Hostage Cartoon

Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare subsidies harms taxpayers, hands victory to IRS

Thursday the Supreme Court handed a victory to the most hated agency of the federal government, the IRS.  The Justices voted 6-3 that the IRS can continue to offer subsidies to ObamaCare buyers in all fifty states, contrary to what Section 1401 of the Affordable Care Act says. 
The ruling puts a stamp of approval on IRS discretion to change provisions of the health law in order to make it work the way the administration wants.  It means more discretion for an agency that has targeted conservative groups, stonewalled Congressional investigators, “lost” thousands of official emails (and later, conveniently found them) and strikes fear in the hearts of Americans.
Changing the health law by fiat is nothing new.  The Obama administration has delayed, deleted, or distorted dozens of provisions. Remember the waivers for certain companies and unions, the employer mandate delays, the changed enrollment periods? The administration says they’re tweaks. 
Critics call it lawlessness.  The U.S. Constitution charges Congress with making the laws and the president with seeing that they are  “faithfully executed.” 

Now the fate of ObamaCare is up to the voters. Since May 1, nearly every poll shows that more than half the public opposes it.

Section 1401 of the Affordable Care Act states unambiguously that ObamaCare buyers will only get subsidies  “through an exchange established by the state.”   The subsidies were intended as a carrot to persuade states to establish exchanges.  Their residents would feel less of the sting of having to buy the pricey plans.  But surprise, only 14 states went along. The others, mostly led by Republican governors, refused. Late in the game, the administration had to establish the federal healthcare.gov exchange (remember, the one that kept breaking down?) to get ObamaCare launched in three-quarters of the states. 
Despite warnings from the Congressional Research Service that the text of the law did not permit it, the IRS handed out subsidies in those states too. 
Politically, it was a no brainer. The president had promised “affordable” care. But without the subsidies, the plans are hugely unaffordable.  Some 87 percent of ObamaCare buyers get subsidies, and pay only about one quarter of the true price, on average.  John Q. Taxpayer picks up the rest. (About $22 billion this year for subsidies handed out through healthcare.gov).
Defending the IRS for playing fast and loose with the law and your money, the administration’s lawyers told the Justices that the end justifies the means. It will take the nation closer to universal coverage.   Withdrawing the subsidies, they warned, would cause a “death spiral” in three quarters of the states, with healthy consumers dropping coverage and only the sick staying in the costly, unsubsidized plans. All possibly true. But contrary to the law Congress passed.
Even Jonathan Gruber, the notorious loud-mouth MIT economist credited with designing the Affordable Care Act, is on video explaining only twenty days after the law was passed that subsidies would only be available in states that set up exchanges. In states that don’t “your citizens don’t get their tax credits.” 
Too bad the Justices didn’t hear that. The administration’s lawyers lied, insisting no distinction was ever intended between state and federal exchanges. 
The decision notes that whether the ObamaCare subsidies “are available on Federal exchanges is thus a question of deep ‘economic and political significance.’” The majority called the law “ambiguous.” It is not. But clearly six of the justices had their eyes more on consequences than constitutionality. They said that eliminating the subsidies in most states would “likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”
On the other hand Justice Scalia’s dissent argues that “words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”
The majority decision says “a fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan,” and that Congress passed ObamaCare “to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”  
There’s a lesson to be taken. The 2,572-page Affordable Care Act was passed before lawmakers read it, rammed through the U.S. Senate on Christmas Eve, with then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threatening to keep members at the Capitol for Christmas if they didn’t support it.
The law’s size and obfuscating language endanger our freedom.  Politicians slip in exemptions for themselves, employers have to spend huge sums to have the law decoded.  And the IRS can claim the law says one thing when it says something different.  Who’s to know? 
Now the fate of ObamaCare is up to the voters. Since May 1, nearly every poll shows that more than half the public opposes it. Republicans running for president all pledge to repeal it and replace it with something better. If that happens, don’t let Congress pass another unreadable monster health law. 
We the people want a bill in plain, honest that our lawmakers can read before passing it and that Americans can actually decipher.  ​

Source: Christie expected to announce 2016 campaign Tuesday

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is expected to announce his 2016 presidential bid next Tuesday, a Republican source tells Fox News. 
The source with knowledge of Christie's plans said the governor plans to announce in New Jersey. 
He would become the 14th Republican to enter the race for the party's presidential nomination. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was the latest to join the field this week. 
Christie considered a bid in 2012, but ultimately decided against running. 
Since then, he's dealt with political fallout from the controversy in his state over aides accused of limiting access to a key bridge between New Jersey and New York in an act of political retribution against a Democratic mayor. 
Christie has denied any involvement, and no evidence has emerged showing he was part of the plot. 
As he tries to emerge from that controversy, Christie also has to contend with a full field of fellow governors, senators and other prominent GOP figures. 
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (who has not yet announced) have been in the top tier of most national polls, while retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and real estate magnate Donald Trump have also registered strong numbers.

ObamaCare battle not over, despite court ruling

President Obama declared Thursday that "the Affordable Care Act is here to stay," after winning yet another round in the Supreme Court. 
But the battle's not over -- a host of legal and political challenges remain, and if anything, Republicans say they are more emboldened than ever to repeal the law. 
"ObamaCare is fundamentally broken, increasing health care costs for millions of Americans. Today's ruling doesn't change that fact," House Speaker John Boehner charged in a statement Thursday, vowing to continue efforts on Capitol Hill to "repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions." 
The 6-3 decision upheld insurance subsidies nationwide, rejecting claims that residents in states that did not set up their own exchanges were ineligible for the credits. The decision was the second major court victory for the Obama administration on the president's signature health care law. 
But several court cases are still wending their way through the system, including a challenge by House Republicans over the estimated $175 billion the administration is paying health insurance companies to reimburse them for covering poor people and cases over whether the law is forcing religious organizations to pay for employee contraceptives. 
Further, Republicans are weighing a repeal strategy that could lead to a veto showdown with the president before the end of the year. That's not to mention what might happen if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, with a GOP majority on the Hill.    
While Obama pressed Thursday for Washington to move on, the law's harshest critics made clear they have no plans to do so. 
"It's a terrible [court] decision and to see the court sort of invent more ways to save the law time  -- and again, it's frustrating -- but it reaffirms the point that that Congress is going to have to be the ones to get rid of it," said Dan Holler, spokesman for the conservative Heritage Action. 
The biggest fight may come on Capitol Hill, as Republican opponents consider using a filibuster-proof process called "budget reconciliation" to push a measure through the Senate and, with the help of the GOP majority in the House, get a repeal bill before the president. 
Using this tactic is not unprecedented. When Democrats did not have the typically required 60 votes to pass ObamaCare in 2009, they used "reconciliation," which only requires a 51-vote majority, to pass parts of it through the Senate. The option of using the same process to get rid of the law, with only a simple majority, has been a topic of conversation among opponents ever since. 
"That is our preferred approach," said Holler. "[The repeal] could really begin in earnest. If Speaker Boehner and [Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell wanted to start the process today, they could if they wanted to," he told FoxNews.com. "There are multiple steps here but they could start right now if they wanted." 
It's not yet clear that is the way the two Republican leaders want to proceed. According to a Washington Times report Thursday afternoon, Boehner has not decided that reconciliation is the way to go, even though he has expressed interest in repealing the law. "There's been no decision about what to use reconciliation for," he said, according to the article. 
But this tactic, if used, could set up a direct clash with the president, for the first time putting a repeal bill on Obama's desk and forcing him to veto it. 
It would also serve as an election year "test" for congressional Republicans, as well as presidential candidates, to see how serious they are about repealing. Holler said this would be a "test run for the Congress to show that they can put a repeal bill on the president's desk." 
But supporters of the health care law say the effort would be a waste of time, given that Congress almost certainly would fail to get the necessary two-thirds majority to override a veto. 
"It's not going to happen," said Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democratic Network. "I don't know why Congress would waste their time to do something they know will be vetoed." 
He said the argument for repeal is getting more difficult for Republicans the longer the law is in place, and it appears to be working in its goal to provide affordable health care to more Americans. He said there is "no compelling policy reason to repeal or public opinion reason to do it. I can't believe that heading into a presidential election, Republicans would want to be on record as having stripped tens of millions of people of their health care." 
A recent Congressional Budget Office report also predicted that repealing the law could add billions to the budget deficit. 
Republicans might be able to use "reconciliation" because they have tied the ObamaCare issue to their budget proposal, a necessary step to employ the controversial tactic. However, they still might be blocked from doing so due to parliamentary rules that limit how broadly the tool can be used. Among them is a requirement that any proposal not increase the deficit. 
Holler said it's too early to know. "Some folks say you cannot use it to repeal the law in its entirety, others believe you can," he said, noting that he believes "a committed majority" can push its way through. 
But Democratic leaders had a resounding message for Republicans after Thursday's decision: Let it go. 
"With today's decision, the Affordable Care Act survived the latest Republican attempt to take away health care from working families," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement. "To my Republican colleagues, I say respectfully: stop banging your heads against the wall trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It's time to move on."

US intel chief calls Iran the leading terror sponsor, as nuke talks enter final phase

The nation’s top intelligence official labeled Iran the leading state sponsor of terrorism and called the regime -- and its proxy Hezbollah -- the single most important factors keeping Syrian dictator Bashar Assad in power, according to a letter obtained by Fox News.
The warning comes as Obama administration officials enter the final phase of nuclear negotiation with Tehran. But despite the diplomatic track, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper assailed the country’s role in destabilizing the region in the letter to Republican senators.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE LETTER
"Iran remains the foremost state sponsor of terrorism and is increasing its ability to influence regional crises and conduct terrorism," Clapper wrote in the June 3 letter. "This has been the consistent view of the IC [intelligence community] for more than three decades."
On its role propping up Assad, accused of using chemical weapons on his own people, Clapper stated that, "Iran and Hizballah's efforts in Syria have been instrumental in preventing the collapse of the Assad regime, which they view as critical to maintaining their 'axis of resistance' against Israel and the West." 
Clapper was blunt in the letter to senators, after some lawmakers earlier questioned why Iran and Hezbollah were not listed in the “terrorism subsection” of the 2015 Worldwide Threat Assessment; both had been listed in previous years’ assessments. 
In the three-page letter, Clapper warned, without qualification, that Iranian-backed militias taking on the Islamic State in Iraq are the same groups who are a danger. "These militias have also threatened to conduct terrorist attacks against US interests in response to US involvement in Iraq."
Clapper said the threat report was an overview of global threats, and not a “comprehensive listing of every threat facing the United States.” The DNI added, "A specific reference to the terrorist threat from Iran and Hizballah -- which was not included in any of the drafts of the testimony -- would have been appropriate ... but the lack of its inclusion is in no way a change in the IC's assessment."
On Thursday, the Obama administration also labeled Iran and Cuba as serial human rights abusers in a State Department report.
Clapper said Thursday that the U.S. has eyes wide open in its talks with Iran. “We are not in the trust business at all,” Clapper said.
But critics say the administration is ignoring these issues while pursuing a nuclear deal. "Our administration is not going to do anything to upset the ability to complete a nuclear deal," Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, who sits on the House intelligence committee, recently told Fox News. "So, as the Iranians expand, as they exert greater control in Iraq, this administration has chosen to at least turn the other way and allow the Iranian expansion, on the hope that they can get this deal across the finish line in the next 30 days."