Honest, decent, caring, experienced: Those are the words U.S. Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) used to describe Dr. Tom Price (R-Ga.), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services.

But that hasn’t stopped Senate Democrats from obstructing Price at nearly every turn, using smear tactics to question his character. Roe called the tactics “appalling.”

“Look, this guy is extremely qualified for this job,” Roe said in an interview on OppCast, a weekly podcast from Opportunity Lives.  

And when it comes to health care qualifications, Roe should know: he himself is a fellow physician with decades of experience under his belt, a perspective that has not dimmed even after a decade in Congress.

“Price is a deep-dive kind of guy when it comes to health care policy,” Roe said. “A guy with more than 25 years experience in this field, a guy whose wife is an anesthesiologist — I mean, that’s how immersed he in this world.”

Still, the obstructionist tactics being wrought by the Left — character smears and procedural boycotts, notably — show no signs of stopping anytime soon. This week, the Washington Post reported that Trump’s cabinet nominees have encountered a far more combative opposition in the Senate than any of their predecessors, describing the entire confirmation process as “increasingly driven by partisan political concerns.”

But as Roe noted in the case of Price, most of the Left’s objections are rooted more in showmanship — a loud objection to the perspective of the president — rather than real concerns over the nominees’ qualifications.

Lauren Cohen Bell, an expert on presidential appointments and current dean of academic affairs at Randolph-Macon College, told the Washington Post that Democrats don’t want to be seen as “capitulating to whatever the White House’s partisan perspectives or goals might be,” regardless of who the actual nominee is.

Because of this, Bell said, “the minority party is much less willing to go along with the president’s choices.”

While it’s true that some members of the Senate have historically harbored personal objections to certain presidents’ nominees or goals, never before has such opposition risen out of policy disputes alone.

“And that’s what you see with Dr. Price,” said Roe. “We have a very decent man here — and the other side of the aisle knows this — but they are unable to reject him over his qualifications and policies.  So what they try to do then is to create something that’s nonexistent, this notion that he’s dishonest.”

“Honestly, I think Dr. Price is owed an apology by Senate Democrats,” Roe added. “I truly believe that.”

Price’s confirmation fate should be resolved on the Senate floor later this week.

Few committees in the House of Representatives are as influential as the Committee on Ways and Means. As the oldest committee of the United States Congress, it has drafted some of the most important pieces of legislation ever signed into law, including Social Security, Medicare and welfare reform, just to name a few.

And in a year, when tax reform, trade and healthcare loom large, Ways and Means is once again set to leave its mark on history.

Opportunity Lives  recently sat down with Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), a Ways and Means committee member, to discuss a broad range of issues that are likely to come up this year. Curbelo is a first-generation American representing Florida’s 26th congressional district, which covers much of South Florida, including Key West and Everglades National Park.

Curbelo is also one of the youngest members of Congress. In the short time he’s been in office, he has distinguished himself as an independent voice in the Republican Party.

Here is annotated conversation we had with the South Florida lawmaker.

OL: Your appointment to the committee on Ways and Means is a big deal. What does this mean for you, personally? And what does this mean for the Hispanic American community given that few Hispanics have sat on this committee?

CC: This is a big deal for me personally, but it is a bigger deal for the people of South Florida. Think about all of the issues that come up before the committee including tax reform and healthcare… Having someone from South Florida on this committee is even more important than what it means to me personally.

OL: As you know, South Florida is home to one of the highest uninsured populations in the country. How will you plan to be a voice in Congress for the uninsured during this time when Republicans are talking about repealing and replacing Obamacare?

CC: For those in my district that have enrolled in the exchange, we want to make sure that they can keep their insurance and stabilize the market. But then we want to transition to a patient-centered plan. The committee wants to make sure that the doctor-patient relationship is more important than protecting the profits of insurance companies and big pharmaceuticals.

Our goal is not just to repeal the law, but also to inject competition in the healthcare system and give people more options. That’s because of the many flaws of Obamacare includes the reality that folks that have been insured through the exchange simply do not have access to good doctors and quality health care.

I feel good that in a month, month and a half we are going to have a good proposal for the American people to look at.

OL: What’s your message to folks out there concerned that Republicans are going to pull the rug out from folks currently on the Obamacare exchange?

CC: The first thing I would tell them is that the current Obamacare system is not working for millions and millions of Americans. The reality is that this system is collapsing. In other words, we don’t have a choice here, but to rescue the current healthcare system. But again, we will also make sure that there is certainty and a transition period for those that are currently enrolled in the Obamacare exchange so that they can make a decision that is best for them and their family.

OL: What can you tell us about trade policy before the committee? As you know, some are looking at trade agreements, including NAFTA, more skeptically. How will you plan to stand up in support of trade given that your South Florida congressional district relies so much on trade?

CC: Our trade policies are not perfect, but South Florida is a wonderful example of what robust trade can do for regions. For example, one out of every five jobs in the state of Florida is trade-related. Trade sustains families in our region.

The committee is absolutely committed to advancing a responsible trade agenda. We know that closing the United States of America makes no sense.

We also know that the new administration is skeptical of trade. There are talks of opening up NAFTA. We (committee on Ways and Means) are all for improving NAFTA, but what we are not for is tariffs and trade wars that could really hurt our economy, including regions like South Florida.

We want to work constructively with the new administration and help guide them how despite flaws, a lot of the trade deals have really improved the quality of life for many Americans.

House Republicans have charted an ambitious legislative agenda under House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that includes reforming the tax code, securing the border and repealing and replacing Obamacare, just to name a few. And if this is going to happen, much of the financing and budgeting of these plans will derive from the House Budget Committee.

Opportunity Lives Editor in Chief John Hart sat down with the newest House Budget Committee Chairwoman: Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) on Wednesday. 

As one of the few women leading a committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, Black has the responsibility of ensuring Republicans deliver on a number of campaign promises. Americans voted for decisive change and Black tells Opportunity Lives that House Republicans plan to deliver.

Along with sharing some valuable insight into how Republicans plan to repeal the costly and onerous Affordable Care Act, Black also opens up to Opportunity Lives about her early struggles living in poverty before eventually representing Tennessee’s 6th congressional district.

Full interview below:

In an exclusive interview with Opportunity Lives’ “OppCast” podcast on the Ricochet Network, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) outlined a GOP replacement to Obamacare, explaining that the Republican alternative will largely resemble the comprehensive Empowering Patients First Act introduced by now-Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, M.D.

“We’re basically putting into law the Price plan as our replace plan,” Speaker Ryan explained to Opportunity Lives. “It’s very similar to the bill that Tom Price has worked on for so many years, that many conservatives co-sponsored last year.”

Secretary Price, who previously served as the House Committee on the Budget chairman, represented Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District from 2005 to 2017, introduced his patient-centered alternative to Obamacare prior to President Obama’s signature law passing, and he reintroduced it every subsequent Congress. Empowering Patients First even garnered a Senate companion bill from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Even as the media insist Republicans have no plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, Speaker Ryan’s announcement that the replacement bill would be built upon Secretary Price’s longstanding bill provides insight into the guiding philosophy of a GOP-driven, patient-centered reform package.

Learn Price’s Six Principles of Health Care

Contrary to media reports insinuating Republicans have lost the political will to repeal and replace Obamacare, Speaker Ryan says that House Republicans remain as committed as ever to undoing the law and reforming the system in a way that works for patients.

“We’re moving to this next right now in Congress. We’re on track. We’re on our schedule. Our plan was always this spring to take on the repeal and replace of Obamacare, so we haven’t changed a thing,” Speaker Ryan reiterated. “I notice there’s a lot of white noise in the press on this, but we’re as committed as ever before.”

Listen to full audio of Opportunity Lives interview with Speaker Ryan.

Ellen Carmichael is a senior writer for Opportunity Lives. Follow her on Twitter @ellencarmichael.

Since House Republicans released their Obamacare repeal-and-replace plan, there has been much criticism—informed and uninformed—about what the legislation would and won’t do. Part of the problem with such commentary is that the legislation and accompanying multi-part strategy are not well understood.

Fiction: The American Health Care Act is a massive tax increase for most people and a tax cut for wealthy people.

Fact: The House GOP replacement legislation would be an $883 billion tax cut for Americans. This is a powerful contrast to Obamacare, which was built upon a promise that there would be no “form of tax increase” on Americans making less than $250,000. But, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law was in fact a significant tax hike.

As Americans for Tax Reform points out, there are a wide variety of tax relief components in this replacement bill. First, House Republicans would eliminate the individual mandate non-compliance tax, retroactive to December 31, 2015 (meaning those who paid the tax in 2016 would be eligible for a refund from the Internal Revenue Service).

Other tax repeals include: the HSA withdrawal tax; the 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning; the health insurance tax; the employer mandate tax; the surtax on investment income; the payroll tax hike; the tax on medical device manufacturers; the tax on prescription medicine; the Obamacare elimination of the deduction for retiree prescription drug coverage; and the $500,000 annual executive compensation limit for health insurance executives.

Other tax repeals include: the HSA withdrawal tax; the 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning; the health insurance tax; the employer mandate tax; the surtax on investment income; the payroll tax hike; the tax on medical device manufacturers; the tax on prescription medicine; the Obamacare elimination of the deduction for retiree prescription drug coverage; and the $500,000 annual executive compensation limit for health insurance executives.

Each of these Obamacare taxes has inflated the price of health care, both in out-of-pocket expenses for families and insurance costs passed on to patients in the form of higher premiums. The House GOP repeal and replace effort begins by easing the tax burden on families and employers, a signal that they believe affordability is the key to making health care accessible to all.

Fiction: 24 million people are going to lose their health care coverage under the GOP plan.

Fact: The Congressional Budget Office has a long history of inaccuracy with its estimates, both on cost and coverage. There is no greater example of this than how breathtakingly wrong CBO was on Obamacare. This is due, in part, to the office’s inability to do dynamic scoring, a method that would actually forecast the economic impact and federal ledger effects of legislation.

But, even assuming the CBO is correct that 24 million Americans would be uninsured on the GOP plan, the reality is that the majority of those patients will actually choose to leave Obamacare. CBO estimates that 14 million will voluntarily opt out of Obamacare once the individual mandate is repealed.

This is significant because Democrats spent a great deal of political energy trying to convince the American people that they would be happy with Obamacare. But CBO projects many of them would abandon the program given the choice, which proves just how poorly their government takeover of health care is actually working.

Fiction: The GOP alternative to Obamacare will increase premium prices.

Fact: According to the CBO, the American Health Care Act would reduce premiums by an average of 10 percent. This is a dramatic departure from Obamacare’s drastic premium hikes that often double or triple the costs families must pay.

Fiction: The American Health Care Act doesn’t do enough to rein in entitlement spending.

Fact: The GOP plan would reduce the federal deficit by $337 billion over a decade. With a $587 billion deficit in 2016, the American Health Care Act would be a critical component of getting federal spending under control.

The legislation would also modernize Medicaid to better serve patients and work for taxpayers. In fact, it would save $880 billion over the course of the first decade, a welcome reprieve for a collapsing program that, combined with Medicare, takes up a quarter of the country’s federal budget. Without such reforms, Medicaid would be totally unsustainable for those who need it, as its enrollment is growing faster than the economy is.

Fiction: Republicans are just going to repeal Obamacare, tinker with the tax code and do nothing to fix the fundamental problems with health care.

Fact: The fiscal parts of this package must be done through budget reconciliation, which may only address spending and funding. Policy changes work under a different set of rules. That’s why Republicans began with reducing government costs and slashing taxes on American families.

Next, the HHS Secretary can make more than 1,300 regulatory decisions. This authority was granted broadly in Obamacare, and it’s something Republicans are eager to use with new Secretary Tom Price, M.D. They hope to undo much of what was imposed by President Obama.

Finally, Republicans will need to propose meaningful reforms to the health care industry. This is what conservatives are most eager to see: association-based health care, interstate purchase of insurance and so on.

But those are policy changes, and they require 60 votes in the Senate, a daunting task as Republicans hold a 52-seat majority. That means they’ll have to convince some Democrats that the structural modifications to health care are patient-centered approaches to driving down costs, improving accessibility and spurring enhanced quality of care. They’ve got hundreds of ideas on how to do this, and they’ll make their case to the American people and the colleagues who represent them that they’re vital to real health care reform.

Most importantly, a unified GOP is essential to passing the kinds of reforms conservatives crave. They must courageously advocate patient-centered, free market-driven health care reform, instead of merely opposing what the Left or congressional GOP leadership supports.

Bottom line: this is only the start of the repeal-and-replace fight. But President Trump promised a repeal of Obamacare in his first 100 days in office, and congressional Republicans ran on the same. Conservative unity is imperative to this battle, and with an accurate understanding of what it entails, they can join Speaker Ryan and other Republican leaders in this fight.

When politicians pass laws and regulators make rules aimed at punishing corporations, the big companies usually aren’t the ones that really feel the pain. The real victims are small businesses — often with no more than 50 employees — who don’t have armies of lobbyists to create special loopholes or well-staffed compliance departments to prepare the new paperwork.

Fortunately, the House Small Business Committee, a permanent standing committee in the House of Representatives, is fighting for these small business owners to ensure that they are not forgotten in the back-and-forth of policymaking.

“Small businesses are absolutely critical to the American economy,” Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Small Business Committee, told Opportunity Lives. 

“There are 28 million small businesses all over the country,” Chabot said, “and it’s the Small Business Committee’s responsibility here in the House of Representatives to do everything possible to assist them with policies that help them to be successful.” 

According to Chabot, 70 percent of all U.S. jobs are created by small businesses. And yet those businesses bear most of the regulatory cost burdens. A new study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation found that federal regulations alone cost the American economy almost $2 trillion, and the costs to businesses with 50 employees or fewer are almost 20 percent higher than the average.

“The mother of all regulations was Obamacare,” Chabot said. “Obamacare in particular is one that [small business owners] have found it hard to obtain insurance for their employees. The costs are going up and they’re getting less for it.”

In addition, Dodd-Frank, the massive financial reform legislation passed in the wake of the recession, has also had a dramatic effect. “[Dodd-Frank] was supposed to affect the so-called ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks, but instead it affected the credit unions and community banks — the little guys,” said Chabot, vowing to work toward repeal or significant reform.

One of the most notable victories for the House Small Business Committee happened within the first few weeks of the new Congress, when the House passed the Regulatory Accountability Act. The measure requires all federal agencies to review the impact of new regulations on small businesses to avoid some of the unintended consequences. The bill could soon pass the Senate and will likely have a warm reception in the White House.

Small businesses are also increasingly becoming a target for cyber attacks, as they typically are not prepared to fight off hackers. The effects can be devastating — after a cyber attack, up to 60 percent of small and medium-sized businesses go out of business within six months, according to research by the National Cyber Security Alliance.

The Small Business Committee recently held a hearing on this issue and is now pursuing additional action to provide more knowledge, technology, training, and support to small businesses so that they are better protected against cyber attacks that could compromise their businesses or customers’ information.

Chabot is also optimistic about bigger opportunities in the future — even suggesting that Congress could finally tackle a reform of the massive, complicated web that is the U.S. tax code. Rather than just passing a few cuts or adjustments, Chabot thinks there is a real chance at “overall reform” that could have a lasting benefit for the country. 

The next few years may be unpredictable in many ways, but at least small businesses have hope that they could finally be heard in Washington.

“I think we’ve finally got a Congress that can get its act together and work with President Trump and implement policies that will actually allow this economy to grow, create more jobs, and allow people to keep more of their own money,” Chabot said.

Every day, Republicans must fight a three-front war: with Democrats, with the media and within their own ranks. Meanwhile, the Democrats have just one adversary: the GOP.

While media bias against Republicans (and in the age of Twitter, contempt and aggression) is an unfortunate reality, and the Left is a natural ideological opponent, the Right wastes an unhealthy amount of time and resources preventing its own troops from shooting each other. This delights the media, which rejoice in their millionth “Republicans are in disarray!” headline. Democrats gleefully join the chorus, ever eager to paint the Right as incapable of governing or uninterested in the welfare of the country.

Republicans really should stop giving them the opportunity. It’s been more than a decade since the GOP led both chambers of Congress and controlled the White House. Republicans have a significant mandate, not only in Washington, but also around the country where Republicans control wide majorities of state executive seats and legislative chambers.

Even as Democrats deny the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency, there is simply no denying that nationwide, Republicans have earned the trust of the American people. And for a party without a strong bench of political aspirants, Democrats have scarce hope on the horizon for a comeback any time soon.

Fact is, the GOP enjoys a once-in-a-generation spread of power across the United States. Even though the media and the Democrats have done a pretty good job of convincing Americans that conservatives are terrible people.

Now, it’s time, as the old Southern adage goes, for conservatives to make hay while the sun still shines. Republicans cannot squander this chance to accomplish what we’ve always promised. To do so, we can’t stand in our own way, and that means changing a lot of how we’ve done things in the past.

Here are some important lessons we ought to learn.

Embrace Incrementalism

The Left has a built-in political advantage: they can demand patience of their delicately arranged coalition of the perpetually aggrieved because they promise they’ll be rewarded for waiting their turn. Thus, there are loyal liberal constituencies who, despite being ignored by Democratic leadership or enduring setbacks in public opinion or politics, remain ever faithful to the Left. They still hold hope that one day, it will be their chance to reap the benefits of their fidelity.

On the other side, the Right is really — as Grover Norquist puts it — the “Leave Us Alone” coalition. Republican constituents want virtually nothing from the government. They just want to be able to send their kids to school, enjoy time with their families, keep good jobs and save for retirement. They like their country the way it is (or maybe, the way it was), and they resent the constant barrage of accusations that they’re close-minded because of it.

The government can offer them virtually nothing. So Republicans have no effective way to demand patience from them, as the Left does with their coalition. Conservative voters see little reason for waiting for the things they want, in part because the principal thing they desire from the government is less of it. Thus, they approach most Republican lawmakers’ efforts, no matter how worthy or well intentioned, with inherent skepticism.

These circumstances present an ongoing political problem for the Republican Party. Many challenges the GOP has promised to solve actually require adapting the Left’s method of incrementalism to achieve our goal of limiting the size and scope of government.

But, center-right voters often view Republican attempts at employing incrementalism as a refusal to acknowledge the severity of the crises at hand. They feel as though they’re dangling from a cliff and that the GOP simply ignores the Left taking a jackhammer to the boulder to which they’re clinging.

In reality, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), whose recent depiction as a liberal villain is surprising to anyone who has followed his career, is arguably the most conservative congressional Republican leader in decades. He’s been a lone voice on our nation’s looming entitlement crisis, and consequently, the fiscal nightmare America faces.

Ryan’s plans, previously as House Budget Committee chairman and now as Speaker, are ambitious and, quite frankly, courageous. He has put “pen to paper” on the tough choices politicians must make to restore fiscal sanity in Washington and safeguard our future. He has suffered gracefully the character assassinations of the Left and the intellectual apathy of far too many of the Right. Still, no serious person could truthfully claim that Ryan fails to grasp the depth of the problems we face.

The opposition from some of his fellow Republicans to the three-part Obamacare repeal-and-replace strategy is just one recent example. This top priority for Republican lawmakers actually requires legislative incrementalism, a fact that some members of the GOP simply refuse to accept.

Budget reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes in the U.S. Senate, can only pertain to funding and spending bills. Therefore, the first GOP bill in the overall repeal-and-replace package begins with overturning the taxes and mandates contained in Obamacare. This $887 billion tax cut is also critical to providing a fiscal baseline necessary for another high priority task for Republicans: comprehensive tax reform.

The next step is the regulatory reversal of the thousands of components of Obamacare directed by the HHS secretary, per the law’s parameters. Here, Secretary Tom Price, M.D., can end a lot of the harmful regulations and change unhelpful guidance issued during the Obama Administration, thereby freeing the health care system — and the American public — from a lot of what made Obamacare so punitive, restrictive and destructive.

Finally, many of the industry reforms Republicans crave — interstate purchase of insurance, malpractice reforms, association-based health care — must pass through the U.S. Senate through regular order, which requires at least 60 votes. This means the GOP must make the case for the merits of these ideas to enough Democrats that they will pass. It’s doable, but as Confucius said, “the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step,” and in the case of the repeal-and-replace of Obamacare, that step is the fiscal bill so many conservatives refuse to support.

Incrementalism is how the Left has caused the damage it has, and it is incrementalism that will help Republicans accomplish what they’ve promised.

Being Part of the Team Means Cheering for It, Too.

I’ve written at length about the failure of the Right to rally behind our own causes. The most unflattering example is the resistance of most teammates — talk radio, nonprofit organizations, center-right media, activist groups — to promote the good things we do, such as Paul Ryan’s 2016 “A Better Way” rollout in D.C. The event, which took place at House of Help, City of Hope in the district’s economically depressed Anacostia neighborhood, received virtually no cheerful advocacy from our own side, despite the special opportunity to showcase our principles and our ideas to new audiences who perhaps hadn’t considered our party before.

Worse still, many people never even heard about this unique gathering because those with audiences continue to refuse to promote conservatism at its best.

Instead, they criticize the GOP when it’s at its worst (or, what they perceive to be its worst). They pile on Republican leadership with such vitriol that it’s often unclear whose team they’re on. They’ll say they’re on the side of conservatism, but they’re not doing what it takes to advance it legislatively or politically.

Would you want to be on a team where everyone seemed unhappy all the time? Where people hated their leaders? Where teammates did not work cooperatively to win? Where, even in victory, they dwelled on their past disagreements?

That’s the current state of the Right. Our loudest voices find little reason to be cheerful about the movement they claim they represent. And that’s sending a terrible signal to the public.

It’s time for these influencers to start helping instead of hurting. If they don’t understand, they should ask someone who knows. If they’re upset, they should express it with those who could fix it for them. And if they still aren’t happy, then they should speak up publicly.

In the meantime, they should find reasons to be positive about our side. There are plenty of reasons to share the great things we’re doing as a party and as a movement, on issues ranging from health care to tax reform to eradicating poverty to bolstering national security to rolling back senseless regulations and so on.

Find something you like. Champion it.

Choose Your Experts Wisely

There are many smart people on the Right, especially among our voters and activists. We are fortunate that our side welcomes rigorous debate and ideological diversity. We are a richer movement because of it.

But intellectual honesty requires we acknowledge that no one knows everything, even those we elect to lead us. Some Republicans are especially strong on tax and budget policy, while others are experts on foreign policy and immigration. Many activists are especially skilled with social media, while others choose to give generously to causes that matter to them.

St. Francis of Assisi prayed that he would understand before being understood. Listening to those who know, rather than presuming we do, is utterly essential to success in the policy sphere. Lawmakers have an obligation to seek counsel from those they represent and from those with cultivated expertise in the fields they govern.

So, too, must policy thinkers, GOP activists and political operatives. There is true value in considering the wisdom of those who study and understand things we might not, and it requires the humility to trust those with the character and track record to merit our trust.

Everyone, whether a county GOP volunteer or a powerful governor, has the obligation to seek the expertise of those who know better than we do. And we also must be honest about the limitations of our own knowledge. Feigning expertise and sharing that information as though it is expert, no matter who is the audience, is irresponsible. It actually undermines our efforts as a movement, too.

These three rules will help Republicans navigate this newfound majority better than we have before. They will nurture a genuine sense of teamwork to accomplish the goals we all share. Most importantly, it will foster public trust in conservatism, giving us the opportunity to implement the ideas we believe will help restore the American Dream.

In his address to a joint session of Congress, President Trump made it clear that infrastructure would be a top priority for his first term. Less clear is what an infrastructure overhaul would actually look like under his administration.

Trump pledged $1 trillion infrastructure investment that would usher in a new era of renewal for America’s crumbling roads, bridges, highways, hospitals, airports and everything in between.

But skeptics were quick to point out that even $1 trillion wouldn’t come close to fixing the nation’s concrete ailments. In fact, it wouldn’t even come close to sprucing up New York City alone. And with Congress hesitant to sign off on such a huge expenditure, the jury is still out on where exactly the money will come from.

Congressman Luke Messer (R-Ind.) isn’t waiting to find out. He and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) recently introduced bipartisan legislation encouraging investment in local communities by rolling back a burdensome federal banking regulation.

H.R. 1624 would require banking regulators to classify municipal bonds as high quality liquid assets so that financial institutions may hold them as part of their liquid set-asides. While that technical language may sound confusing, it simply means that local projects would have a far greater chance of receiving funding from the private financial sphere.

As the left-leaning Brookings Institution reported last year, building better infrastructure with better bonds is the path of least resistance in a political environment as stagnated and muddy as Congress is today.

Messer’s bill works from that assumption, nimbly skipping past the infrastructure-funding question altogether and instead offering incentive for financial institutions to provide indirect investment into local projects for mutual benefit of both parties. Wall Street and Main Street would be working together.

What’s more, R. Richard Geddes of the American Enterprise Institute, a right-learning think tank, found that using municipal bonds as a kind of buffer between investors and the actual infrastructure projects serves to dampen overall risk. The reason is investors would be investing in the municipality as a whole, rather than one specific project, which means risk is spread out—just the way careful investors like it.

As it stands, financial institutions are discouraged from holding municipal bonds — the bonds that many state and local governments sell to help pay for projects like improved roads, bridges, hospitals and schools — due to Obama-era regulations passed in the wake of the Great Recession. This means that local governments have a far more difficult time borrowing money to pay for these projects, a bill that is ultimately passed on to the taxpayers.

“This senseless federal regulation is hurting Hoosiers by making it more difficult and costly to build new schools, hospitals, bridges and roads,” Messer said in a statement. “This bipartisan bill will ensure the federal government isn’t standing in the way of local investment and growth.”

Already the bill has found local support in Indiana, as State Treasurer Kelly Mitchell concurred that the plan was both cost-effective and sorely needed.

“This bill allows banks to keep the costs of borrowing low for our communities, which strengthens local government’s ability to complete essential projects throughout our state,” Mitchell said.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) this month transferred $7 million to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the organization responsible for electing Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives, as part of his ongoing efforts to bolster GOP election war chests. The sum is the most ever raised by any speaker, and is just part of the $16.4 million Ryan has given to the NRCC in the last three months.

Ryan has raised nearly $60 million for the NRCC since becoming Speaker of the House in late 2015, making good on his promise to GOP colleagues that he’d help maintain and grow the Republican majority. Such efforts are critical to ensuring conservative legislation passes through the chamber and is sent to the Senate for approval.

“A year and a half ago, Paul Ryan became speaker with virtually no political infrastructure,” said Kevin Seifert, the speaker’s chief political adviser and executive director of Team Ryan. “Team Ryan was built around the focus on policy and his ability to articulate a positive, conservative vision for America.”

While Team Ryan is focused on meeting the needs of the constituents in Wisconsin’s First Congressional District, the organization is also a joint fundraising committee, which allows Ryan to support colleagues “across the country who are advancing conservative solutions and raising the resources needed to defend and strengthen the Republican majority in Congress.”

As the media persist in their constant criticisms of Ryan’s refusal to keep his conference in line, Team Ryan remains focused on promoting an aspirational agenda and growing a GOP majority in Congress. The speaker has crisscrossed the nation meeting with poverty fighters at the neighborhood level who are transforming lives, introducing his colleagues to key individuals whose expertise should shape policy and raising money for them in their own backyards.

LISTEN TO OPPORTUNITY LIVES INTERVIEW SPEAKER PAUL RYAN ON OPPCAST.

For the last several decades, feminists have claimed there isn’t enough parity in business, politics, and other leadership positions. This has been especially true of conservative politicians. But upon closer inspection, it’s clear that women have been making significant gains, particularly in politics.

And in some notable cases, Republican women have been leading the way.

Recently, the Congressional Women’s Caucus, a bipartisan group of female elected officials, gathered on the House floor to celebrate how far women have come in politics since Jeanette Rankin — the first woman to serve in the U.S. Congress — shattered a glass ceiling by asking, “Why not me?”

Rankin became the first woman to ever serve in the United States Congress on April 2, 1917. “The gentlewoman from Montana, who previously called my district in Eastern Washington home, was elected to Congress prior to women having the right to vote, and helped western states lead the nation down the road to universal women’s suffrage,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Republican Conference Chair. “She wants to be remembered, she said, as the only woman who ever voted to give women the right to vote.”

Since then, 300 women have served in Congress, breaking down barriers, making accomplishments, marking firsts, and standing up for their district’s interests. Their backgrounds are as diverse as their political views, but they have one thing in common: they are women who care about women’s issues.

Several Republican women currently serving in Congress can boast of many “firsts.” Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) was the first in her family to go to law school; Kay Granger (R-Texas) was the first woman to be elected mayor of Fort Worth; Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) was the youngest woman elected to the Wyoming legislature; Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) was the first female fighter pilot; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) is the first Hispanic woman elected to Congress. The list goes on. Many of these women juggled careers in law, finances, education and medicine — not to mention raising children — before entering politics.

Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), co-chair of the caucus-led the event, was among several who women spoke about how important this milestone was for women around the country.

“Because of Rankin’s groundbreaking achievement 100 years ago, hundreds of women across the country have made history in Congress, drawing attention to the pressing issues of their time and creating policies that have impacted generations of Americans,” she said.

McMorris Rodgers said this wasn’t just about gender or politics but rather a celebration of the American spirit. She painted a picture every Republican and Democrat who yearns for progress for future generations, beyond equality just for equality’s sake, could get behind.

“After 100 years, we stand on the shoulder of giants — but we stand there to lift the next generation higher than ourselves,” Rodgers said. “We stand there so that every woman has a voice, and has an opportunity to be legendary, and so that women can keep making history for years to come.”

Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.), the first woman to chair the powerful House Budget Committee, pointed out the stories of 300 women coming to Capitol Hill from diverse backgrounds to represent their districts shouldn’t be unique. Her story, like many of the women who’ve been elected to the House, is particularly inspiring.

I spent the first years of my life in public housing…I was prepared to live a life of unfilled potential. I started to believe…that maybe the American Dream wasn’t for me. But in time, doors of opportunity were opened that helped me realize a plan for my life that was greater than I could ever imagine. …I have traveled far corners of the world and have seen the struggle that women endure for access to education, a paycheck, and for real independence. And I’m keenly aware that only here in this country is my story even possible. Only here could someone like me go from living in the halls of public housing to serving in the halls of the United States Capitol. …As we celebrate 100 years of women in Congress, we must resolve that stories like ours are not unique. The work we have done here in Congress must reach today’s young women with the truth that they have God-given talents waiting to be used, and that the American Dream is theirs to share as well.

As the first Republican woman to represent American Samoa, Delegate Amata Radewagen has pioneered a new path for women and also praised Rankin’s legacy for inspiring her — and all the women who represented in Congress before her.

While it’s tempting to give in to the feminist claim that women in America haven’t made nearly as much progress as in other countries, celebratory occasions like this are good reminders of just how far we have come.

Of course, there’s always room for improvement and there are millions of girls watching — hoping — for a future where they too can be active in politics, business, finance, education, medicine: All they need do is look to the women who went before them as a source of inspiration.
Speeches can be viewed here.

Soldiers are duty-bound to protect the people who hate them most.

That’s the reality of life in the U.S. armed forces: facing protest and criticism upon deployment, protest while overseas and protest upon returning home.

But that’s also what makes American military men and women so extraordinary: Faced with such harsh criticism, they still put their lives on the line anyway.

“I myself can’t imagine a more frustrating feeling than trying to preserve and protect someone’s right to criticize you in the process of your service,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking at a forum organized by Concerned Veterans for America. “But to the members of our armed services, I say that’s exactly why your elected officials must strive to be the best stewards of your own rights as Americans.”

For many veterans, though, that freedom has been corroded over the past eight years. Deliberate and calculated attempts by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs under the Obama Administration have silenced veterans — or else punished them severely — all because they were trying to receive fair treatment for themselves and their fellow vets.

It’s a cruel kind of irony: Having put their lives on the line to protect our freedom of speech, these men and women return home only to find inadequate care, a dehumanizing bureaucracy and an institution that punishes those who speak out.

For Brandon Coleman, a veteran of the U.S. Marines and a former care-worker at the Phoenix VA hospital, the moment to speak out came after six veterans under his care committed suicide.

“Each one was a punch in the gut,” Coleman said. “I went to my supervisor about how these veterans had been ignored, and she told me that if I spoke out, that’s how people get fired.”

It turns out the damage was already done. Following that meeting, Coleman was instantly blackballed by the department. He was transferred from his position and forced to work with a social worker who combed through his medical records, hoping to find a past history of mental strain that would justify discrediting Coleman.

“That’s what they do every time,” Coleman said. “We’re veterans who witnessed extremely traumatic events, and they try to use that as a reason to discredit all of our concerns.”

He was called crazy, he was dismissed and he was shunned — all because he was looking out for the wellbeing of fellow veterans.

All for exercising his right to speak out.

And that was only the beginning.

The notice arrived on April 20, 2015: a gag order from the federal government, forbidding Coleman to speak to any VA employees, without any explanation.

“It would have been illegal, according to that order, for me to receive care as a disabled veteran of the United States,” Coleman said. “And I’m only one small guy who was able to fight this. Just think about how many gag orders they’ve placed on people without the means to fight back. That’s the scary part. Think how many veterans they’ve shut up.”

Coleman was luckier than most: He teamed up with Concerned Veterans for America and, with the help of a legal team, was able to prevail on a court that the gag order was an unconstitutional infringement of his freedom of speech.

But Coleman is aware that he is just one case, one man out of many who was denied his freedom of speech, and although groups like Concerned Veterans for America are fighting on, the problem of silenced veterans remains dire.

When 22 veterans a day commit suicide, the system is clearly broken. But if no one is able to speak up, nothing will ever change, and our veterans will continue to suffer long after they return home from battle.

Evan Smith is a Staff Writer for Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter @Evansmithreport.

On Thursday, Editor-in-Chief John Hart joined WIZM to talk about this week’s battle over the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

OL Senior Policy Editor Kara McKee joined WNDB to talk about why HHS pick Rep. Tom Price and Speaker Ryan will be the right leaders for the health care battle. She also talked about new reports about Russia’s hacking of email accounts.

For the first time in nearly a decade, Republicans will control the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Now the GOP is under intense pressure to deliver and follow through on many of the promises they have made during the Obama administration and over the course of the most recent campaign.

Among those prepared to hit the ground running on behalf of the American people is U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah). Lee, who was reelected to second term last November, spoke exclusively to Opportunity Lives about what he hopes to accomplish as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as the Chairman of the powerful Senate Steering Committee that is largely responsible for deciding the legislative agenda for the upper chamber.

When asked what he hopes to accomplish most as a member of the Senate, the Utah lawmaker said, “I want to return as much power, as possible, to the people – that is my main goal.”

But what about the president-elect’s pick for Attorney General – Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)? What is Lee looking for? What are the most important qualities to lead the Department of Justice?

To find out, check out our conversation with Senator Lee below:

U.S. Senator Tim Scott, the first African-American senator from the South since Reconstruction, officially endorsed his senate colleague Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) for the position of U.S. Attorney General. The South Carolina Republican said in a press release that he took it upon himself to “do his homework” on Sessions’ record both as a Senator and as a U.S. Attorney from Alabama.

Scott said:

After his nomination, I invited Senator Sessions to Charleston, South Carolina in December of 2016 to meet with African-American pastors, law enforcement and leaders of color. We had what both the attendees and I believe to be a very productive conversation, which gave us all a clearer picture of not only Jeff’s policy positions, but what is in his heart. I have also talked on multiple occasions with leaders from Alabama, closely reviewed both the Congressional testimony and news coverage of Senator Sessions’ hearing in 1986, and studied Jeff’s career as a whole.

While many of the allegations brought up 30 years ago were and are disputed, there are many facts that are absolutely clear. Jeff is committed to upholding the Constitution of the United States. He joined multiple desegregation lawsuits while serving as a U.S. Attorney, protecting the civil rights of students seeking equal educational opportunity. He ensured a KKK murderer received the death penalty. He voted for the first black Attorney General of the United States, and championed the effort to award Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal.

And Mike Warren of the Weekly Standard reports on the significance of Scott’s endorsement:

The announcement came just hours after it was announced that New Jersey senator Cory Booker, a Democrat, would testify as a witness against Sessions’s nomination—the first such time a sitting U.S. senator will testify against another senator for an executive confirmation. Scott and Booker are the only two black senators currently serving. In 1986, Sessions (then a U.S. attorney) was nominated for a seat on a federal circuit court, after which he was accused of making racially insensitive remarks by four Justice Department colleagues. Sessions denied these accusations and that he was a racist, but his nomination failed to move forward out of the Senate Judiciary committee.

You can read Scott’s full statement here.

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has done his best to rest any notion that he’s a racist and bigot in his Senate confirmation hearings for Attorney General.

“Let me address another issue straight on, I was accused in 1986 of failing to protect the voting rights of African-Americans . . . and of condemning civil rights advocates and organizations and even harboring, amazingly, sympathies for the KKK. These are damnably false charges. I abhor the Klan and what it represents and its hateful ideology,” Sessions said yesterday.

He added, “I deeply understand the history of civil rights and the horrendous impact that relentless and systemic discrimination and the denial of voting rights has had on our African-American brothers and sisters.”

Sessions also said that under his leadership the Department of Justice will, “never falter in its obligation to protect the rights of every American, particularly those who are most vulnerable.’’

Sitting behind Sessions for part of the hearing was Bob Woodson, who I’ve described as a four-star general in the war against poverty. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) considers Woodson his “mentor.” After the 2012 election Ryan toured anti-poverty groups Woodson has helped connect and empower. Ryan’s tour is captured in our Comeback series at OL.

Writing in National Review, Woodson called Sessions a friend of underprivileged minorities:

I have known and worked with Senator Sessions for more than 15 years and know firsthand that his leadership, his compassion, and his actions to uplift “the least among us” far outweigh the weak allegations brought against him.

In an interview with ABC News, Woodson said Sessions was a strong supporter of local poverty groups. Woodson said Sessions has, “demonstrated by his actions that he cares for the least of these.” Woodson, himself a veteran of the civil rights movement, said Sessions critics are “abusing the civil rights legacy” by calling him a racist and said civil rights leaders have a “double standard” by lauding the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), a former Klan member, while vilifying Sessions who was never a member of the Klan and has disavowed the Klan.

Woodson said the people who will be testifying against Sessions today are part of the “the race grievance industry” who use race to “bludgeon” ideological opponents.

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) are among the African-American members of Congress to testify against Sessions during the hearings. Booker’s choice to testify against Sessions has come under criticism, as he is the first sitting Senator to testify against a colleague’s nomination.

Sessions’ hearing continues today.

John Hart is the Editor-in-Chief of Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter @johnhart333.

Senior writer Ellen Carmichael joined KTSA to break down what’s really behind the attacks on HHS nominee Tom Price.

Two prominent Democratic Party leaders have strongly criticized the Obama administration for its refusal to veto a United Nations Security Council measure condemning the United States’ most important ally in the Middle East, Israel. The measure, which Israel says was orchestrated secretly by U.S. representatives, is believed to be part of a larger effort by hostile nations to further isolate the Jewish state from the international community.

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) excoriated the Obama administration, arguing that their complicity in the U.N. vote against Israel “will move us further from peace in the Middle East.”

He followed up with a tweet on Thursday, December 23, 2016, saying: “Extremely frustrating, disappointing & confounding that the Administration has failed to veto the UN resolution.”

To Schumer, “an abstention isn’t good enough.” Instead, he said, “anyone who cares about the future of Israel and peace in the region” should oppose a “one-sided” resolution meant to put undue pressure upon the country at the United Nations.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) echoed Schumer’s sentiments, explaining that the Obama administration’s cowardice sent mixed signals to friends and foes about America’s commitment to Israel. Instead, he said, the White House must “signal unequivocally to the entire world that we will continue to stand by our ally Israel as it seeks to build a future of peace and safety as a Jewish state and an equal member of the family of nations.”

Outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry disagrees with Hoyer’s view, claiming in a televised speech Wednesday that Israel could not be simultaneously an inherently Jewish nation and a democratic society.

“If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both, and it won’t ever really be at peace,” Kerry said, before proclaiming that the Palestinians could not “realize” their own aspirations as a people without their own state.

Schumer also issued a scathing statement following Kerry’s speech, lamenting that the Secretary of State “has emboldened extremists on both sides” with his words and refusal to defend Israel at the United Nations.

“While Secretary Kerry mentioned Gaza in his speech, he seems to have forgotten the history of the settlements of Gaza, where the Israeli government forced settlers to withdraw from all settlements and the Palestinians responded by sending rockets from Gaza into Israel,” he explained. “This is something that people of all political stripes in Israel vividly remember. While he may not have intended it, I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the UN, has emboldened extremists on both sides.”

This latest public conflict is yet another rift in a Democratic Party that moves ever leftward, even as the American people have roundly rejected their policies and politicians throughout all levels of government since President Obama took office in 2009. With prominent progressives outwardly demonstrating antagonism toward America’s most reliable Middle East ally, pro-Israel Democrats will continue to remain at odds with those steering the policy course of their party.

Ellen Carmichael is a senior writer for Opportunity Lives. Follow her on Twitter @ellencarmichael.