GOP's Horrible, Awful Month Getting Worse -- Disarray Deepens -- Romney Now Frontrunner
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...eepens-Romney-Now-Frontrunner?detail=facebook
Just click the link, it's mostly a picture diary...
Republican Party missing: Feared dead
- Thread starter Greed
- Start date
GOP's Horrible, Awful Month Getting Worse -- Disarray Deepens -- Romney Now Frontrunner
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...eepens-Romney-Now-Frontrunner?detail=facebook
Just click the link, it's mostly a picture diary...
Can the G.O.P. Ever Attract Black Voters?
<img src="http://www.bet.com/news/national/2012/08/01/anxiety-over-racial-changes-nothing-new/_jcr_content/articleText/textwithinlinemedia/image.custom300x0.dimg/080112-national-Jelani-Cobb-racial-changes.jpg" width="150">
by Jelani Cobb | August 11, 2014| http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/opinion/can-the-gop-ever-attract-black-voters.html
— ON the morning of March 6, 1989, students began to gather at a flagpole on the campus of Howard University. Then they entered the administration building, chained doors shut, locked arms and announced that they would not leave until key demands were met. A dozen or so stragglers — I was one of them — climbed in through a second-story window to join the protest. By nightfall, more than 2,000 students occupied the building.
We had learned that Lee Atwater, the Republican National Committee chairman and the manager of George Bush’s presidential campaign — which had made use of race-baiting ads featuring Willie Horton, a black convicted rapist and murderer, to scare white people into voting Republican — had been appointed to the school’s board of trustees.
Inside the building, Ras Baraka, who is now the mayor of Newark but was then a third-year political science major, grabbed a bullhorn and shouted, “The problem isn’t Lee Atwater, it’s Lee Atwaterism!” After three days of protests, Mr. Atwater resigned from the board.
Those events of 25 years ago have gained renewed pertinence, as Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman, has begun an effort to attract more African-American voters — starting on college campuses.
In April 2013, Senator Rand Paul spoke to students at Howard, asking, in a particularly awkward exchange, whether they knew that many of the early advocates of racial equality were Republicans. (They did, and didn’t care for the patronizing question.) That May, Mr. Priebus announced the formation of a College Republican chapter on the campus of Central State University in the critical swing state of Ohio. Late last year, Morehouse College in Atlanta rechartered its dormant Young Republican chapter. All three are historically black institutions.
It is a paradox of American history that a party formed in the 1850s by free-soil advocates devoted to stopping the spread of slavery should find itself pondering its lack of appeal to black voters. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation secured black allegiance to the G.O.P. well into the 20th century, but a realignment began during the Depression.
In his 1948 book, “Balance of Power,” Henry Lee Moon, the director of publicity for the N.A.A.C.P., argued that the emerging African-American vote would be most effective when strategically balanced between the two main parties. But instead of an open market for black support, the burgeoning civil rights movement created a near racial binary between the parties. The Democratic Party became increasingly identified with the cause, particularly during the Johnson administration, and the Nixon-era G.O.P. invested in the “Southern strategy” of racial backlash — Atwaterism before it could be called that.
By the late ’80s, when I enrolled at Howard, the term “black Republican” was nearly oxymoronic. The handful of students who identified as such were thought to be cynically gaming the system, pursuing the easiest route to public visibility and sacrificing collective advancement on the altar of individual gain.
But we students who protested were not driven by ideological uniformity or contempt for “diversity of thought among African-Americans” — the G.O.P.’s current catchphrase. To us, Mr. Atwater embodied the party’s cynical manipulation of white racial fears. Rand Paul’s audience at Howard knew that progressives on race issues were once aligned with the Republican Party — and also why they had abandoned it.
Political scientists and pollsters have noted for years that a cultural emphasis on Christianity and conservative social views aligns many black voters with the Republican base, and yet those parallels scarcely translate into G.O.P. electoral gains. Now and then a window onto our inner frustrations cracks open — Bill Cosby delivers a stern moral rebuke regarding teen pregnancy or President Obama chides men who fail to live up to their paternal responsibilities — and it becomes difficult to divine the distinctions between their words and those of Paul Ryan, who decried the lack of a work ethic among men in “inner cities.”
Yet black voters recognize a point that is consistently lost on the G.O.P.: It is one thing to tell the children in one’s own community that racism is no excuse for failure, and quite another for a party invested in the electoral yields of racism to make the same claim.
In his first speech as R.N.C. chairman, Lee Atwater announced an initiative to attract black voters. But critics suspected, with good reason, that the real audience for his words were white people who felt uneasy about the party’s racist political appeals. That element of Atwaterism, the leavening of insult with invitation, has survived to the present.
The party that hopes to attract black students is the party whose congressional leadership filed a baseless lawsuit against the first African-American president. It is the party whose representatives allied with birthers who demanded that the president prove his citizenship. It is the party that has endorsed the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act and made it more difficult for the very people it is courting to actually cast a ballot for its candidates. Senator Paul himself has expressed ambivalence about enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The G.O.P. can rightly argue that the F.D.R.-era Democratic Party had a far more egregious racial history — thwarting efforts to stop lynching, and using chicken wire to fence off black attendees to its conventions — than the modern Republican Party, yet it still managed to attract black voters. But those voters, quite simply, believed in the New Deal — and then, decades later, they believed in the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. In the end, the actions of any electorate are dictated by self-interest.
An honest appeal to African-Americans would start with the admission that Republicans didn’t lose the black vote but forfeited it. The Republican Party now faces the same dilemma as the mid-20th-century Democratic Party: whether its interest in black voters might ever outweigh its investment in the reactionary politics of race.
<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="6"></hr>
The RepubliKlan Party <img src="http://www.jmgads.com/kkk2.jpg" width="100"> of 2014 is:
• Unapologetically Racist
• Homophobic
• Anti-Sex Education
• Anti-Birth Control
• Anti- Immigrant
• Anti- Minimum Wage
• Anti- Student Loans (big cuts in Pell grants; blocked interest rate cut on loans)
• Anti-Abortion Rights (republiklans were silent when Dr. George Tiller was murdered)
• Anti-Consumer Protection (pro-tort reform)
• Anti- Climate Change Science Reality
• Anti- Environmental Clean-Up (Piyush Jindal of LA blocked law mandating oil corp. clean up of gulf coast)
• Anti- Infrastructure $$$$ Replacement (U.S. bridges & roads are old & crumbling)
• Anti-Regulating The Banksters (want to repeal Dodd-Frank)
• Anti-Social Security Insurance (want to end it & send the existing money to Wall street)
• Anti-Medicare (want to send Grandma into the clutches of the "Health Care Mafia" with a coupon)
• Anti-Unemployment Insurance
• Anti- Healthy School Lunch for kids
• Anti-Education Standards (republiklans want to close the Dept. of Education)
• Anti-W.I.C. (republiklan congress recently cut money for Women Infants & Children program)
• Anti- Environmental Conservation Laws (want to close the EPA)
• Anti-Food Saftey Inspections (republiklan congress recently cut US food saftey budget)
• Anti-Progressive Taxation (raising the 15% tax Billionaires pay)
• Anti-Banning the Death Penalty (273 innocent people released from Death Row since 1989)
• Anti- Restoring Habeas corpus
• Anti-Separation Of Church & State (republiklans want to mandate Christian prayer in schools)
• Anti- Government Funding of Scientific Research (stem cell research)
• Anti-Feminism (woman should be submissive to men; it's in the bible)
• Anti-Affirmative Action
• Anti-Department of Labor (republiklans believe overtime pay should be abolished)
• Anti-Small Business Administration (want to abolish it)
• Anti-Substantially Increasing Foreign Aid (republiklan congress just cut food aid to Africa)
• Anti-Government Student College Tuition Grants (republiklans want to dramatically cut PELL grants)
• Anti-ANY Gun Control
• Anti- Non-Christian Religion Tolerance
• Anti- Universal Health Care
• Anti- Unemployment Insurance
• Anti- Ban Against Torture
• Anti- ANY Cut In Military Spending
• Anti- Pay Increase For US Soldiers
• Anti- Increase in Veterans Benefits (republiklans want to convert military pensions into 401K's)
• Anti- Equalizing Penalty for Crack/ Powder Cocaine Conviction
Last edited:
With Lamar Alexander’s Win, Conservatives Fail To Remove A Single Incumbent Senator I
With Lamar Alexander’s Win, Conservatives Fail To Remove A Single Incumbent Senator In 2014
With Lamar Alexander’s Win, Conservatives Fail To Remove A Single Incumbent Senator In 2014
Conservatives Warn GOP Leaders Not to Pull A Fast One on Them
Conservatives Warn GOP Leaders Not to Pull A Fast One on Them
By Russell Berman
September 8, 2014 10:19 AM
As Congress returns for a blink-and-you'll-miss-it session before the November elections, Republican leaders don't want any trouble.
They just want to make sure the government doesn't shut down at the end of the month, temporarily reauthorize a little-known federal lending agency, and get the heck out of town.
As usual, conservatives are not on board.
Two of the most vocal advocacy advocacy groups on the right, Club for Growth and Heritage Action, welcomed House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) back to Washington on Monday with a letter warning him not to attach an extension of the Export-Import Bank to legislation funding the government through mid-December.
The 80-year-old bank, which helps U.S. businesses reach markets overseas, has become a flash point in the battle between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party. The bank is key to big companies like Boeing and a top priority of the Chamber of Commerce, but conservatives say it's a prime example of crony capitalism.
Congressional Republicans are plainly divided on the export bank, known inside the Beltway as "Ex-Im," but with the election near, party leaders want to save the debate for another day.
The issue is a tricky one for McCarthy, who just took over as majority leader for the defeated Eric Cantor in late July. In running to replace Cantor, McCarthy came out in opposition to the bank, but now lawmakers expect that he'll attach a amendment reauthorizing Ex-Im to the stopgap spending bill that leaders want to rush through the House this week.
In their letter, the conservative groups acknowledge that the Average Joe voter doesn't really care about the export bank.
The Export-Import Bank is a small thing, this we know. But Leader McCarthy, if you can’t start with the Export-Import Bank, then how can Americans trust the Republican Party to tackle the big challenges our nation faces after six years of President Obama and his failed policies?"
Complicating matters even further for McCarthy is the palace intrigue that surrounds the bank debate. The man leading the charge against Ex-Im is Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who passed on challenging McCarthy for Cantor's job in June but could try to take him out after the November elections.
Heritage and Club for Growth offered a sly reminder of this to McCarthy on Monday:
https://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-warn-gop-leaders-not-pull-fast-one-141936624.html
Conservatives Warn GOP Leaders Not to Pull A Fast One on Them
By Russell Berman
September 8, 2014 10:19 AM
As Congress returns for a blink-and-you'll-miss-it session before the November elections, Republican leaders don't want any trouble.
They just want to make sure the government doesn't shut down at the end of the month, temporarily reauthorize a little-known federal lending agency, and get the heck out of town.
As usual, conservatives are not on board.
Two of the most vocal advocacy advocacy groups on the right, Club for Growth and Heritage Action, welcomed House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) back to Washington on Monday with a letter warning him not to attach an extension of the Export-Import Bank to legislation funding the government through mid-December.
The 80-year-old bank, which helps U.S. businesses reach markets overseas, has become a flash point in the battle between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party. The bank is key to big companies like Boeing and a top priority of the Chamber of Commerce, but conservatives say it's a prime example of crony capitalism.
Congressional Republicans are plainly divided on the export bank, known inside the Beltway as "Ex-Im," but with the election near, party leaders want to save the debate for another day.
The issue is a tricky one for McCarthy, who just took over as majority leader for the defeated Eric Cantor in late July. In running to replace Cantor, McCarthy came out in opposition to the bank, but now lawmakers expect that he'll attach a amendment reauthorizing Ex-Im to the stopgap spending bill that leaders want to rush through the House this week.
In their letter, the conservative groups acknowledge that the Average Joe voter doesn't really care about the export bank.
The Export-Import Bank is a small thing, this we know. But Leader McCarthy, if you can’t start with the Export-Import Bank, then how can Americans trust the Republican Party to tackle the big challenges our nation faces after six years of President Obama and his failed policies?"
Complicating matters even further for McCarthy is the palace intrigue that surrounds the bank debate. The man leading the charge against Ex-Im is Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who passed on challenging McCarthy for Cantor's job in June but could try to take him out after the November elections.
Heritage and Club for Growth offered a sly reminder of this to McCarthy on Monday:
We hope you’ll take the coming weeks to stay true to your comments from June and affirmatively fight to end the Export-Import Bank. House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling has done great work exposing the bank, but he needs Leadership not just backing him up, but leading."
https://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-warn-gop-leaders-not-pull-fast-one-141936624.html
Republicans clash on reversing nuclear option in Senate
Republicans clash on reversing nuclear option in Senate
By Alexander Bolton
12/09/14 06:00 AM EST
Republicans are split over whether to change the Senate’s rules to allow filibusters on executive and judicial nominations.
As they head into a conference meeting on Tuesday, some Republicans say it’s time to undo a wrong committed by Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and go back to rules that require 60 votes to clear most nominees.
The GOP was outraged last year after Reid and Democrats used a procedural move known as the “nuclear option” to unilaterally change the Senate’s rules to deprive the minority from being able to block most of President Obama’s nominations.
“I think it’s rank hypocrisy if we don’t,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said when asked about reversing the rule change.
“If we don’t, then disregard every bit of complaint that we made, not only after they did it but also during the campaign,” he added. “I’m stunned that some people want to keep it.”
But other Republicans say now that Democrats have changed the rules to allow nominations aside from those to the Supreme Court to clear by majority vote, the GOP should go with the flow.
“I’m leaning toward leaving it alone,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senior Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee see little tactical advantage in restoring the 60-vote threshold for nominees when they control the agenda next year.
They argue that if Obama nominates officials and judges who are too extreme, the Senate Judiciary could simply not report them to the floor, or incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could decide not to schedule them for votes.
They assert that reversing the nuclear option would not benefit them in the long term because Democrats would likely trigger it once again if they reclaimed the majority while their party controlled the White House.
And if a Republican wins the presidency in 2016, they want that officeholder to be able to shape his or her administration and the judicial branch with as free a hand as Obama has enjoyed during the final three years of his term.
“An immediate return to the prior nominations standard under Republican control would only reward Democrats for their misdeed and — since they have reaped the benefits but borne none of the costs — Democrats would have further incentive to engage in procedural abuses,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a former Judiciary Committee chairman, wrote in a Monday op-ed for Politico.
It’s unclear which position will prevail when GOP senators meet Tuesday afternoon to discuss the issue. All of the GOP senators, including the 12 newly elected freshmen from 2014, will take part in the debate.
McConnell hasn’t weighed in one way or another and will let his colleagues hash out their differences at the special caucus meeting, according to a senior GOP aide.
Grassley said that paving a smoother road for executive and judicial nominees would restore the Senate to how it was 15 years ago, before both parties began to use filibusters routinely to throw up roadblocks.
“I served 34 years in the Senate, 20 was under pretty much an environment where filibusters weren’t used against judges,” he said. “That changed in 2002, I guess. I don’t think it’s been good for the process.”
But other senior Republicans are incredulous that their colleagues would embrace Reid’s overhaul of Senate precedent, given the possibility they could again end up in the minority.
“Do we believe that Republicans will hold the majority in Congress forever? If it poisoned the well as much as it did, how could we possibly be in favor of sustaining it?” McCain said.
McCain’s ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), argues that restoring the 60-vote hurdle will make it tougher for Obama to stock the courts in the next two years.
“I think it would be smart for us to go back to the way it used to be, getting the Senate back to the way it’s always been and making it harder to get people into the court and into the executive branch, not easier,” he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.
Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said Monday evening they were inclined to restore the 60-vote threshold.
Grassley, who will make a presentation at the Tuesday meeting, acknowledged he doesn’t know how it will turn out and admitted he’s open to persuasion.
Democrats said the change was needed to preempt GOP obstructionism, and the shift has made it much easier for Democrats to approve many of Obama’s nominations.
Reid’s staff pounced on Hatch’s comments as validation that they were right to make the change.
“Sen. Hatch’s op-ed is just the latest evidence that perhaps Republicans’ objections to the rules change were more about the self-serving politics of the moment than principle all along,” Adam Jentleson, Reid’s spokesman, wrote in a note to reporters.
Republicans on the other side of the debate, however, warn that if the GOP adopts the change, it could lead to further cuts to minority rights in the Senate going forward.
“Any diminution of the right to filibuster a nominee means someday there’s a greater chance of getting rid of the legislative filibusters. Once you go down that road the next step is to get rid of the filibuster for legislation,” said one Senate GOP aide.
A group of Senate Democrats tried to convince colleagues at the start of the 113th Congress to implement the talking filibuster, which would require lawmakers to actively hold the floor to block legislation. Such a reform would make it much more arduous for the minority to use its leverage.
Three Republicans angling for the presidency — Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) — who might stand to gain from keeping the nuclear order have kept a low profile on the question. Their offices declined to comment Monday afternoon on the debate.
The conservative groups most active in the judicial confirmation wars, however, firmly support keeping the simple-majority threshold for nominees.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, said that restoring the 60-vote threshold for nominees would not bind future Democratic majorities to abide by it.
“It’s an untenable situation to have a 60-vote standard for Republicans and a 50-vote standard for Democrats, which is what I think it would turn into,” she said. “I don’t think you can put the genie back into the bottle.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/226398-republicans-clash-on-reversing-nuke-option
Republicans clash on reversing nuclear option in Senate
By Alexander Bolton
12/09/14 06:00 AM EST
Republicans are split over whether to change the Senate’s rules to allow filibusters on executive and judicial nominations.
As they head into a conference meeting on Tuesday, some Republicans say it’s time to undo a wrong committed by Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and go back to rules that require 60 votes to clear most nominees.
The GOP was outraged last year after Reid and Democrats used a procedural move known as the “nuclear option” to unilaterally change the Senate’s rules to deprive the minority from being able to block most of President Obama’s nominations.
“I think it’s rank hypocrisy if we don’t,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said when asked about reversing the rule change.
“If we don’t, then disregard every bit of complaint that we made, not only after they did it but also during the campaign,” he added. “I’m stunned that some people want to keep it.”
But other Republicans say now that Democrats have changed the rules to allow nominations aside from those to the Supreme Court to clear by majority vote, the GOP should go with the flow.
“I’m leaning toward leaving it alone,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senior Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee see little tactical advantage in restoring the 60-vote threshold for nominees when they control the agenda next year.
They argue that if Obama nominates officials and judges who are too extreme, the Senate Judiciary could simply not report them to the floor, or incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could decide not to schedule them for votes.
They assert that reversing the nuclear option would not benefit them in the long term because Democrats would likely trigger it once again if they reclaimed the majority while their party controlled the White House.
And if a Republican wins the presidency in 2016, they want that officeholder to be able to shape his or her administration and the judicial branch with as free a hand as Obama has enjoyed during the final three years of his term.
“An immediate return to the prior nominations standard under Republican control would only reward Democrats for their misdeed and — since they have reaped the benefits but borne none of the costs — Democrats would have further incentive to engage in procedural abuses,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a former Judiciary Committee chairman, wrote in a Monday op-ed for Politico.
It’s unclear which position will prevail when GOP senators meet Tuesday afternoon to discuss the issue. All of the GOP senators, including the 12 newly elected freshmen from 2014, will take part in the debate.
McConnell hasn’t weighed in one way or another and will let his colleagues hash out their differences at the special caucus meeting, according to a senior GOP aide.
Grassley said that paving a smoother road for executive and judicial nominees would restore the Senate to how it was 15 years ago, before both parties began to use filibusters routinely to throw up roadblocks.
“I served 34 years in the Senate, 20 was under pretty much an environment where filibusters weren’t used against judges,” he said. “That changed in 2002, I guess. I don’t think it’s been good for the process.”
But other senior Republicans are incredulous that their colleagues would embrace Reid’s overhaul of Senate precedent, given the possibility they could again end up in the minority.
“Do we believe that Republicans will hold the majority in Congress forever? If it poisoned the well as much as it did, how could we possibly be in favor of sustaining it?” McCain said.
McCain’s ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), argues that restoring the 60-vote hurdle will make it tougher for Obama to stock the courts in the next two years.
“I think it would be smart for us to go back to the way it used to be, getting the Senate back to the way it’s always been and making it harder to get people into the court and into the executive branch, not easier,” he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.
Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said Monday evening they were inclined to restore the 60-vote threshold.
Grassley, who will make a presentation at the Tuesday meeting, acknowledged he doesn’t know how it will turn out and admitted he’s open to persuasion.
Democrats said the change was needed to preempt GOP obstructionism, and the shift has made it much easier for Democrats to approve many of Obama’s nominations.
Reid’s staff pounced on Hatch’s comments as validation that they were right to make the change.
“Sen. Hatch’s op-ed is just the latest evidence that perhaps Republicans’ objections to the rules change were more about the self-serving politics of the moment than principle all along,” Adam Jentleson, Reid’s spokesman, wrote in a note to reporters.
Republicans on the other side of the debate, however, warn that if the GOP adopts the change, it could lead to further cuts to minority rights in the Senate going forward.
“Any diminution of the right to filibuster a nominee means someday there’s a greater chance of getting rid of the legislative filibusters. Once you go down that road the next step is to get rid of the filibuster for legislation,” said one Senate GOP aide.
A group of Senate Democrats tried to convince colleagues at the start of the 113th Congress to implement the talking filibuster, which would require lawmakers to actively hold the floor to block legislation. Such a reform would make it much more arduous for the minority to use its leverage.
Three Republicans angling for the presidency — Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) — who might stand to gain from keeping the nuclear order have kept a low profile on the question. Their offices declined to comment Monday afternoon on the debate.
The conservative groups most active in the judicial confirmation wars, however, firmly support keeping the simple-majority threshold for nominees.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, said that restoring the 60-vote threshold for nominees would not bind future Democratic majorities to abide by it.
“It’s an untenable situation to have a 60-vote standard for Republicans and a 50-vote standard for Democrats, which is what I think it would turn into,” she said. “I don’t think you can put the genie back into the bottle.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/226398-republicans-clash-on-reversing-nuke-option
GOP senators pledge help if court bars health law subsidies
GOP senators pledge help if court bars health law subsidies
Associated Press
By ALAN FRAM
12 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Three leading Republican senators are promising to help millions of people who may lose federal health insurance subsidies if the Supreme Court invalidates a pillar of President Barack Obama's health care law.
But in a Washington Post opinion article posted online late Sunday, GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Orrin Hatch of Utah provide no detail on how much assistance they would propose, its duration or how they would pay for it. Nor do they address how they would overcome GOP divisions or Democratic opposition to weakening the law.
The article appeared days before Wednesday's oral arguments in a case brought by conservatives and Republicans that could upend the functioning of the 2010 health care law by invalidating the subsidies that help millions afford required health coverage. A decision is expected in June.
The senators' article is the latest political salvo that seems aimed as much at the court's nine justices as at the public. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said nullifying the subsidies would cause "massive damage to our health care system."
Congressional Republicans unanimously opposed the law's creation and have long worked on plans to weaken and replace it. They have not united behind a specific proposal.
In their column, the three senators acknowledge that if their side prevails in court, 6 million Americans could lose subsidies and many would no longer afford coverage. They call the case "an opportunity" to reshape the law and say they "have a plan to protect these people and create a bridge away from" the statute.
"First and most important, we would provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period," they wrote.
Without saying how, they wrote that they would also give states more flexibility to create their own health insurance marketplaces. And they blame the health law for problems like forcing many Americans to surrender their previous insurance and doctors.
"People do not deserve further disruption from the law," they wrote.
Democrats say the law has forced insurers to cover more benefits and cite figures showing a dramatic reduction in the number of uninsured Americans.
Plaintiffs in the case say the Obama administration has unlawfully given federal tax credits to Americans who have bought health coverage from federal insurance marketplaces serving 37 states, which are mostly run by Republicans. They say the law as written only permits that aid in the 13 states running their own marketplaces.
Democrats say people in all states qualify for assistance.
Alexander chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, Hatch heads the Senate Finance Committee and Barrasso is in the Senate Republican leadership.
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senators-pledge-help-court-bars-health-law-003549577--politics.html
GOP senators pledge help if court bars health law subsidies
Associated Press
By ALAN FRAM
12 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Three leading Republican senators are promising to help millions of people who may lose federal health insurance subsidies if the Supreme Court invalidates a pillar of President Barack Obama's health care law.
But in a Washington Post opinion article posted online late Sunday, GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Orrin Hatch of Utah provide no detail on how much assistance they would propose, its duration or how they would pay for it. Nor do they address how they would overcome GOP divisions or Democratic opposition to weakening the law.
The article appeared days before Wednesday's oral arguments in a case brought by conservatives and Republicans that could upend the functioning of the 2010 health care law by invalidating the subsidies that help millions afford required health coverage. A decision is expected in June.
The senators' article is the latest political salvo that seems aimed as much at the court's nine justices as at the public. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said nullifying the subsidies would cause "massive damage to our health care system."
Congressional Republicans unanimously opposed the law's creation and have long worked on plans to weaken and replace it. They have not united behind a specific proposal.
In their column, the three senators acknowledge that if their side prevails in court, 6 million Americans could lose subsidies and many would no longer afford coverage. They call the case "an opportunity" to reshape the law and say they "have a plan to protect these people and create a bridge away from" the statute.
"First and most important, we would provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period," they wrote.
Without saying how, they wrote that they would also give states more flexibility to create their own health insurance marketplaces. And they blame the health law for problems like forcing many Americans to surrender their previous insurance and doctors.
"People do not deserve further disruption from the law," they wrote.
Democrats say the law has forced insurers to cover more benefits and cite figures showing a dramatic reduction in the number of uninsured Americans.
Plaintiffs in the case say the Obama administration has unlawfully given federal tax credits to Americans who have bought health coverage from federal insurance marketplaces serving 37 states, which are mostly run by Republicans. They say the law as written only permits that aid in the 13 states running their own marketplaces.
Democrats say people in all states qualify for assistance.
Alexander chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, Hatch heads the Senate Finance Committee and Barrasso is in the Senate Republican leadership.
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senators-pledge-help-court-bars-health-law-003549577--politics.html
Similar threads
