Washington Monthly

3 days ago | washingtonmonthly.com | Bill Scher

On Sunday, House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee released the details of their contribution to the tax-and-spending package, which President Donald Trump calls the “Big Beautiful Bill.” That powerful committee has jurisdiction over health care, which Republicans have targeted for significant reductions to help offset the cost of their proposed tax cuts—not only keeping the 2017 tax rates, which will rise unless Congress acts, but also new provisions.

1 week ago | washingtonmonthly.com | Bill Scher

As early as Monday, according to Politico, President Donald Trump is expected to issue an executive order that will look like smart politics on its face, but it’s really a sign of the president’s political weakness. Trump “plans to revive an effort to dramatically slash drug costs by tying the amount the government pays for some medicines to lower prices abroad, three people familiar with the matter told POLITICO.

1 week ago | washingtonmonthly.com | Bill Scher

With House and Senate Republicans still struggling to find consensus on a budget reconciliation bill extending and expanding the expiring tax cut package from Donald Trump’s first term, Representative Jason Smith made a surprising statement during a Fox News Sunday interview on May 4.

2 weeks ago | washingtonmonthly.com | Bill Scher

Last week, during a town hall in Marietta, Georgia, Senator Jon Ossoff told a constituent supportive of impeaching and removing President Donald Trump, “There is no doubt that this president’s conduct has already exceeded any prior standard for impeachment by the United States House of Representatives,” and “the only way to achieve what you want to achieve is to have a majority in the United States House of Representatives and … believe me, I’m working on it every single day.” Conservative...

2 weeks ago | washingtonmonthly.com | Garrett Epps

I recently wrote that the Supreme Court likes to decide seemingly consequential constitutional cases by finding problems with the court in which they were brought, the kind of claim they represent, the kind of order the plaintiffs are seeking, or some other mechanism for ducking the constitutional issue. It’s a defensible ploy, as some who study the court argue. The power of judicial review is so potentially divisive that it should be used only when necessary.