When Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thanked Hugh Hefner
The late founder of Playboy was considered a retrograde chauvinist by many, but his politics and his support for women’s rights were once as radical as his sexual mores.
By CARRIE PITZULO
It is no exaggeration to say that Hugh Hefner, the womanizing hedonist and founder of Playboy magazine who died at 91 on Wednesday, helped to define modern American sexual culture. He was “Hef,” an icon of late 20th-century personal freedom, celebrity and consumerism, albeit one whose silk pajamas and pipe-smoking suavity became a cliché of (mostly white) male heterosexuality. In the universally recognizable Playmate centerfolds, his magazine defined an airbrushed and unattainable standard of feminine attraction and availability. That has made Playboy an irresistible target over the years for its legion of critics—who said it’s a sexist, objectifying rag, led by a creepy old man whose legion of “Bunnies” turned bed partners never seemed to age even as he did.
But what most observers have failed to remember is that Playboy was considered a progressive cultural leader in the 1960s and ’70s. It was more than a magazine—it was an empire. College courses were devoted to Playboy’s business model. Ministers gave sermons (not always critical) about Hefner’s worldview, which was spelled out in a years-long editorial series called “The Playboy Philosophy.” The Philosophy addressed what Hefner saw as American religious repression, censorship, sexuality, and all manner of personal freedom. There were iconic Playboy Clubs around the world. People paid attention to what Playboy had to say in noteworthy interviews and journalistic pieces because of their engagement with the social, political and cultural issues of the day. Hefner’s politics—and thus the magazine’s—challenged the American status quo in many ways beyond sexuality.
The magazine, founded in December 1953, helped to define new standards not only of femininity, but masculinity as well. The companion to the Playmate was an urbane, culturally articulate bachelor. The man idealized in Playboy was a challenge to the postwar standard of the stalwart family man and Cold Warrior. The Playboy bachelor was a happy, swinging single man about town. It’s easy to forget how significant a portrayal that was at the time. That kind of man was usually shunned in the 1950s as neurotic and possibly homosexual. But the carefree bachelor—an aspiration for Hefner himself when he created Playboy—was self-conscious about his looks, his apartment, even his cooking skills. He was the forerunner of the more recent “metrosexual.” And as such, Hefner envisioned masculine and feminine ideals coming into closer alignment, for better or for worse.
For the equally celebrated and maligned Playmate woman, Hefner took the gendered expectations of the postwar era and turned them on their head. Both men and women were expected to channel their sexuality into monogamous marriage. Transgressing those strict parameters could lead to social ostracism, loss of employment or even diagnosis of mental illness. The stakes for women were particularly high. The only available options for feminine sexuality were “good” girl or “bad” girl. Women were expected to marry young, have several children, and follow their husbands’ lead in the bedroom. Anything else risked reputation, social acceptance and marriageability. With the Playmate centerfolds, Hefner rejected this constrained vision of women’s sexuality. He joyously proclaimed that “good” girls liked sex, too.
In a pre-feminist world, this was significant. Traditionally pinup nudes were nameless women in a storyless setting—a body on a bearskin rug. But Hefner wanted something else. Soon after its founding, Hefner established the Playmate formula. The women were photographed in ways that suggested a real, living human being. Highly sexualized, yes—but nonetheless an actual woman with a life outside the magazine's pages. Props spoke to a situation or setting, like a woman getting ready for an evening out. Biographies (however embellished) rounded out her personality. Secondary photos showed the model in her everyday life, going to school or work, or even, in some cases, having Sunday dinner with her parents. Hefner told his readers that such a girl might be in the next office, sitting near them on the train, or at the grocery store. Ultimately, the images and their accompanying stories insisted that women were as sexual as men. This was a revolutionary idea in the conservative postwar years.
Hefner was motivated by his unwavering support for personal freedom, sexual or otherwise. He believed that American culture was poisoned by religious puritanism, and he railed against sexual repression as damaging and unhealthy. This was a reaction to his conservative upbringing in a devout Methodist family, which he contexualized within a broader cultural critique. Hefner’s politics were progressive, and he supported much of the liberal agenda in the second half of the twentieth century. And nothing appeared in Playboy without Hefner’s approval, so his politics were the politics of the magazine (although most of his editors were also progressive, if not radical). Support for the civil rights, gay rights and antiwar movements, the liberalization of drug laws, and liberal feminism all found their way into the Playboy worldview. Much of this was expressed through The Playboy Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the magazine. But even more significantly, these political views were championed in several letters-to-the-editor columns, particularly one called the “Forum.” Here Hefner and his editors engaged in a constant conversation with their readers, who offered their views of current social and political issues, and Playboy responded with its collective opinion.
Liberal feminism—as opposed to a more radical stance, which made Hefner hysterically defensive because of its critique of traditional heterosexuality and feminine beauty, the world that Playboy was built on—was a central concern for Playboy in the late 1960s and early '70s. Hefner supported women’s reproductive rights—including access to birth control and legal abortion—as a matter of overall sexual freedom. Of course, liberated women meant straight men could have more consequence-free sex, but reproductive rights were an important issue for feminists. Playboy published information on the struggle for legal abortion with monthly updates on changing state laws. They promoted the work of the Clergy Consultation Service, which was a hotline that women could call to track down safe abortion before Roe v. Wade. The Foundation provided funds to rape crisis centers and day-care centers for working mothers, and supported the Equal Rights Amendment. As some women were protesting outside of the Playboy offices, other activists, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then attorney for the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, wrote to the Forum to thank Playboy for its support, which eventually totaled $100,000. As much as male privilege, this is an important part of Hefner’s legacy and one that typically goes unacknowledged.
Hefner will always be a contested figure. In the hours after his death, progressives continue to claim him for both sides of the feminist debate, just as many did 50 years ago. But wherever we place him on the political spectrum—champion of liberty or unrepentant chauvinist—there can be no doubt that Hefner was one of the most significant cultural figures of the past 70 years.
September 29, 2017
Tax reform feud erupts
First GOP tax reform feud erupts over state, local tax break
Republicans from New Jersey, New York, California and Illinois are among those worried that voters in their districts will face higher taxes than they currently do.
By AARON LORENZO and RACHAEL BADE
Vulnerable Republicans from a handful of purple districts have declared war on a central pillar of the tax plan released Wednesday by President Donald Trump and GOP leaders in Congress: A provision that would eliminate state and local tax deductibility, which they say would hike taxes on their middle-class constituents.
In the first intraparty showdown to emerge after the plan's unveiling, Republicans from New Jersey, New York, California and Illinois are among those worried that voters in their districts will face higher taxes than they currently do. They've already started making their case to Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) — both advocates of ending the deduction — and are vowing to organize to restore their tax benefit.
"I’m going to fight this out and hopefully have success in getting this restored,” said New Jersey Republican Tom MacArthur, a leader of the effort. "I am going to do what I can to rally states like New Jersey and New York, Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Connecticut.”
Their campaign throws a curveball into tax reform and is already having an effect: Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) went off script Thursday and said he’d like to maintain the tax deduction if possible. That undercuts the united front GOP leaders wanted to show on the matter — and potentially leaves them a $1 trillion hole in their list of pay-fors, potentially jeopardizing their entire plan.
“If we can keep it, I'd like to keep it," Hatch said, acknowledging that the position puts him at odds with the statement issued by the so-called Big Six negotiators, a group that includes Hatch.
He called the unified framework "just the beginning" for efforts to overhaul the tax code.
The tax break is important to taxpayers in states and cities with high property taxes and other levies, most of which vote blue though some are represented by GOP lawmakers like MacArthur. Realtors and others in the housing business also see the tax break as a boost for their industry, given its benefit to home buyers.
Republicans from those states worry about taxes increasing on constituents when they can no longer deduct local levies. Asked if he was a “no” on the tax framework, for instance, MacArthur responded: “I’m certainly a loud objector.”
“It’s not fair to give the entire country a tax break on the backs of the citizens of these six or seven states … the highest-tax states in the country, who by the way get the least back as a percentage of what we pay” to the federal government, he said.
The tax benefit provided $338 billion in deductions in 2015, making it the most widely claimed itemized deduction that year, according to the most recently available IRS statistics. Fully repealing it would raise $1.4 trillion in revenue over a decade, according to an estimate by Alex Brill of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
MacArthur has been pressing Ryan and Brady on the issue for weeks and also met with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House economic adviser Gary Cohn, who are also insistent about ending the break, saying it mainly benefits upper-income taxpayers.
He’s also coordinating with other GOP House members whose constituents face the same concerns, so they can make a concerted case. Some raised concerns about the provision during a half-day House GOP tax retreat on Wednesday as the plan was getting rolled out.
Ways and Means Republicans know the battle isn't over yet, regardless of whether they agree with Ryan and Brady's position that low-tax states shouldn't subsidize high-tax states, a feeling that reverberates even among some Republicans from places like New York.
“I say it’s incumbent on our governor to reduce his budget from $160 billion to $100 billion,” Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) said of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. “I think it’s incumbent on our governor to stop jamming the county taxpayers with the Medicaid costs that equate to 90 percent of the Erie County tax bill.”
But Cuomo told reporters on Long Island that the state's congressional delegation needs to oppose the emerging Republican tax plan.
"I'm saying to our congressional representatives: You do whatever you have to do to stop this," Cuomo said. "I don't care if you have to filibuster. I don't care if you have to lay across the Senate floor and force them to remove you, bodily, from the chamber. This cannot happen. It would be devastating to the people of the state of New York."
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) heard the message loud and clear. During the open mic session at the House Republican tax retreat Wednesday, he warned his colleagues that he could face a backlash at the ballot box should they eliminate the deduction.
King’s centrist Republican district voted for former President Barack Obama twice by 5 points, he told the room. And while Trump won his district last election, it’s only about 35 percent Republican, he said in a brief interview.
“The average person in my district — or the average one who voted for Trump ... their only asset is their home, and they’re paying $15,000 in property taxes on average. Probably another $10,000 in [others],” he said.
GOP leaders responded to King at the retreat by asking him to “keep an open mind.” And so far, some are: One Republican leadership source noted that no lawmakers have drawn a line in the sand over the matter — at least not yet.
In the meantime, Republican tax-writers are hoping to convince concerned members that they shouldn’t publicly bash the framework just because they want to save the deduction. They’re also pointing to their plan to double the standard deduction, which they argue would offset any hit to high-tax state constituents.
“I’m listening, I want to understand better,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who acknowledged that although his state wouldn’t feel as much impact as neighboring New York and New Jersey, there’s uncertainty nonetheless. “I want to understand how the standard deduction being doubled will mitigate any changes potentially to the state and local property tax deduction.”
But some GOP leaders are going on the offensive to try to discredit the state and local deduction. On Fox Business Thursday morning, for instance, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who is from high-tax California himself, suggested the deduction actually serves as an incentive for states to ramp up taxes — because they know the federal government will “subsidize” hikes by allowing people to write them off their federal tax bills.
“Is it fair that other states subsidize states that have high state taxes?” he asked. “Look at California. California is one of the most mismanaged, highest-tax states in the nation. And they use an argument inside that [state] Capitol, ‘Let's raise taxes, as you can write it off on your federal income tax.’”
It’s unclear if such arguments will actually convince any opponents of ending the deduction, however. While Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), who also stood up to voice his objections during the House GOP retreat, wouldn't commit to voting "no," he said he’s working in tandem with the others to keep pressing.
"This is a matter of grave importance to me," Lance said in an interview, labeling it a fairness issue since Garden Staters already pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal tax benefits.
MacArthur has floated one alternative to create a single homeowner deduction that would let taxpayers pair their property taxes with interest they pay on their mortgages. New Jersey has higher property taxes than any other state.
Another option, from Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), would turn the existing federal deduction for taxes paid at the state and local levels into a credit. Reed, who sits on Ways and Means, said he's making his voice heard but is also keeping an open mind.
Brady said Republican leaders "are going to continue to listen to Congressman MacArthur and others from the high-tax states. And secondly, it’s crucial that we deliver tax relief for every American regardless of where they live, including those states that have high state and local taxes. So that’s where we’re going to focus.”
But outside groups representing real estate interests, as well as state and municipal governments, aren't waiting. They're already taking up the fight under a single coalition called Americans Against Double Taxation.
The consequence of losing the benefit, they say, would not only hit housing, but also cut into spending on infrastructure, education, public safety and emergency services, and other civic amenities if states and cities are pressured to cut their own taxes as a result of the deduction’s elimination.
“We better do more than just write letters,” said Tom Cochran of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, one of the groups in the coalition. “Calls are being made right now and the pressure will come from the hinterlands across this nation.”
Republicans from New Jersey, New York, California and Illinois are among those worried that voters in their districts will face higher taxes than they currently do.
By AARON LORENZO and RACHAEL BADE
Vulnerable Republicans from a handful of purple districts have declared war on a central pillar of the tax plan released Wednesday by President Donald Trump and GOP leaders in Congress: A provision that would eliminate state and local tax deductibility, which they say would hike taxes on their middle-class constituents.
In the first intraparty showdown to emerge after the plan's unveiling, Republicans from New Jersey, New York, California and Illinois are among those worried that voters in their districts will face higher taxes than they currently do. They've already started making their case to Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) — both advocates of ending the deduction — and are vowing to organize to restore their tax benefit.
"I’m going to fight this out and hopefully have success in getting this restored,” said New Jersey Republican Tom MacArthur, a leader of the effort. "I am going to do what I can to rally states like New Jersey and New York, Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Connecticut.”
Their campaign throws a curveball into tax reform and is already having an effect: Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) went off script Thursday and said he’d like to maintain the tax deduction if possible. That undercuts the united front GOP leaders wanted to show on the matter — and potentially leaves them a $1 trillion hole in their list of pay-fors, potentially jeopardizing their entire plan.
“If we can keep it, I'd like to keep it," Hatch said, acknowledging that the position puts him at odds with the statement issued by the so-called Big Six negotiators, a group that includes Hatch.
He called the unified framework "just the beginning" for efforts to overhaul the tax code.
The tax break is important to taxpayers in states and cities with high property taxes and other levies, most of which vote blue though some are represented by GOP lawmakers like MacArthur. Realtors and others in the housing business also see the tax break as a boost for their industry, given its benefit to home buyers.
Republicans from those states worry about taxes increasing on constituents when they can no longer deduct local levies. Asked if he was a “no” on the tax framework, for instance, MacArthur responded: “I’m certainly a loud objector.”
“It’s not fair to give the entire country a tax break on the backs of the citizens of these six or seven states … the highest-tax states in the country, who by the way get the least back as a percentage of what we pay” to the federal government, he said.
The tax benefit provided $338 billion in deductions in 2015, making it the most widely claimed itemized deduction that year, according to the most recently available IRS statistics. Fully repealing it would raise $1.4 trillion in revenue over a decade, according to an estimate by Alex Brill of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
MacArthur has been pressing Ryan and Brady on the issue for weeks and also met with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House economic adviser Gary Cohn, who are also insistent about ending the break, saying it mainly benefits upper-income taxpayers.
He’s also coordinating with other GOP House members whose constituents face the same concerns, so they can make a concerted case. Some raised concerns about the provision during a half-day House GOP tax retreat on Wednesday as the plan was getting rolled out.
Ways and Means Republicans know the battle isn't over yet, regardless of whether they agree with Ryan and Brady's position that low-tax states shouldn't subsidize high-tax states, a feeling that reverberates even among some Republicans from places like New York.
“I say it’s incumbent on our governor to reduce his budget from $160 billion to $100 billion,” Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) said of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. “I think it’s incumbent on our governor to stop jamming the county taxpayers with the Medicaid costs that equate to 90 percent of the Erie County tax bill.”
But Cuomo told reporters on Long Island that the state's congressional delegation needs to oppose the emerging Republican tax plan.
"I'm saying to our congressional representatives: You do whatever you have to do to stop this," Cuomo said. "I don't care if you have to filibuster. I don't care if you have to lay across the Senate floor and force them to remove you, bodily, from the chamber. This cannot happen. It would be devastating to the people of the state of New York."
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) heard the message loud and clear. During the open mic session at the House Republican tax retreat Wednesday, he warned his colleagues that he could face a backlash at the ballot box should they eliminate the deduction.
King’s centrist Republican district voted for former President Barack Obama twice by 5 points, he told the room. And while Trump won his district last election, it’s only about 35 percent Republican, he said in a brief interview.
“The average person in my district — or the average one who voted for Trump ... their only asset is their home, and they’re paying $15,000 in property taxes on average. Probably another $10,000 in [others],” he said.
GOP leaders responded to King at the retreat by asking him to “keep an open mind.” And so far, some are: One Republican leadership source noted that no lawmakers have drawn a line in the sand over the matter — at least not yet.
In the meantime, Republican tax-writers are hoping to convince concerned members that they shouldn’t publicly bash the framework just because they want to save the deduction. They’re also pointing to their plan to double the standard deduction, which they argue would offset any hit to high-tax state constituents.
“I’m listening, I want to understand better,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who acknowledged that although his state wouldn’t feel as much impact as neighboring New York and New Jersey, there’s uncertainty nonetheless. “I want to understand how the standard deduction being doubled will mitigate any changes potentially to the state and local property tax deduction.”
But some GOP leaders are going on the offensive to try to discredit the state and local deduction. On Fox Business Thursday morning, for instance, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who is from high-tax California himself, suggested the deduction actually serves as an incentive for states to ramp up taxes — because they know the federal government will “subsidize” hikes by allowing people to write them off their federal tax bills.
“Is it fair that other states subsidize states that have high state taxes?” he asked. “Look at California. California is one of the most mismanaged, highest-tax states in the nation. And they use an argument inside that [state] Capitol, ‘Let's raise taxes, as you can write it off on your federal income tax.’”
It’s unclear if such arguments will actually convince any opponents of ending the deduction, however. While Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), who also stood up to voice his objections during the House GOP retreat, wouldn't commit to voting "no," he said he’s working in tandem with the others to keep pressing.
"This is a matter of grave importance to me," Lance said in an interview, labeling it a fairness issue since Garden Staters already pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal tax benefits.
MacArthur has floated one alternative to create a single homeowner deduction that would let taxpayers pair their property taxes with interest they pay on their mortgages. New Jersey has higher property taxes than any other state.
Another option, from Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), would turn the existing federal deduction for taxes paid at the state and local levels into a credit. Reed, who sits on Ways and Means, said he's making his voice heard but is also keeping an open mind.
Brady said Republican leaders "are going to continue to listen to Congressman MacArthur and others from the high-tax states. And secondly, it’s crucial that we deliver tax relief for every American regardless of where they live, including those states that have high state and local taxes. So that’s where we’re going to focus.”
But outside groups representing real estate interests, as well as state and municipal governments, aren't waiting. They're already taking up the fight under a single coalition called Americans Against Double Taxation.
The consequence of losing the benefit, they say, would not only hit housing, but also cut into spending on infrastructure, education, public safety and emergency services, and other civic amenities if states and cities are pressured to cut their own taxes as a result of the deduction’s elimination.
“We better do more than just write letters,” said Tom Cochran of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, one of the groups in the coalition. “Calls are being made right now and the pressure will come from the hinterlands across this nation.”
Expanding public funding for abortion
Illinois governor signs bill expanding public funding for abortion
By NATASHA KORECKI
Republican Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner on Thursday signed into law a bill that will expand the public funding of abortion in Illinois, including to Medicaid recipients, a decision that already has conservatives sounding the death knell for his reelection campaign.
The move immediately increases the chances that the first-term governor will get a primary challenge and raises doubts about whether he can motivate a Republican base in a general election.
Rauner said he talked to low-income women across the state who didn't have access to abortion because they couldn't afford it.
"No woman should be forced to make a different decision than another woman would based purely on her income," Rauner said. “I am personally pro-choice, I always have been. I made no qualms about that when I was elected governor. I have not and never will change my views. I personally believe that a woman must have the right to decide what goes on in her own body.”
The law will expand public funding of abortion to include Medicaid recipients and to those who are covered under state health care plans.
The National Institute for Reproductive Health said the move makes Illinois the first state in decades to lift its restriction on Medicaid coverage of abortion.
“Because of this action, women in Illinois will no longer be barred from using Medicaid coverage for abortion,” said NIRH President Andrea Miller. “(NIRH) is proud to have supported this effort in Illinois and to be part of the growing movement to end all bans on insurance coverage of abortion.”
Planned Parenthood, Personal PAC and the ACLU were among the groups applauding Rauner’s decision on Thursday.
The legislation will reverse the so-called trigger law on the books now that prohibits abortions in Illinois in the hypothetical event the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade.
Rauner said he’s tried for months to find common ground between two impassioned sides of the argument, but ultimately he could not.
Both Rauner and his wife, Diana — a driving force behind his decision — believe politically the move is necessary in a blue state. Since its passage, the issue has placed tremendous pressure on the governor because he is a Republican in a state that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton.
Democrats knew as much and hammered him for not signing the bill — while at the same time placing a parliamentary hold on the bill so it didn’t arrive on his desk until just this week.
But Rauner had told Republican lawmakers in April that he would veto the measure, calling it “divisive.”
“Bruce Rauner today declared war on the pro-family movement, Illinois taxpayers, and the most basic values of the Republican party.” Paul Caprio, director of Family-Pac said in a statement. “No serious conservative of any type can consider ever voting for Bruce Rauner again.”
Rauner is already considered the most vulnerable incumbent governor in the country. While signing a bill expanding abortion access could help him in a blue state general election, members of his own party said they felt betrayed.
That’s because in April, when Rauner needed his Republican Caucus to stick together during a two-year budget impasse, he had said he would veto HB40.
“He has no hope. If he is the IL GOP nominee, the IL GOP is effectively conceding the Governor’s race to whichever Leftist of privilege the Dems nominate,” conservative political operative and radio host Dan Proft said in a text message. “Apparently he either thinks running as Jan Schakowsky [a liberal Chicago-area congresswoman] is his path to victory or he is not running again.”
Conservative Republican state Rep. David McSweeney also didn’t mince words. “Bruce Rauner is a failed governor who continues to lie to the people of the state of Illinois,” McSweeney said. “He told us on April 14 he would veto it, and obviously he broke his promise, just like he broke his promise to cut taxes.”
Still, no formidable challenger has stepped forward. And Rauner, a multi-millionaire, already has $70 million in his bank account, thanks to his own donations and to a $20 million contribution from billionaire businessman Ken Griffin.
On Thursday, one person applauded the move who has been at odds with Rauner on and off over the past two years — Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
Though his support is unlikely to help Rauner with his Republican base.
“I want to thank Gov. Rauner for standing up for choice, reproductive rights and equitable access to health care for all,” Emanuel said. “Women’s access to quality, affordable health care should always remain above partisan politics. The governor’s decision to sign HB40 into law was a significant step forward for women’s health."
By NATASHA KORECKI
Republican Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner on Thursday signed into law a bill that will expand the public funding of abortion in Illinois, including to Medicaid recipients, a decision that already has conservatives sounding the death knell for his reelection campaign.
The move immediately increases the chances that the first-term governor will get a primary challenge and raises doubts about whether he can motivate a Republican base in a general election.
Rauner said he talked to low-income women across the state who didn't have access to abortion because they couldn't afford it.
"No woman should be forced to make a different decision than another woman would based purely on her income," Rauner said. “I am personally pro-choice, I always have been. I made no qualms about that when I was elected governor. I have not and never will change my views. I personally believe that a woman must have the right to decide what goes on in her own body.”
The law will expand public funding of abortion to include Medicaid recipients and to those who are covered under state health care plans.
The National Institute for Reproductive Health said the move makes Illinois the first state in decades to lift its restriction on Medicaid coverage of abortion.
“Because of this action, women in Illinois will no longer be barred from using Medicaid coverage for abortion,” said NIRH President Andrea Miller. “(NIRH) is proud to have supported this effort in Illinois and to be part of the growing movement to end all bans on insurance coverage of abortion.”
Planned Parenthood, Personal PAC and the ACLU were among the groups applauding Rauner’s decision on Thursday.
The legislation will reverse the so-called trigger law on the books now that prohibits abortions in Illinois in the hypothetical event the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade.
Rauner said he’s tried for months to find common ground between two impassioned sides of the argument, but ultimately he could not.
Both Rauner and his wife, Diana — a driving force behind his decision — believe politically the move is necessary in a blue state. Since its passage, the issue has placed tremendous pressure on the governor because he is a Republican in a state that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton.
Democrats knew as much and hammered him for not signing the bill — while at the same time placing a parliamentary hold on the bill so it didn’t arrive on his desk until just this week.
But Rauner had told Republican lawmakers in April that he would veto the measure, calling it “divisive.”
“Bruce Rauner today declared war on the pro-family movement, Illinois taxpayers, and the most basic values of the Republican party.” Paul Caprio, director of Family-Pac said in a statement. “No serious conservative of any type can consider ever voting for Bruce Rauner again.”
Rauner is already considered the most vulnerable incumbent governor in the country. While signing a bill expanding abortion access could help him in a blue state general election, members of his own party said they felt betrayed.
That’s because in April, when Rauner needed his Republican Caucus to stick together during a two-year budget impasse, he had said he would veto HB40.
“He has no hope. If he is the IL GOP nominee, the IL GOP is effectively conceding the Governor’s race to whichever Leftist of privilege the Dems nominate,” conservative political operative and radio host Dan Proft said in a text message. “Apparently he either thinks running as Jan Schakowsky [a liberal Chicago-area congresswoman] is his path to victory or he is not running again.”
Conservative Republican state Rep. David McSweeney also didn’t mince words. “Bruce Rauner is a failed governor who continues to lie to the people of the state of Illinois,” McSweeney said. “He told us on April 14 he would veto it, and obviously he broke his promise, just like he broke his promise to cut taxes.”
Still, no formidable challenger has stepped forward. And Rauner, a multi-millionaire, already has $70 million in his bank account, thanks to his own donations and to a $20 million contribution from billionaire businessman Ken Griffin.
On Thursday, one person applauded the move who has been at odds with Rauner on and off over the past two years — Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
Though his support is unlikely to help Rauner with his Republican base.
“I want to thank Gov. Rauner for standing up for choice, reproductive rights and equitable access to health care for all,” Emanuel said. “Women’s access to quality, affordable health care should always remain above partisan politics. The governor’s decision to sign HB40 into law was a significant step forward for women’s health."
China policy
White House conducting wide-ranging review of China policy
By ADAM BEHSUDI, ANDREW RESTUCCIA and NAHAL TOOSI
The White House is quietly conducting a comprehensive review of its approach toward China, according to administration officials and outside advisers with knowledge of the plan.
The review, which is not yet complete, is a government-wide effort spearheaded by senior staff on the National Security Council and the National Economic Council, who have been quietly working on the plan for months. It stemmed in part from concerns in some parts of the administration that the president lacked a coherent approach to China.
The review will focus on economic issues -- including intellectual property, forced joint ventures, scientific research theft and trade tactics, the sources said. Other potential issues on the table include scrutiny over Chinese investments in the U.S., Beijing’s sector-specific industrial policies, cybersecurity and U.S. export restrictions of military use products to the communist nation.
China’s policies toward North Korea and its activities in the South China Sea could also be addressed, but one person familiar with the review said it would largely center on economic matters.
A group of senior administration officials -- including trade adviser Peter Navarro, senior adviser Jared Kushner, then-chief strategist Steve Bannon and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn -- brought the idea for the China policy review to President Donald Trump in June, and the president asked for a plan within 90 days, according to a person familiar with the issue.
“My sense is they’ve put everything on the table,” said a separate outside adviser familiar with the plan. “The way it’s been described by some is right-sizing the relationship for what China has become and what it will be going forward.”
But it’s unclear what specific actions the plan will recommend — or when the plan will reach the president’s desk, though sources said the NEC and NSC are nearing completion of an early draft of the report.
The report is expected to include hundreds of policy options, ranging in severity.
“We are always reviewing policies with an eye toward protecting American interests and promoting American prosperity,” a White House official said.
Trump’s top advisers have long clashed over the administration’s approach to China. Before leaving the White House, then-chief strategist Steve Bannon encouraged the president to get tough on China, arguing the country poses a serious economic threat to the United States.
Bloomberg Businessweek reported Thursday that Bannon is preparing to start an “outside entity” to “focus U.S. attention — and political pressure — on confronting China more aggressively.”
The administration has already taken early steps to face down China, though the wide-scale review is aimed at charting a more holistic approach to Beijing.
Trade investigations that either directly or indirectly target China are already underway. A probe opened last month could result in Beijing being hit with major trade restrictions based on China’s alleged violations of intellectual property and policies that force U.S. companies to hand over valuable technology to do business there.
Another investigation launched in May on the basis of national security could squelch any remaining imports of Chinese aluminum and steel, which are alleged to have flooded world markets and depressed prices for U.S. steelmakers. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross recently said that effort, which has exposed a rift among Trump’s closest advisers and is viewed with skepticism by Republicans in Congress, could be put on hold as the administration tries to secure passage of tax reform.
With Trump expected to travel to China in November, the new strategy could inform his second official visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
“This is proving the conventional wisdom that a presidential trip can force some action,” said Nicholas Lardy, a senior fellow and China expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Given the disparate views on China articulated by administration officials over recent months, a coherent policy is really needed.”
Senior administration officials have been laying the groundwork for Trump’s trip in recent days. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is there now to discuss North Korea and trade issues. Ross concluded a visit to Beijing earlier this week during which he prepared for Trump’s trip by focusing on a range of issues including how to reduce a massive U.S. trade deficit with China.
Trump hosted Xi at his Mar-a-Lago club in April, when he announced a new “comprehensive economic dialogue” to address trade frictions between the countries. The kickoff to that dialogue was a 100-day plan to improve bilateral trade resulting in some early positive developments, including reopening China’s market to U.S. beef for the first time in nearly 14 years and other measures that help financial services firms like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase.
But after the first official dialogue meeting in July the two sides dispensed with any pretense that the gathering yielded anything close to a breakthrough. Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin summed up the much-hyped meeting with a brief statement that amounted to little more than a “thank you” note to Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang and other officials that participated.
A month later, Trump opened a trade investigation — under the dreaded Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president broad authority to impose trade restrictions — that will likely result in action against China for alleged intellectual property violations.
After his visit to Beijing this week, Ross said he was looking for “bigger things and more difficult things” to address than what was included in the 100-day plan.
Trump over the past several months has tweeted continual broadsides against China, blaming Beijing for doing little to use its leverage to reign in North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.
But Trump and his officials have offered cautious praise to Beijing for gradually tightening the screws on North Korea, including through its support of a United Nations Security Council resolution and most recently China’s central bank directing other banks in the country to stop doing business with North Korea.
The administration also temporarily held off on announcing its probe into China’s intellectual property practices as it sought support from Beijing against North Korea at the U.N.
Observers say the Trump administration has to move toward a comprehensive China strategy, rather than a transactional approach. But whether Trump’s warring advisers can come up with a cohesive strategy is far from certain, said Matthew Goodman, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Goodman, who developed similar plans while on the White House staff of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said Trump’s review should ideally pinpoint the problems with China, define the objectives of this administration and develop a list describing specific actions to take.
“My guess is there is still a struggle for the pen going on,” he said. “We don’t know what exactly the core elements of that strategy will be and the actions that will come out.”
By ADAM BEHSUDI, ANDREW RESTUCCIA and NAHAL TOOSI
The White House is quietly conducting a comprehensive review of its approach toward China, according to administration officials and outside advisers with knowledge of the plan.
The review, which is not yet complete, is a government-wide effort spearheaded by senior staff on the National Security Council and the National Economic Council, who have been quietly working on the plan for months. It stemmed in part from concerns in some parts of the administration that the president lacked a coherent approach to China.
The review will focus on economic issues -- including intellectual property, forced joint ventures, scientific research theft and trade tactics, the sources said. Other potential issues on the table include scrutiny over Chinese investments in the U.S., Beijing’s sector-specific industrial policies, cybersecurity and U.S. export restrictions of military use products to the communist nation.
China’s policies toward North Korea and its activities in the South China Sea could also be addressed, but one person familiar with the review said it would largely center on economic matters.
A group of senior administration officials -- including trade adviser Peter Navarro, senior adviser Jared Kushner, then-chief strategist Steve Bannon and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn -- brought the idea for the China policy review to President Donald Trump in June, and the president asked for a plan within 90 days, according to a person familiar with the issue.
“My sense is they’ve put everything on the table,” said a separate outside adviser familiar with the plan. “The way it’s been described by some is right-sizing the relationship for what China has become and what it will be going forward.”
But it’s unclear what specific actions the plan will recommend — or when the plan will reach the president’s desk, though sources said the NEC and NSC are nearing completion of an early draft of the report.
The report is expected to include hundreds of policy options, ranging in severity.
“We are always reviewing policies with an eye toward protecting American interests and promoting American prosperity,” a White House official said.
Trump’s top advisers have long clashed over the administration’s approach to China. Before leaving the White House, then-chief strategist Steve Bannon encouraged the president to get tough on China, arguing the country poses a serious economic threat to the United States.
Bloomberg Businessweek reported Thursday that Bannon is preparing to start an “outside entity” to “focus U.S. attention — and political pressure — on confronting China more aggressively.”
The administration has already taken early steps to face down China, though the wide-scale review is aimed at charting a more holistic approach to Beijing.
Trade investigations that either directly or indirectly target China are already underway. A probe opened last month could result in Beijing being hit with major trade restrictions based on China’s alleged violations of intellectual property and policies that force U.S. companies to hand over valuable technology to do business there.
Another investigation launched in May on the basis of national security could squelch any remaining imports of Chinese aluminum and steel, which are alleged to have flooded world markets and depressed prices for U.S. steelmakers. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross recently said that effort, which has exposed a rift among Trump’s closest advisers and is viewed with skepticism by Republicans in Congress, could be put on hold as the administration tries to secure passage of tax reform.
With Trump expected to travel to China in November, the new strategy could inform his second official visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
“This is proving the conventional wisdom that a presidential trip can force some action,” said Nicholas Lardy, a senior fellow and China expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Given the disparate views on China articulated by administration officials over recent months, a coherent policy is really needed.”
Senior administration officials have been laying the groundwork for Trump’s trip in recent days. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is there now to discuss North Korea and trade issues. Ross concluded a visit to Beijing earlier this week during which he prepared for Trump’s trip by focusing on a range of issues including how to reduce a massive U.S. trade deficit with China.
Trump hosted Xi at his Mar-a-Lago club in April, when he announced a new “comprehensive economic dialogue” to address trade frictions between the countries. The kickoff to that dialogue was a 100-day plan to improve bilateral trade resulting in some early positive developments, including reopening China’s market to U.S. beef for the first time in nearly 14 years and other measures that help financial services firms like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase.
But after the first official dialogue meeting in July the two sides dispensed with any pretense that the gathering yielded anything close to a breakthrough. Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin summed up the much-hyped meeting with a brief statement that amounted to little more than a “thank you” note to Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang and other officials that participated.
A month later, Trump opened a trade investigation — under the dreaded Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president broad authority to impose trade restrictions — that will likely result in action against China for alleged intellectual property violations.
After his visit to Beijing this week, Ross said he was looking for “bigger things and more difficult things” to address than what was included in the 100-day plan.
Trump over the past several months has tweeted continual broadsides against China, blaming Beijing for doing little to use its leverage to reign in North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.
But Trump and his officials have offered cautious praise to Beijing for gradually tightening the screws on North Korea, including through its support of a United Nations Security Council resolution and most recently China’s central bank directing other banks in the country to stop doing business with North Korea.
The administration also temporarily held off on announcing its probe into China’s intellectual property practices as it sought support from Beijing against North Korea at the U.N.
Observers say the Trump administration has to move toward a comprehensive China strategy, rather than a transactional approach. But whether Trump’s warring advisers can come up with a cohesive strategy is far from certain, said Matthew Goodman, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Goodman, who developed similar plans while on the White House staff of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said Trump’s review should ideally pinpoint the problems with China, define the objectives of this administration and develop a list describing specific actions to take.
“My guess is there is still a struggle for the pen going on,” he said. “We don’t know what exactly the core elements of that strategy will be and the actions that will come out.”
Twitter's Russia presentation
Warner blasts Twitter's Russia presentation
Twitter's briefing to intelligence staffers was 'inadequate on every level,' the senator said.
By ASHLEY GOLD and NANCY SCOLA
Twitter's presentation Thursday to Senate staffers about possible Russian election interference brought a caustic reaction from top Intelligence Committee Democrat Mark Warner, who called it "deeply disappointing" and "inadequate on every level."
The Virginia senator said he was especially disappointed that much of Twitter's findings were based on user accounts that Facebook had already flagged as problematic and shared with congressional staff. That showed "an enormous lack of understanding" from Twitter on how serious the Russia issue is and the "threat it poses to democratic institutions," Warner said.
Warner's comments came after Twitter gave a pair of closed-door briefings Thursday to House and Senate intelligence committee staff, who are looking for ways Russia may have used social media to try to influence the outcome of last year's U.S. presidential election. Facebook has also shared information with congressional investigators. The reception to Twitter's presentation underscores what's at stake for it and other tech companies as the Russia investigation intensifies.
Twitter also disclosed that the Kremlin-funded English-language media network RT, formerly known as Russia Today, paid for $274,100 of ads on its platform in 2016.
"This is an ongoing process and we will continue to collaborate with investigators," Twitter said in a post by its public policy team.
"We welcome the opportunity to work with the [Federal Election Commission] and leaders in Congress to review and strengthen guidelines for political advertising on social media," Twitter added. The commission is looking at what it should do to prevent people from countries like Russia from placing political ads in the United States. Warner and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) are trying to rally support for a bill that would require disclosures for social media political ads, similar to the disclosures required for broadcast political advertising.
Warner said the presentation to the Senate staff, which included Colin Crowell, Twitter's vice president for public policy, made the need for a public hearing even more clear. And the senator said meddling into U.S. democracy via social media has gone far beyond the 2016 election.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has invited Facebook, Google and Twitter to testify at a Nov. 1 hearing on this topic. The companies haven't said whether they'll attend or whom they would send to testify. The House Intelligence Committee also plans a hearing but hasn't set a date.
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, shared Warner's concerns about Twitter's presentation being partly a rehash of what Facebook had already dug up, saying the onus is on the company to further investigate.
"It is clear that Twitter has significant forensic work to do to understand the depth and breadth of Russian activity during the campaign," Schiff said in an emailed statement after Twitter's briefing. "This additional analysis will require a far more robust investigation into how Russian actors used their platform as a part of their active measures campaign and whether any of the targeting on Twitter suggests the possibility of assistance or collusion with any U.S. persons."
While Twitter said the RT ads were targeted at an American audience, it did not specify whether they were explicitly election-oriented or involved other political or social issues. The company said it suspended about 200 problematic accounts it identified as part of its internal investigation into election meddling.
RT defended its ad buy, saying it has purchased ads in many places besides Twitter.
"Somehow it did not cross our mind that in a developed democracy, regular media advertising can be considered suspicious or detrimental activity," RT editor in chief Margarita Simonyan said in a statement.
Warner said Twitter's "actions have not matched their words in terms of grasping the seriousness of the threat." He did not rule out subpoenaing Twitter for more information.
"I'm more than a bit surprised, in light of all the public interest from the subject, that anyone from the Twitter team would think that the presentation made to Senate staff today even began to answer the kinds of questions that we'd asked," he told reporters after the staff briefing. "So there's a lot more work they have to do."
Twitter's briefing to intelligence staffers was 'inadequate on every level,' the senator said.
By ASHLEY GOLD and NANCY SCOLA
Twitter's presentation Thursday to Senate staffers about possible Russian election interference brought a caustic reaction from top Intelligence Committee Democrat Mark Warner, who called it "deeply disappointing" and "inadequate on every level."
The Virginia senator said he was especially disappointed that much of Twitter's findings were based on user accounts that Facebook had already flagged as problematic and shared with congressional staff. That showed "an enormous lack of understanding" from Twitter on how serious the Russia issue is and the "threat it poses to democratic institutions," Warner said.
Warner's comments came after Twitter gave a pair of closed-door briefings Thursday to House and Senate intelligence committee staff, who are looking for ways Russia may have used social media to try to influence the outcome of last year's U.S. presidential election. Facebook has also shared information with congressional investigators. The reception to Twitter's presentation underscores what's at stake for it and other tech companies as the Russia investigation intensifies.
Twitter also disclosed that the Kremlin-funded English-language media network RT, formerly known as Russia Today, paid for $274,100 of ads on its platform in 2016.
"This is an ongoing process and we will continue to collaborate with investigators," Twitter said in a post by its public policy team.
"We welcome the opportunity to work with the [Federal Election Commission] and leaders in Congress to review and strengthen guidelines for political advertising on social media," Twitter added. The commission is looking at what it should do to prevent people from countries like Russia from placing political ads in the United States. Warner and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) are trying to rally support for a bill that would require disclosures for social media political ads, similar to the disclosures required for broadcast political advertising.
Warner said the presentation to the Senate staff, which included Colin Crowell, Twitter's vice president for public policy, made the need for a public hearing even more clear. And the senator said meddling into U.S. democracy via social media has gone far beyond the 2016 election.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has invited Facebook, Google and Twitter to testify at a Nov. 1 hearing on this topic. The companies haven't said whether they'll attend or whom they would send to testify. The House Intelligence Committee also plans a hearing but hasn't set a date.
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, shared Warner's concerns about Twitter's presentation being partly a rehash of what Facebook had already dug up, saying the onus is on the company to further investigate.
"It is clear that Twitter has significant forensic work to do to understand the depth and breadth of Russian activity during the campaign," Schiff said in an emailed statement after Twitter's briefing. "This additional analysis will require a far more robust investigation into how Russian actors used their platform as a part of their active measures campaign and whether any of the targeting on Twitter suggests the possibility of assistance or collusion with any U.S. persons."
While Twitter said the RT ads were targeted at an American audience, it did not specify whether they were explicitly election-oriented or involved other political or social issues. The company said it suspended about 200 problematic accounts it identified as part of its internal investigation into election meddling.
RT defended its ad buy, saying it has purchased ads in many places besides Twitter.
"Somehow it did not cross our mind that in a developed democracy, regular media advertising can be considered suspicious or detrimental activity," RT editor in chief Margarita Simonyan said in a statement.
Warner said Twitter's "actions have not matched their words in terms of grasping the seriousness of the threat." He did not rule out subpoenaing Twitter for more information.
"I'm more than a bit surprised, in light of all the public interest from the subject, that anyone from the Twitter team would think that the presentation made to Senate staff today even began to answer the kinds of questions that we'd asked," he told reporters after the staff briefing. "So there's a lot more work they have to do."
Travel to Cuba
AP: U.S. urges no travel to Cuba, cuts embassy staff
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The United States is warning Americans against visiting Cuba and ordering more than half of U.S. personnel to leave the island, senior officials said Friday, in a dramatic response to what they described as "specific attacks" on diplomats.
The decision deals a blow to already delicate ties between the U.S. and Cuba, longtime enemies who only recently began putting their hostility behind them. The embassy in Havana will lose roughly 60 percent of its U.S. staff, and will stop processing visas in Cuba indefinitely, the American officials said.
In a new travel warning to be issued Friday, the U.S. will say some of the attacks have occurred in Cuban hotels, and that while American tourists aren't known to have been hurt, they could be exposed if they travel to Cuba. Tourism is a critical component of Cuba's economy that has grown in recent years as the U.S. relaxed restrictions.
Almost a year after diplomats began describing unexplained health problems, U.S investigators still don't know what or who is behind the attacks, which have harmed at least 21 diplomats and their families, some with injuries as serious as traumatic brain injury and permanent hearing loss. Although the State Department has called them "incidents" and generally avoided deeming them attacks, officials said Friday the U.S. now has determined there were "specific attacks" on American personnel in Cuba.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made the decision to draw down the embassy overnight while traveling to China, officials said, after considering other options that included a full embassy shutdown. President Donald Trump reviewed the options with Tillerson in a meeting earlier in the week. The officials demanded anonymity because the moves have yet to be announced.
The United States notified Cuba of the moves early Friday via its embassy in Washington. Cuba's embassy had no immediate comment.
Cubans seeking visas to enter the U.S. may be able to apply through embassies in nearby countries, officials said. The U.S. will also stop sending official delegations to Cuba, though diplomatic discussions will continue in Washington.
The moves deliver a significant setback to the delicate reconciliation between the U.S. and Cuba, two countries that endured a half-century estrangement despite their locations only 90 miles apart. In 2015, President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro restored diplomatic ties. Embassies re-opened, and travel and commerce restrictions were eased. Trump has reversed some changes, but has broadly left the rapprochement in place.
The Trump administration has pointedly not blamed Cuba for perpetrating the attacks. Officials involved in the deliberations said the administration had weighed the best way to minimize potential risk for Americans in Havana without unnecessarily harming relations between the countries. Rather than describe it as punitive, the administration will emphasize Cuba's responsibility to keep diplomats on its soil safe.
To investigators' dismay, the symptoms in the attacks vary widely from person to person. In addition to hearing loss and concussions, some experienced nausea, headaches and ear-ringing, and the AP has reported some now suffer from problems with concentration and common word recall.
Though officials initially suspected some futuristic "sonic attack," the picture has grown muddier. The FBI and other agencies that searched homes and hotels where incidents occurred found no devices. And clues about the circumstances of the incidents seem to make any explanation scientifically implausible.
Some U.S. diplomats reported hearing various loud noises or feeling vibrations when the incidents occurred, but others heard and felt nothing yet reported symptoms later. In some cases, the effects were narrowly confined, with victims able to walk "in" and "out" of blaring noises audible in only certain rooms or parts of rooms, the AP has reported.
Though the incidents stopped for a time, they recurred as recently as late August. The U.S. has said the tally of Americans affected could grow.
Already, staffing at the embassy in Havana was at lower-than-usual levels due to recent hurricanes that have whipped through Cuba. In early September, the State Department issued an "authorized departure," allowing embassy employees and relatives who wanted to leave voluntarily to depart ahead of Hurricane Irma.
Though Cuba implored the United States not to react hastily, it appeared that last-minute lobbying by Castro's diplomats was unsuccessful. The days leading up to the decision involved a frantic bout of diplomacy that brought about the highest-level diplomatic contacts between the countries since the start of Trump's administration in January.
Last week, the Cuban official who has been the public face of the diplomatic opening with the U.S., Josefina Vidal, came to the State Department for a meeting with American officials in which the U.S. pressed its concerns. Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez used his speech to the U.N. General Assembly to insist Cuba had no idea what was harming American diplomats, while discouraging Trump from letting the matter become "politicized."
As concerns grew about a possible embassy shut-down, Cuba requested an urgent meeting Tuesday between Rodriguez and Tillerson in which the Cuban again insisted his government had nothing to do with the incidents. Rodriguez added that his government also would never let another country hostile to the U.S. use Cuban territory to attack Americans.
Citing its own investigation, Cuba's embassy said after the meeting: "There is no evidence so far of the cause or the origin of the health disorders reported by the U.S. diplomats."
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The United States is warning Americans against visiting Cuba and ordering more than half of U.S. personnel to leave the island, senior officials said Friday, in a dramatic response to what they described as "specific attacks" on diplomats.
The decision deals a blow to already delicate ties between the U.S. and Cuba, longtime enemies who only recently began putting their hostility behind them. The embassy in Havana will lose roughly 60 percent of its U.S. staff, and will stop processing visas in Cuba indefinitely, the American officials said.
In a new travel warning to be issued Friday, the U.S. will say some of the attacks have occurred in Cuban hotels, and that while American tourists aren't known to have been hurt, they could be exposed if they travel to Cuba. Tourism is a critical component of Cuba's economy that has grown in recent years as the U.S. relaxed restrictions.
Almost a year after diplomats began describing unexplained health problems, U.S investigators still don't know what or who is behind the attacks, which have harmed at least 21 diplomats and their families, some with injuries as serious as traumatic brain injury and permanent hearing loss. Although the State Department has called them "incidents" and generally avoided deeming them attacks, officials said Friday the U.S. now has determined there were "specific attacks" on American personnel in Cuba.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made the decision to draw down the embassy overnight while traveling to China, officials said, after considering other options that included a full embassy shutdown. President Donald Trump reviewed the options with Tillerson in a meeting earlier in the week. The officials demanded anonymity because the moves have yet to be announced.
The United States notified Cuba of the moves early Friday via its embassy in Washington. Cuba's embassy had no immediate comment.
Cubans seeking visas to enter the U.S. may be able to apply through embassies in nearby countries, officials said. The U.S. will also stop sending official delegations to Cuba, though diplomatic discussions will continue in Washington.
The moves deliver a significant setback to the delicate reconciliation between the U.S. and Cuba, two countries that endured a half-century estrangement despite their locations only 90 miles apart. In 2015, President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro restored diplomatic ties. Embassies re-opened, and travel and commerce restrictions were eased. Trump has reversed some changes, but has broadly left the rapprochement in place.
The Trump administration has pointedly not blamed Cuba for perpetrating the attacks. Officials involved in the deliberations said the administration had weighed the best way to minimize potential risk for Americans in Havana without unnecessarily harming relations between the countries. Rather than describe it as punitive, the administration will emphasize Cuba's responsibility to keep diplomats on its soil safe.
To investigators' dismay, the symptoms in the attacks vary widely from person to person. In addition to hearing loss and concussions, some experienced nausea, headaches and ear-ringing, and the AP has reported some now suffer from problems with concentration and common word recall.
Though officials initially suspected some futuristic "sonic attack," the picture has grown muddier. The FBI and other agencies that searched homes and hotels where incidents occurred found no devices. And clues about the circumstances of the incidents seem to make any explanation scientifically implausible.
Some U.S. diplomats reported hearing various loud noises or feeling vibrations when the incidents occurred, but others heard and felt nothing yet reported symptoms later. In some cases, the effects were narrowly confined, with victims able to walk "in" and "out" of blaring noises audible in only certain rooms or parts of rooms, the AP has reported.
Though the incidents stopped for a time, they recurred as recently as late August. The U.S. has said the tally of Americans affected could grow.
Already, staffing at the embassy in Havana was at lower-than-usual levels due to recent hurricanes that have whipped through Cuba. In early September, the State Department issued an "authorized departure," allowing embassy employees and relatives who wanted to leave voluntarily to depart ahead of Hurricane Irma.
Though Cuba implored the United States not to react hastily, it appeared that last-minute lobbying by Castro's diplomats was unsuccessful. The days leading up to the decision involved a frantic bout of diplomacy that brought about the highest-level diplomatic contacts between the countries since the start of Trump's administration in January.
Last week, the Cuban official who has been the public face of the diplomatic opening with the U.S., Josefina Vidal, came to the State Department for a meeting with American officials in which the U.S. pressed its concerns. Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez used his speech to the U.N. General Assembly to insist Cuba had no idea what was harming American diplomats, while discouraging Trump from letting the matter become "politicized."
As concerns grew about a possible embassy shut-down, Cuba requested an urgent meeting Tuesday between Rodriguez and Tillerson in which the Cuban again insisted his government had nothing to do with the incidents. Rodriguez added that his government also would never let another country hostile to the U.S. use Cuban territory to attack Americans.
Citing its own investigation, Cuba's embassy said after the meeting: "There is no evidence so far of the cause or the origin of the health disorders reported by the U.S. diplomats."
Arizona senate bid
Democratic Rep. Sinema launches Arizona senate bid
By KEVIN ROBILLARD and HEATHER CAYGLE
Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is running for Senate against Arizona GOP Sen. Jeff Flake, setting up a marquee race between a former progressive-turned-centrist Democrat and one of President Donald Trump's harshest Republican critics.
Sinema released an announcement video on Thursday afternoon, making her Flake's first Democratic challenger. State Rep. Randy Freiss, a trauma surgeon who treated former Rep. Gabby Giffords, was also considering a Democratic bid. Flake is facing a primary challenge from former state Sen. Kelli Ward and other Republicans are eyeing his seat.
"I owe a large debt to my country," Sinema says in the video, outlining how her middle-class family fell into poverty and how she climbed out of it with help from the government, her church, her teachers and her family. "I got my shot. And now it's my duty to help others get their shot. So when people ask why I want to serve in the United States Senate, that's easy. I want to do more for my country."
Sinema, who started college at age 16, and has a law degree, a master's in social work and a doctorate, first ran for office as an independent affiliated with the Green Party. But in Congress, she joined the centrist Blue Dogs and carved out a moderate voting record. She was Democrats' top recruit for the seat after passing on a run against Sen. John McCain in 2016.
Senate Majority PAC, which is controlled by allies of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, has already released polling showing Sinema with a lead over Flake.
Flake has earned the ire of conservatives and the president himself because of his frequent criticisms of Trump, and Trump has frequently mused about defeating him in a primary.
Sinema starts the race with more cash on hand then Flake. At the end of the second quarter, she had $3.2 million on hand. Flake had roughly $3 million in the bank.
By KEVIN ROBILLARD and HEATHER CAYGLE
Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is running for Senate against Arizona GOP Sen. Jeff Flake, setting up a marquee race between a former progressive-turned-centrist Democrat and one of President Donald Trump's harshest Republican critics.
Sinema released an announcement video on Thursday afternoon, making her Flake's first Democratic challenger. State Rep. Randy Freiss, a trauma surgeon who treated former Rep. Gabby Giffords, was also considering a Democratic bid. Flake is facing a primary challenge from former state Sen. Kelli Ward and other Republicans are eyeing his seat.
"I owe a large debt to my country," Sinema says in the video, outlining how her middle-class family fell into poverty and how she climbed out of it with help from the government, her church, her teachers and her family. "I got my shot. And now it's my duty to help others get their shot. So when people ask why I want to serve in the United States Senate, that's easy. I want to do more for my country."
Sinema, who started college at age 16, and has a law degree, a master's in social work and a doctorate, first ran for office as an independent affiliated with the Green Party. But in Congress, she joined the centrist Blue Dogs and carved out a moderate voting record. She was Democrats' top recruit for the seat after passing on a run against Sen. John McCain in 2016.
Senate Majority PAC, which is controlled by allies of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, has already released polling showing Sinema with a lead over Flake.
Flake has earned the ire of conservatives and the president himself because of his frequent criticisms of Trump, and Trump has frequently mused about defeating him in a primary.
Sinema starts the race with more cash on hand then Flake. At the end of the second quarter, she had $3.2 million on hand. Flake had roughly $3 million in the bank.
Reality of delivering....
After triumphal rollout for tax reform, GOP faces the reality of delivering
By BERNIE BECKER, COLIN WILHELM and AARON LORENZO
The GOP’s tax-reform efforts got a jolt of momentum this week, but Republicans also are getting a fresh reminder of how hard it will be to write a bill that makes it to President Donald Trump’s desk this year.
They will have a number of hurdles to grapple with in the coming months, including selling their new plan to the public, fleshing out the policy, wrangling the rank and file and dealing with the myriad competing interests that will deluge the Hill.
Then there’s the Senate, the graveyard of Republicans' efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare. Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), asked about the biggest challenges in turning the plan GOP leaders released this week into legislation, deadpanned: "Fellow senators.
“It’s mostly all complicated,” Hatch added, later noting: “I want it to be the right kind of a bill. I don’t want it to be some piece of crap, which we’re so used to around here.”
The first challenge: passing a budget. Republicans in both chambers are trying to line up votes on a budget next week, a crucial and difficult step for tax reform that they'll have to tackle as they start wading into member concerns about what tax breaks might be on the chopping block.
The Senate Budget Committee looks ready to consider a framework that makes room for $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, while the full House is expected to take up its budget after months of delay in searching for the votes. If and when both chambers pass a budget, the House and the Senate would then have to reconcile their differences over spending targets and other potential obstacles.
Even if the chambers clear the budget hurdle relatively fast, some GOP lawmakers are already voicing concerns about how to fill in the specifics of the plan, and interest groups are already mobilizing to protect or advocate for certain provisions.
Plus, Hatch and other members of the Big Six who helped draft the plan have had to defend their product, which Trump sells as focused on the middle class, against intense Democratic attacks that it's merely a gift to the rich.
Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council and a Big Six member, deflected questions Thursday about whether a plan that repealed the alternative minimum tax — meant to ensure that upper-income Americans can't escape taxes altogether — and cut taxes on businesses that pay through the individual system would help Trump.
Americans are worried about “their own financial situation,” Cohn said at a White House briefing, hours after saying on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that “I can’t guarantee” that some middle-class people wouldn’t get a tax hike under the framework.
For his part, Trump has been promising a massive tax cut for everyone at various rallies around the country. But with Democrats accusing Republicans of not caring about deficits caused by tax cuts, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said several times Thursday that the GOP plan would eventually pay for itself — and maybe then some.
“We think there will be $2 trillion of growth,” Mnuchin, another Big Six member, said on Fox Business. ”So we think this tax plan will cut down the deficits by a trillion dollars.”
Liberal groups also have been saying for days that it’s laughable to think that the GOP plan, which also proposes cutting the corporate rate to 20 percent, cutting the top individual rate to 35 percent and repealing the estate tax, would be better for the middle class than for the wealthy.
Republicans are considering putting another income tax bracket on top of the 35 percent rate. But they’ve also drawn criticism from Democrats for proposing to raise the bottom tax rate for individuals from 10 percent to 12 percent, a charge that rank-and-file GOP lawmakers complained needed a better response during a half-day tax reform retreat on Wednesday.
House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) called the criticism “nonsense” this week, insisting that taxpayers who currently pay 10 percent would pay nothing under the GOP plan. “The tax elevator goes down at every level,” he said Wednesday.
He added in several speeches on Thursday that big-name Democrats like former Vice President Joe Biden, former Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State John Kerry all voted to take the lowest bracket to zero in the 1986 tax overhaul.
But perhaps the biggest challenge top Republicans will face on taxes is trying to get rid of tax breaks that have defenders on and off the Hill, and navigating all the various policy priorities pushed by groups around Washington.
“There’s a constituency for every single one of them,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) maintained, predicting that a GOP tax plan would need to kill around $4 trillion worth of tax incentives to break even.
The National Federation of Independent Business, a group that backs the "pass-through" businesses that pay through the individual tax system and has longstanding ties to the GOP, even had to be talked out of publicly criticizing the Republican framework, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.
NFIB has long advocated for pass-through businesses to pay as close to the corporate rate as possible. The plan would set their rate at 25 percent, and the corporate rate at 20 percent.
“Our policy goals haven’t changed, and we’ll be working with Congress and the White House to secure them in the final bill,” said Jack Mozloom, a spokesman for NFIB, adding that the group’s statement on the GOP outline “made it clear that we wanted more details and that we will remain engaged.”
The White House has suggested in closed-door meetings that it’s open to taxing contributions to 401(k) savings plans up front and cutting the cap on the mortgage interest deduction in half. Some housing groups are already worried that the more robust standard deduction proposed by Republicans would amount to a backdoor repeal of the mortgage tax break.
The rush of lobbying on tax reform is to be expected, given how many potential losers there are when tax breaks go by the wayside. But outside groups face a risk if they’re too aggressive in their efforts, warned Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform.
“If you sit on the side and throw rocks, you are at the back of the line,” he said.
Still, Republican tax writers said those issues would all be worked through in time, even as senior administration officials and congressional leaders still say a tax overhaul can be signed into law this year.
"Look at the totality of the package," said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.). “More of the blanks are going to get filled in the next week or so.”
By BERNIE BECKER, COLIN WILHELM and AARON LORENZO
The GOP’s tax-reform efforts got a jolt of momentum this week, but Republicans also are getting a fresh reminder of how hard it will be to write a bill that makes it to President Donald Trump’s desk this year.
They will have a number of hurdles to grapple with in the coming months, including selling their new plan to the public, fleshing out the policy, wrangling the rank and file and dealing with the myriad competing interests that will deluge the Hill.
Then there’s the Senate, the graveyard of Republicans' efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare. Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), asked about the biggest challenges in turning the plan GOP leaders released this week into legislation, deadpanned: "Fellow senators.
“It’s mostly all complicated,” Hatch added, later noting: “I want it to be the right kind of a bill. I don’t want it to be some piece of crap, which we’re so used to around here.”
The first challenge: passing a budget. Republicans in both chambers are trying to line up votes on a budget next week, a crucial and difficult step for tax reform that they'll have to tackle as they start wading into member concerns about what tax breaks might be on the chopping block.
The Senate Budget Committee looks ready to consider a framework that makes room for $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, while the full House is expected to take up its budget after months of delay in searching for the votes. If and when both chambers pass a budget, the House and the Senate would then have to reconcile their differences over spending targets and other potential obstacles.
Even if the chambers clear the budget hurdle relatively fast, some GOP lawmakers are already voicing concerns about how to fill in the specifics of the plan, and interest groups are already mobilizing to protect or advocate for certain provisions.
Plus, Hatch and other members of the Big Six who helped draft the plan have had to defend their product, which Trump sells as focused on the middle class, against intense Democratic attacks that it's merely a gift to the rich.
Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council and a Big Six member, deflected questions Thursday about whether a plan that repealed the alternative minimum tax — meant to ensure that upper-income Americans can't escape taxes altogether — and cut taxes on businesses that pay through the individual system would help Trump.
Americans are worried about “their own financial situation,” Cohn said at a White House briefing, hours after saying on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that “I can’t guarantee” that some middle-class people wouldn’t get a tax hike under the framework.
For his part, Trump has been promising a massive tax cut for everyone at various rallies around the country. But with Democrats accusing Republicans of not caring about deficits caused by tax cuts, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said several times Thursday that the GOP plan would eventually pay for itself — and maybe then some.
“We think there will be $2 trillion of growth,” Mnuchin, another Big Six member, said on Fox Business. ”So we think this tax plan will cut down the deficits by a trillion dollars.”
Liberal groups also have been saying for days that it’s laughable to think that the GOP plan, which also proposes cutting the corporate rate to 20 percent, cutting the top individual rate to 35 percent and repealing the estate tax, would be better for the middle class than for the wealthy.
Republicans are considering putting another income tax bracket on top of the 35 percent rate. But they’ve also drawn criticism from Democrats for proposing to raise the bottom tax rate for individuals from 10 percent to 12 percent, a charge that rank-and-file GOP lawmakers complained needed a better response during a half-day tax reform retreat on Wednesday.
House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) called the criticism “nonsense” this week, insisting that taxpayers who currently pay 10 percent would pay nothing under the GOP plan. “The tax elevator goes down at every level,” he said Wednesday.
He added in several speeches on Thursday that big-name Democrats like former Vice President Joe Biden, former Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State John Kerry all voted to take the lowest bracket to zero in the 1986 tax overhaul.
But perhaps the biggest challenge top Republicans will face on taxes is trying to get rid of tax breaks that have defenders on and off the Hill, and navigating all the various policy priorities pushed by groups around Washington.
“There’s a constituency for every single one of them,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) maintained, predicting that a GOP tax plan would need to kill around $4 trillion worth of tax incentives to break even.
The National Federation of Independent Business, a group that backs the "pass-through" businesses that pay through the individual tax system and has longstanding ties to the GOP, even had to be talked out of publicly criticizing the Republican framework, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.
NFIB has long advocated for pass-through businesses to pay as close to the corporate rate as possible. The plan would set their rate at 25 percent, and the corporate rate at 20 percent.
“Our policy goals haven’t changed, and we’ll be working with Congress and the White House to secure them in the final bill,” said Jack Mozloom, a spokesman for NFIB, adding that the group’s statement on the GOP outline “made it clear that we wanted more details and that we will remain engaged.”
The White House has suggested in closed-door meetings that it’s open to taxing contributions to 401(k) savings plans up front and cutting the cap on the mortgage interest deduction in half. Some housing groups are already worried that the more robust standard deduction proposed by Republicans would amount to a backdoor repeal of the mortgage tax break.
The rush of lobbying on tax reform is to be expected, given how many potential losers there are when tax breaks go by the wayside. But outside groups face a risk if they’re too aggressive in their efforts, warned Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform.
“If you sit on the side and throw rocks, you are at the back of the line,” he said.
Still, Republican tax writers said those issues would all be worked through in time, even as senior administration officials and congressional leaders still say a tax overhaul can be signed into law this year.
"Look at the totality of the package," said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.). “More of the blanks are going to get filled in the next week or so.”
Probe of private email accounts
White House launches probe of private email accounts
The review began after a POLITICO report about senior White House officials using private email accounts for government work.
By JOSH DAWSEY and ANDREA PETERSON
The White House has launched an internal probe of private email use, pulling batches of emails on the White House server to and from private accounts of senior aides, according to four officials familiar with the matter.
The effort began this week after POLITICO reported that Jared Kushner and a number of other senior White House officials used private email accounts throughout the year to conduct government business.
Of particular interest is Kushner and Ivanka Trump's private email domain, because they still work in the White House, two officials said. Accounts of other White House officials also are being reviewed.
The probe could take several weeks or even months to complete, according to one of these people, as officials are searching for all emails sent or received about government business. The White House counsel's office is reviewing the accounts to determine whether the messages are germane to any investigations such as the ongoing Russia probes by Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller, one of these people said.
News about the private email accounts caught many White House lawyers by surprise, one of these people said, and infuriated a number of White House officials.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment on the review, but said, "The White House instructs staff to fully comply with the Presidential Records Act and briefs staff on the need to preserve records."
At least five current and former White House officials have used private email, POLITICO previously reported. Those include Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn, Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus.
Kushner's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has said there are fewer than 100 emails about government business in Kushner's private email domain, and that all have been forwarded to his White House account.
The email practice has come under particular scrutiny because President Donald Trump was so critical of Hillary Clinton's private email server, leading to chants of "Lock her up!" on the campaign trail.
There is no evidence White House officials have sent or received classified or sensitive emails on their personal accounts, but the probe is set to determine whether that occurred. The probe is being led by the White House counsel's office, two of these people said.
The Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday asked Kushner's lawyer to review all his private email and correspondence on other messaging services, citing "concern" that he didn't disclose the email account in a private interview.
Kushner's lawyer has said there is nothing on the private server relating to the investigations into potential Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Kushner previously used a business account during the transition and campaign.
The review began after a POLITICO report about senior White House officials using private email accounts for government work.
By JOSH DAWSEY and ANDREA PETERSON
The White House has launched an internal probe of private email use, pulling batches of emails on the White House server to and from private accounts of senior aides, according to four officials familiar with the matter.
The effort began this week after POLITICO reported that Jared Kushner and a number of other senior White House officials used private email accounts throughout the year to conduct government business.
Of particular interest is Kushner and Ivanka Trump's private email domain, because they still work in the White House, two officials said. Accounts of other White House officials also are being reviewed.
The probe could take several weeks or even months to complete, according to one of these people, as officials are searching for all emails sent or received about government business. The White House counsel's office is reviewing the accounts to determine whether the messages are germane to any investigations such as the ongoing Russia probes by Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller, one of these people said.
News about the private email accounts caught many White House lawyers by surprise, one of these people said, and infuriated a number of White House officials.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment on the review, but said, "The White House instructs staff to fully comply with the Presidential Records Act and briefs staff on the need to preserve records."
At least five current and former White House officials have used private email, POLITICO previously reported. Those include Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn, Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus.
Kushner's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has said there are fewer than 100 emails about government business in Kushner's private email domain, and that all have been forwarded to his White House account.
The email practice has come under particular scrutiny because President Donald Trump was so critical of Hillary Clinton's private email server, leading to chants of "Lock her up!" on the campaign trail.
There is no evidence White House officials have sent or received classified or sensitive emails on their personal accounts, but the probe is set to determine whether that occurred. The probe is being led by the White House counsel's office, two of these people said.
The Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday asked Kushner's lawyer to review all his private email and correspondence on other messaging services, citing "concern" that he didn't disclose the email account in a private interview.
Kushner's lawyer has said there is nothing on the private server relating to the investigations into potential Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Kushner previously used a business account during the transition and campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)