to make sure that our nation's most vulnerable populations continue to be supported by programs like Medicaid.' While he didn't share how he would vote, he said he plans to 'ensure that Medicaid is preserved.' Rep. Tony Gonzales, a Texas Republican who also has a large constituency enrolled in the program, co-authored a letter with seven other House Republicans representing large Hispanic populations urging Speaker Johnson to rethink the GOP's potential cuts on Medicaid. Gonzales met with Speaker Johnson on Monday and told TIME afterwards that he plans to continue their dialogue. 'We will cut waste and fraud while investing in our national security without pulling the rug out from under millions of Americans,' he says. But the uncertainty leaves Speaker Johnson and his leadership team in a tight spot. With the House's razor-thin 218-215 majority, the GOP can afford only a handful of defections—making it increasingly unlikely that the party will be able to unite behind a budget that includes Medicaid cuts. 'I think we look good,' Johnson told reporters as he was leaving the Capitol Monday night. 'I mean we're having very productive conversations. As you all know, this is all part of the process and I think we're on track.' Still, the internal strife could have dire consequences: without a budget, the government faces the very real possibility of a shutdown in mid-March. From a political standpoint, that may present a prime opportunity for Democrats to sharpen their messaging heading into the midterms. Democrats plan to seize on any potential disarray to rally opposition to the Medicaid cuts, according to a source familiar with Democratic leadership's thinking, and could push hard to mobilize voters in Medicaid-heavy districts. Protect Our Care, a Democratic health care advocacy group formed to defend the Affordable Care Act during that last Republican trifecta in 2017, already launched a $10 million campaign titled 'Hands Off Medicaid' and is running ads on Fox News urging constituents to call their representatives. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters Monday that if Republicans vote for the budget, 'they're going to be held accountable for raising expectations that they were going to solve the affordability crisis in America and doing the exact opposite.' Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, tells TIME that cuts to Medicaid are 'unacceptable' and that if Republicans 'want to further damage their brand … that's their prerogative.' For House Republicans, the stakes are high. They must navigate the competing pressures from their own party's hard-line budget conservatives, the promises they and Trump made to constituents, and the threat of a government shutdown that could play into the Democrats' hands. 'It's not like I'm being soft or don't think we need to change a whole lot of stuff,' Van Drew says. 'I'm one of these people that was caught in the middle that wants to do the right thing by real people.' 'There's being conservative, and there's being extreme,' he adds. 'Those are two different things.' Write to Nik Popli at
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ex-Atlantic City council president admits to 2022 election fraud scheme
NEW YORK — A former Atlantic City council president and longtime political organizer in New Jersey admitted he was involved in a fraudulent mail-in ballot scheme during the 2022 general election, federal prosecutors announced Thursday. Craig Callaway, 64, pleaded guilty to one count of depriving, defrauding, and attempting to deprive and defraud the residents of the state of New Jersey of a fair and impartially conducted election process. About a month before the Nov. 8, 2022 election, Callaway and an undisclosed number of subordinates promised to pay between $30 and $50 to 'numerous' Atlantic City residents 'to act as purported authorized messengers' for voters who wished to vote by mail, prosecutors said. Those messengers then took up to four completed vote-by-mail applications to the Atlantic County Clerk's Office, showed proof of identification, signed the applications and handed them to the clerk's office. When the applications were approved, the messengers handed the ballots to Callaway or his subordinates — even though under state law they were required to deliver mail-in ballots 'directly to the voter who requested' them. Many of those mail-in ballots were cast in the names of voters who later confirmed they hadn't voted in that election. They also said they hadn't authorized Callaway or anyone else to cast the ballots for them, according to prosecutors. Callaway, described by local media as a 'veteran ballot harvester who has been involved in unsavory election practices for years,' has worked for both Democrats and Republicans. He was arrested in February 2024 and charged with casting fraudulent ballots. At the time, he was working on the re-election campaign of U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew. Van Drew, a Democrat-turned-Republican representing New Jersey's 2nd congressional district, has denied any knowledge of the scheme. Callaway — who previously served more than three years in prison for bribery and a sex blackmail scam — pleaded guilty to the fraud charge in Camden federal court on Thursday. 'The defendant admitted to depriving New Jersey residents of a fair election by participating in a scheme to cast ballots for voters who did not vote in the election,' Acting U.S. Attorney Vikas Khanna said in a statement. 'Along with our law enforcement partners, we are committed to prosecuting those who criminally seek to undermine impartially conducted elections.' Callaway is scheduled to be sentenced on June 17.
