A new refrain echoing through the Washington, D.C., swamp, is the need to find Democrats to play along with GOP leadership, simply because the House Freedom Caucus didn’t jump at its beckoning during last week’s RINOcare debacle.

To paraphrase Sterling Archer, do you want single-payer healthcare? Because this is how you get single-payer healthcare – in the long run, at least.

(In case anyone needs a recap of the last few weeks, here’s a succinct one.)

Now failed GOP presidential candidate John Kasich, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro have all joined the call to disregard conservatives and run to the left to score support from the other side of the aisle.

This new impulse raises three questions that will have to be answered first:

1. Which Democrats do they plan on working with?

Yes, there are some Democrat members in states where the president won whose positions are precarious, but the Blue Dog Coalition is now a storied legend of a bygone era at this point. And Jim Webb’s 2016 campaign (and statements following) have provided more than enough insight as to what happens to those on the Left who don’t keep to the party’s line in the sand.

2. What will Trump trade to get “bipartisan consensus”?

Even if Paul Ryan can find some folks to break away, a bill that would gain Ryan enough consensus on the Left would almost certainly lose him critical support on the Right, all the while dragging the Republican Party even further from its repeal promises. Any sort of reform would have to be a real sweetheart of a deal for enough votes to break away from Minority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, especially since Dems have every political incentive to allow the system to collapse under Republican governance.

3. Is it worth it?

Even in a best-case scenario, such an effort would only wreck the market slightly less than the current scenario, which is an easy way to slap the old “bipartisan” sticker on a bill while putting the country closer to an elephant-brand collapse (for which the inevitable answer will be a single-payer system). How IS Venezuela doing, by the way? I haven’t checked in a while.

Such a proposal would obviously run outside of the pale for the House Freedom Caucus, but what about those in the Republican Study Committee who weren’t sold on the RINOcare beta version to begin with?

And we mustn’t forget that the president himself cannot introduce legislation, nor can he bring it to the floor. For all the flaws in the original health care design, one would only hope that the speaker’s conservative leanings would lead him to put his foot down at some point … lest he put his name on anything that would taint the GOP’s “Better Way” agenda with a health care law that would be, at best, a slight reform of Obama’s signature boondoggle.

Meanwhile, Freedom Caucus leadership has made it clear that obstruction is not its goal — a real repeal of the law is. HFC Chair Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Vice Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, have iterated and reiterated their willingness to work with House Leadership and the Oval Office to draft a bill that better repeals more of Obamacare.

Rather than perform an act of ideological and political contortion to create an even more lukewarm bill with Democrat consensus, it would appear that Republican leadership would simply have to try something it failed to do on the first attempt: adequately include free-market reformers in the process, rather than handing them a do-or-die ultimatum.

This is not a situation where the conservative approach has been tried and found wanting, but one where the Republican approach has been found difficult and left untried.

Indeed, the temptation to take one’s ball and go home can be quite tempting, especially when you’re down a few runs in the second inning. But, in this case, it makes far less sense than going back to the dugout, tweaking your game plan, and finding a winning strategy that plays to your whole bench. There’s still time to win this one. (For more from the author of “3 Questions Ryan Needs to Answer Before Running to the LEFT on RINOcare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Stopping the stream of federal funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, will be part of the upcoming budget reconciliation package, House Speaker Paul Ryan said during a press briefing Friday.

This important announcement maintains the strong policy stance Congress took in the 2015 reconciliation bill that would have repealed Obamacare and stopped federal Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood.

While that bill was vetoed by President Barack Obama, the outlook is much different now with the inauguration of a new president and the start of a new Congress committed to repealing Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood.

If the reconciliation bill is crafted as it was in 2015, it would make Planned Parenthood affiliates ineligible from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for one year after the enactment of the bill. Such federal reimbursements constitute a significant portion of the roughly $500 million in government funds sent to the nation’s largest abortion provider each year.

Federal funding could still flow to the many other qualified health care providers that offer the same services as Planned Parenthood affiliates, plus additional services, without entanglement in abortion. In fact, the last reconciliation bill increased funding for these community health centers.

Taxpayer money should not be used to fund elective abortion providers such as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America affiliates. Ending such tax funding has become even more urgent in light of serious and disturbing press coverage of Planned Parenthood representatives discussing the sale of body parts of aborted babies.

Of course, a reconciliation bill isn’t the only tool at Congress’s disposal with regard to defunding Planned Parenthood. To cut off all federal funding streams to Planned Parenthood, Congress should use the appropriations process to disqualify Planned Parenthood affiliates not only from receiving any federal Medicaid reimbursements, but also from receiving grants under specific discretionary programs, like Title X family planning.

Just this week, the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives issued its final report, which recommended that Congress defund Planned Parenthood. The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness has highlighted six other disturbing findings in the panel’s report, which further underscores why Planned Parenthood should not receive taxpayer funding.

A reconciliation bill that makes Planned Parenthood affiliates ineligible to receive Medicaid reimbursements is an encouraging step toward ending federal funding for the nation’s largest abortion provider. (For more from the author of “Ryan: Reconciliation Bill Will Block Planned Parenthood Funding” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paul Ryan says he’s running for House speaker again, but the Wisconsin Republican’s air of confidence belies divisions within the GOP and a deep-seated disdain for the party establishment from conservatives.

“I am going to seek staying on as speaker,” Ryan told Wisconsin talk-radio host Jerry Bader in an effort to quell speculation Friday. “There’s a lot of unfinished work to do, and I think I can do a lot to help our cause and our country.”

Returning to the job he’s held since October 2015 won’t be easy. The results of Tuesday’s election—regardless of who wins the presidency—are likely to bring calls for new leadership on Capitol Hill. Plus, with several House Republicans in danger of losing their seats, Ryan will face a more conservative caucus, potentially with fewer allies in his own party.

Conservatives, however, aren’t the only lawmakers creating headaches for the 46-year-old speaker from Janesville, Wisconsin.

This weekend, the latest challenge came not from the conservative House Freedom Caucus but instead a centrist Republican from Ohio. Politico reported Saturday that Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, is circulating a letter seeking to delay GOP leadership elections. The vote is set to take place Nov. 15, just one week after Election Day. It is a precursor to the official vote for House speaker in January.

“There are fractures in the conference which truly need to be discussed, vetted, and healed,” states the Renacci letter, which was obtained by Politico. “Asking members to vote for a leadership team within 24 hours of their return to Washington without time to reflect on ways of coming together as a conference is truly ill advised. That in itself ignores the reality that the conference is divided. … There is no reason to hastily hold elections.”

In a subsequent interview with Politico, Renacci also declined to endorse Ryan for speaker.

“At this stage of the game, I don’t know who all is running,” Renacci told Politico. “I’m very supportive of Paul, but when it comes to elections I want to see who’s in before committing [to] who I’m supporting.”

Renacci isn’t the first lawmaker to complain about the hurried nature of the leadership vote. In September, the Freedom Caucus mulled pushing for a delay as well. Conservatives wanted to evaluate Ryan’s handling of the lame-duck session of Congress before committing to support him.

There’s also another factor at play: Republican supporters of Donald Trump are unhappy with Ryan’s treatment of the GOP presidential candidate and, according to Politico, “they’ll lay the blame at Ryan’s feet if the GOP nominee loses narrowly.”

One such lawmaker, conservative Rep. Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma, announced last month he wouldn’t support Ryan as speaker.

Another conservative, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., cited a different reason for his opposition to Ryan.

“It would be very difficult for him to get my vote based on what I assume his motives are, which are to run for president in 2020,” Massie told The Huffington Post last week.

Massie, who voted against Ryan for speaker in 2015, also outlined a series of conditions he would use to judge the next speaker. In a statement to The Huffington Post, he wrote:

The next speaker shouldn’t send the House on vacation for five weeks in August unless the appropriations bills are done. The next speaker needs to make good on the broken promise to give members and the American public time to read the bills. The next speaker should immediately put a stop to the institutionalized extortion that requires members to pay for their committee assignments with lobbyists’ money. Finally, the next speaker needs to allow a debate on whether or not to authorize the military conflicts the president has unilaterally engaged us in around the globe.

Under his leadership, Ryan failed to complete the annual appropriations process, prompting the need for a lame-duck session of Congress next month to fund the government. Conservatives opposed the post-election session because some members who are retiring or lost their elections will no longer be accountable to constituents, yet voting to spend billions in taxpayer money.

While Ryan put significant effort into the “A Better Way” agenda, there were few legislative accomplishments for conservatives to cheer about this year. One of the few cited by Ryan’s office—the fiscal relief package for Puerto Rico—was unpopular among conservatives.

“The American people are calling for action, not just ideas,” Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told The Daily Signal last month.

“The American people already understand the difference between what the parties stand for,” Jordan added. “What they want to see from Republicans is a willingness to stand firm and get something done.”

Ryan has pointed to 2017 as an opportunity to enact his agenda. In the radio interview with Bader, he said, “I’ve led us to offer a very comprehensive agenda to take to the country and I want to execute and implement that agenda.”

Executing and implementing that agenda could help win over some of Ryan’s critics. But for conservatives like Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., Ryan needs to do more. That includes opposition to a trade deal negotiated by the Obama administration and a firm stance against amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“If he commits to regular order—in writing—and no Trans-Pacific Partnership until we reduce regulations and no amnesty bills and a commitment to reduce federal spending, then I will vote for any candidate who backs these conservative positions that 80 percent of Republicans share,” Brat told CNN.

“Each of these issues should just be reflexive for any Republican,” Brat added. “They should not take more than 5 seconds to say ‘yes.’”

Like Massie, Brat voted against Ryan for speaker in 2015. They were two of the nine Republicans who cast a ballot for Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla. The others were Reps. Curt Clawson, R-Fla.; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Bill Posey, R-Fla.; Randy Weber, R-Texas; and Ted Yoho, R-Fla.

Many members aren’t saying publicly if they’ll support Ryan until after Election Day.

“I’m not commenting on leadership elections until after Nov. 8,” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told CNN. Meadows is a candidate to succeed Jordan as chairman of the Freedom Caucus if he decides to step down.

Jordan, meanwhile, was pressed by CNBC’s John Harwood last week on Ryan’s future, but he wouldn’t commit either way.

“There’s time to deal with who’s in leadership, who may not be in leadership, how leadership is done, what the rules are, what we’re going to focus on in the lame duck,” Jordan said on CNBC.

Jordan’s group of 40 Freedom Caucus members hold the most sway over the speaker election in January. Members of the conservative caucus huddled at Meadows’ Washington, D.C., apartment last week to plot their strategy.

Following the meeting, Politico reported that Freedom Caucus members might support Ryan if one of their own secured a seat at the leadership table. At least a couple lower-tier leadership roles could be available—vice chairman of the conference and secretary of the conference—if incumbents decided not to seek re-election to those roles.

But one Freedom Caucus member, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, suggested such a deal with GOP leadership wasn’t in the cards.

The uncertainty, at least for now, puts Ryan in a precarious position. Last year, he initially rebuffed the speakership before eventually emerging as John Boehner’s replacement. Since getting the job, he’s made defending the Republican majority a top priority. The GOP’s 2012 vice presidential nominee is using his national profile to raise money and campaign for incumbents. That includes members of the Freedom Caucus.

Ryan recently visited the districts of two vulnerable Freedom Caucus members: Reps. Rod Blum, R-Iowa, and Scott Garrett, R-N.J. They’ve returned the favor by supporting Ryan.

He’s also donated to the campaigns of more than a quarter of Freedom Caucus members, according to The Daily Caller News Foundation. They include Reps. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C.; Alex Mooney, R-W.Va.; Mark Sanford, R-S.C.; Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga.; and Warren Davidson, R-Ohio.

Ryan will need as many of those conservative members in his corner given the probability that some of the 246 House Republicans won’t be back in January.

Even if he wins the initial backing of his GOP colleagues on Nov. 15, there’s still the possibility that Ryan won’t have the votes in January when the full House votes for speaker. To be elected speaker, Ryan needs 218 votes. Because no Democrats will support a Republican speaker, Ryan must limit the number of defections within the GOP to remain in the job.

“The final exam for Paul Ryan will be in January 2017, when there is a speaker election,” Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, told The New Yorker last year, “and we will look at his body of work and determine whether he gets a passing grade or not.”

Ryan won 236 votes last year. With a smaller GOP majority likely in January, it will be in the hands of House conservatives to ultimately decide if Ryan deserves to remain in the job. (For more from the author of “Paul Ryan in Precarious Position Ahead of Election Day” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.