Conservative Blogger
Friday, March 27, 2015
Republicans see best shot yet at approving ObamaCare repeal as budget plan advances
Republicans may be divided over the particulars of dueling budget plans, but there is at least one area of agreement among GOP lawmakers: the desire to repeal ObamaCare.
And this year's budget legislation could give them the best chance yet to send repeal legislation to President Obama's desk.
The party -- which for the first time in eight years controls both the House and Senate -- is using the budget process to inch closer toward a repeal of the controversial health care law, even as Obama hailed it a success on its five-year anniversary this week.
The House on Wednesday night narrowly passed its version of a budget blueprint after Republican leaders agreed to tack on extra defense spending over the protest of conservative members who opposed busting the caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. The Senate, meanwhile, is on track to approve its plan by the end of week following a marathon voting session that starts Thursday.
Leaders in both chambers have set a mid-April goal of resolving differences between the two approaches.
Why does this matter for ObamaCare?
Like many pieces of legislation before it, the proposal calls for undoing the health care law. What's significant this time is that it's contained in a budget resolution.
While the resolution is not legally binding, it gives Senate leaders a procedural tool by which subsequent legislation -- so long as it impacts spending or revenue -- can pass the chamber on a simple-majority vote, as opposed to the usual 60-vote threshold.
Known as budget "reconciliation," the tool is critical to GOP hopes of shelving ObamaCare, since Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's caucus of 54 is six votes short of filibuster-proof. (The budget itself is also subject to special rules and cannot be filibustered.)
Five years after the president signed it into law, polls show that ObamaCare -- also known as the Affordable Care Act -- remains unpopular, with 42 percent of the public approving of it compared with 53 percent who disapprove, according to the Real Clear Politics average.
The fact Obama likely would veto a rollback of his signature legislative achievement isn't stopping Republicans from fulfilling what they describe as a campaign promise.
"This new class, we were elected on ObamaCare, to repeal and replace it," Sen. Cory Gardner, a freshman Republican from Colorado, told Fox News' Neil Cavuto on "Your World" earlier this week. "I think the Republicans not only will have a plan, but something the president will accept, because it's something that we have to do, and that's important."
Democrats nevertheless continue to trumpet individual parts of the overhaul, citing benefits like the elimination of preexisting conditions as grounds for denial of coverage and the expansion of Medicaid to cover more Americans. For his part, Obama acknowledges there may be room for improvement, but says Republicans should work with Democrats to address problems rather than aim for a wholesale repeal.
"Every public health policy has some tradeoffs, especially when it affects one-sixth of the American economy and applies to the very personal needs of every individual American," the president told an audience Wednesday. "We also know beyond a shred of the doubt the policy has worked. Coverage is up, cost growth is at a historic low, deficits have been slashed, lives have been saved. So if anybody wants to join us in the spirit of people putting aside differences and come here today and make the law work better, come on board."
But even if Obama were to veto their efforts, Republicans -- who have voted more than 60 times to repeal or undermine the law -- are champing at the bit to finally send legislation to his desk.
"By passing a balanced budget that's about the future, we can leave ObamaCare's higher costs and broken promises where they belong -- in the past," McConnell said Monday.
Details of a possible GOP replacement for ObamaCare remain elusive for the time being. There is no shortage of Republican-sponsored health-care bills percolating on the Hill but it isn't clear if the party will unite around one comprehensive magic bullet.
Indeed, given the likelihood of a veto many ObamaCare critics say the best shot they'll have at undermining the law could be in responding to a forthcoming Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell. In the event the high court rules against the administration, some 7.5 million Americans enrolled in federally run health-care exchanges could lose their subsidies as a result, according to a February estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
"I look forward to that opportunity," said Sen. Bill Cassidy, a freshman Republican from Louisiana who is also a medical doctor. "If it arises, we shall be ready."
Watchdog: DEA agents attended cartel-funded 'sex parties'
In another major embarrassment for federal law enforcement, a Justice Department watchdog report alleges several Drug Enforcement Administration agents attended "sex parties" with prostitutes paid for by local drug cartels.
The alleged parties took place in an unnamed "host country," which reportedly was Colombia, over a period of several years. According to the Justice Department inspector general report, the parties were even held in agents' U.S. government-leased quarters.
Further, agents received "money, expensive gifts, and weapons from drug cartel members," according to the report, which explored sexual misconduct allegations and how they are handled at the DEA; FBI; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF); and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).
The IG report found such allegations often went unreported or underreported, or were not pursued properly.
The findings were immediately met Thursday with outrage on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers for years have pressured agencies to get tough on misconduct from within -- most notably, following the Secret Service prostitution scandal in 2012, also in Colombia.
"Once again, some federal law enforcement agents are acting like they belong in a college frat house rather than at a taxpayer-funded law enforcement agency tasked with interdicting illegal drugs," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement. "It's extremely troubling that federal drug agents lacked the common sense to know that engaging with prostitutes hired by drug cartels was a bad idea."
Extensive interviews with DEA and host country officials from 2009-2010 revealed allegations against 10 agents, including a regional director. Seven admitted to attending the parties with the prostitutes, which allegedly were arranged by a police officer in the host country and took place between 2005 and 2008. A Washington Post story quoted a law enforcement source as confirming the incidents happened in Cartagena, Colombia, the scene of the 2012 sex scandal.
The DOJ inspector general said it initiated the report "in the wake" of that Secret Service scandal, in which 13 agents on a presidential detail were snagged hiring prostitutes and engaging in drunken revelry the night before President Obama arrived for the Summit of the Americas. A dozen U.S. military personnel were also punished for their involvement.
'It's extremely troubling that federal drug agents lacked the common sense to know that engaging with prostitutes hired by drug cartels was a bad idea.'- House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
In the DEA case, investigators said that the DEA had imposed suspensions on the men ranging from two to 10 days. The DEA inspector told the DOJ IG investigators that "prostitution is considered a part of the local culture and is tolerated in certain areas called 'tolerance zones,'" and that it is common for prostitutes to be "present at business meetings involving cartel members and foreign officers" -- and that all of this "affects the way in which federal law enforcement employees conduct themselves in this particular country."
Reached for comment, a DEA representative referred FoxNews.com to the agency's official response in the report. That response said the investigation of misconduct allegations is "the primary mission" of its Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). DEA did a "second review" of all the cases the IG reviewed to see if the OPR did its job and the DEA determined that they were "investigated properly through DEA's disciplinary process for related misconduct."
Separately, a spokesman with the Department of Justice said the DOJ takes the issues in the report "seriously" and "is taking steps to implement policies and procedures to help prevent them from happening in the future." He added: "The Department is already working with the law enforcement components to ensure a zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment and misconduct is enforced and that incidents are properly reported."
Members of Congress were quick to weigh in, saying this was more than a matter of cultural differences, but a danger to Americans.
"Let there be no mistake, this is a national security threat," said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who called for the immediate firing of the agents involved. "The gross misconduct of DEA agents follows a disturbing pattern of risky and improper behavior afflicting Homeland Security and the Department of Justice."
The oversight committee already has scheduled a hearing on the findings, for April 14.
The report detailed other cases as well. This includes that of an ATF director who initiated "sexual play" with multiple anonymous partners in a hotel room; a U.S. marshal who admitted to having sexual relations with prostitutes in Thailand; and numerous allegations of sexual harassment throughout the agency.
School named after war hero forces child to shave off military-style haircut
Adam Stinnett looks up to his older stepbrother – a soldier in the U.S. Army. So when it came time to get a haircut, the seven-year-old told his mother he wanted a basic military-style cut. And that’s exactly what he got – high and tight – just like his stepbrother.
Adam got his haircut on March 8. On March 9, his mother got a letter from the principal of Bobby Ray Memorial Elementary School in McMinnville, Tennessee.
It seems they were not all that thrilled with the second grader’s new hairdo. The principal told Amy Stinnett that her son’s haircut was distracting – and needed to be fixed.
The principal told Amy Stinnett that her son’s haircut was distracting – and needed to be fixedAmy refused to comply.
The following day, she was summoned to the principal’s office where she was given an ultimatum.
“We were told that we had to either cut his hair or he could not return to school,” she said.
Amy tried to explain to the principal that her son’s haircut was meant to emulate his older brother. But her explanation was dismissed and the principal demanded that the boy’s hair be “in compliance with our rules.”
CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE CONVERSATION!
“I have the utmost respect for the military and its members,” the principal wrote in an email to Amy. “However, we are not a military school and the boy’s haircut is against our rules.”
She tried to reason with the principal – but it was a lost cause. So Amy complied with the school’s demands.
“In order to fix the high and tight, I had to shave his head – like he has no hair,” she told me.
Apparently the principal at Bobby Ray Elementary School doesn’t seem to think a bald-headed second grader is going to cause a distraction.
But Amy also did something else – she contacted the Southern Standard newspaper. And as it turned out – the pen really is mightier than the clippers.
“Military hair cut deemed distracting by Bobby Ray Elementary” was the headline – and boy did it create some controversy around McMinnville.
“They shamed my son and they shamed a lot of military people – that’s how I feel about it,” Amy said. She also would like the school to apologize to her son.
The Warren County School District responded to the newspaper story with a four-paragraph statement telling folks they could not comment on the incident or the investigation – on the advice of their attorneys.
“This is an internal school matter and the administration of the school district has been advised to address it as such from this point forward,” the statement read.
While the district does not have a policy about hair styles, individual schools are given authority to make such decisions.
“Neither Bobby Ray Memorial Elementary, nor any school in Warren County School District, prohibits military haircuts,” the statement declares.
Well, someone at the district office might want to clue in the principal -- because according to her email – military style haircuts are clearly against the rules.
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs in McMinnville – especially when you take into account that Bobby Ray Memorial Elementary School is named after a local war hero.
Navy Corpsman David Robert “Bobby” Ray was killed in action during the Vietnam War. His final act of heroism was to use his body to shield a Marine from a grenade. The Marine survived. Ray did not. He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.
“We are extremely proud that Bobby Ray Memorial Elementary was named in honor of a true American hero,” the school district stated.
And yet, they chose to shame a seven-year-old boy who wanted to look like a soldier. That school district doesn’t know the first thing about honor.
House panel asks White House for documents related to Bergdahl swap
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee asked the Obama administration Thursday to turn over all reports and documents, including intelligence information, related to last year's exchange of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five members of the Taliban.
"It is unclear from the information that has been provided to the Committee and from publicly available reports why the decision was made to exchange Sgt. Bergdahl for the five Taliban members," said the letter, which was addressed to White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough.
On Wednesday, Bergdahl was charged by the military with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. He was released from Taliban captivity last May after being held as a prisoner of war for five years. In the wake of Bergdahl's release and return to the U.S., fellow soldiers accused him of deliberately walking away from his Afghanistan post and putting the lives of soldiers who sought to find him at risk.
News of the charges against Bergdahl has prompted heavy criticism of the administration in Congress, where lawmakers slammed the White House for transferring the five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the Gulf state of Qatar without prior consultation.
"Today's announcement is the exclamation point on the bad deal the Obama administration cut to free five terrorist killers in its rush to empty the prison at Guantanamo Bay," Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Wednesday.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the charges were sure to "raise doubts in the mind of the average American" about the initial trade for Bergdahl.
Fox News reported Wednesday that at least three of the five have attempted to reconnect with their former comrades since their arrival in Qatar. The men are being monitored by the Qatari government and U.S. intelligence agencies. But the initial terms of the swap deal only extend for one year, meaning they could be free to return to Afghanistan or elsewhere later this spring. It is not clear whether the U.S. will seek to extend the agreement.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki defended the Bergdahl deal in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly Wednesday evening.
"Was it worth it? Absolutely," Psaki said. "We have a commitment to our men and women serving in the military, defending our national security every day, that we're going to do everything to bring them home if we can, and that's what we did in this case."
Thursday, March 26, 2015
'Was it worth it? Absolutely': Obama administration official defends Bergdahl trade despite charges
The Obama administration's incoming communications director said Wednesday the decision to trade Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban leaders last year was the right move, hours after he was charged with desertion.
"Was it worth it? Absolutely," Jen Psaki told Megyn Kelly on "The Kelly File." "We have a commitment to our men and women serving in the military, defending our national security every day, that we're going to do everything to bring them home if we can, and that's what we did in this case."
Psaki's comments were the first from an administration official since the charges were announced earlier in the day.
Bergdahl, who was released from Taliban captivity last May after being a prisoner of war for five years, was charged with misbehavior before the enemy, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. He was also charged with desertion, which carries a maximum of five years.
The case now goes to an Article 32 hearing to be held at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, where Bergdahl has been performing administrative duties as he awaits the conclusion of the case. That proceeding is similar to a grand jury. From there, it could be referred to a court-martial and go to trial.
Psaki, who is currently a State Department spokeswoman but who is slated to move to the White House next week, wouldn't comment on the merit of the charges against Bergdahl, saying she "won't prejudge those steps" that the Army will be undertaking.
The charges against Bergdahl, 28, come 10 months after his May 2014 release, which initially was a joyous occasion, with his parents joining President Obama in celebrating the news in the Rose Garden. Bob Bergdahl, who had studied Islam during his son's captivity, appeared with a full beard and read a Muslim prayer, while Bergdahl's mother Jani embraced the president.
But that euphoria quickly gave way to controversy in Washington, as Bergdahl was accused of walking away from his post and putting his fellow soldiers in danger. The trade of hardened Taliban fighters for his freedom raised deep concerns on Capitol Hill that the administration struck an unbalanced and possibly illegal deal.
With the newly announced charges, Bergdahl could also face a dishonorable discharge, reduction in rank and forfeiture of all his pay if convicted. He is not in pretial confinement at Fort Sam Houston, a spokesman for U.S. Army Forces Command said.
The announcement of the charges marks a sharp turnaround for the administration's narrative of Bergdahl's service and release. After the swap last year, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction."
But as Bergdahl faced criticism from fellow servicemembers for his actions, the administration faced heated complaints from Congress over the Taliban trade itself. "This fundamental shift in U.S. policy signals to terrorists around the world a greater incentive to take U.S. hostages," said former Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., then the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Wednesday's announcement only fueled those concerns.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., a member of the Armed Services Committee, was asked by reporters Wednesday whether the charges raised doubts about the initial trade of Bergdahl for the Taliban members.
"I would think that it would raise doubts in the mind of the average American if those doubts weren't raised already," Wicker said.
"This proves once again that the president's political motivations for closing Guantanamo Bay are causing him to make reckless decisions and will put more American lives at risk," House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Wednesday in a statement.
Gen. Mark Milley, head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, has been reviewing the massive case files and had a broad range of legal options, including various degrees of desertion charges. A major consideration was whether military officials would be able to prove that Bergdahl had no intention of returning to his unit.
Bergdahl disappeared from his base in the eastern Afghanistan province of Paktika on June 30, 2009. A private first class at the time, he had three days earlier emailed his parents expressing disillusionment with the war.
Related Image
President
Obama stands with Bob Bergdahl (R) and Jami Bergdahl (L) as he
delivers a statement about the release of their son, prisoner of war
U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, in the Rose Garden at the White House
in Washington May 31, 2014. (Reuters)
For the next five years, Bergdahl is believed to have been held by the Taliban and Pakistan's infamous Haqqani network. In one of several hostage videos released during his captivity, he said he was captured when he fell behind a patrol, but fellow soldiers, outraged after the trade was made with the Taliban, accused him of deserting. Some asserted that American servicemembers' lives were put at risk in the hunt for Bergdahl.
Bergdahl was freed on May 31, 2014, after the White House agreed to trade five high-value Taliban operatives held at Guantanamo Bay.
The trade was branded as illegal by lawmakers, who said they weren’t advised beforehand, It was also blasted by critics who said it violated America’s longstanding tradition of not negotiating with terrorists. There were also concerns – which would prove well-founded – that the Taliban members would return to the fight against the West.
Of the five -- Mohammad Fazl, the former Taliban army chief of staff; Khairullah Khairkhwa, a Taliban intelligence official; Abdul Haq Wasiq, a former Taliban government official; and Norullah Noori and Mohammad Nabi Omari -- at least three have attempted to reconnect with their old comrades, a source told Fox News.
Bergdhal was promoted to sergeant while in captivity, and had accrued more than $200,000 in back pay by the time he was freed.
GOP-controlled House approves balanced budget plan
WASHINGTON – Normally quarrelsome House Republicans came together Wednesday night and passed a boldly conservative budget that relies on nearly $5 trillion in cuts to eliminate deficits over the next decade, calls for repealing the health care law and envisions transformations of the tax code and Medicare.
Final passage, 228-199, came shortly after Republicans bumped up recommended defense spending to levels proposed by President Barack Obama.
Much of the budget's savings would come from Medicaid, food stamps and welfare, programs that aid the low-income, although details were sketchy.
Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the House Budget Committee, called the plan a "balanced budget for a stronger America" -- and one that would "get this economy rolling again."
Democrats rebutted that the GOP numbers didn't add up and called their policies wrong-headed.
"People who are running in place today are not going to be moving forward under the Republican budget, they're going to be falling back," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.
The Republican-controlled Senate is likely to approve its version of a budget by week's end.
The plans themselves are non-binding and do not require a presidential signature. Instead, once the House and Senate agree on a common approach, lawmakers will have to draft legislation to carry out the program that Republicans have vowed to follow in the wake of campaign victories last fall that gave them control of both houses of Congress.
Still, House passage of a budget marked a significant victory for Speaker John Boehner and the GOP leadership, which have struggled mightily to overcome differences within a fractious rank and file.
An equally notable second triumph appeared on the horizon. Legislation to stabilize the system of payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients is expected to clear the House Thursday, and Obama's declaration of support enhanced its chances in the Senate.
It includes a requirement for upper-income Medicare beneficiaries to pay more for their coverage, a provision Republicans hailed as a triumph in their drive to curtail the growth of benefit programs.
There was nothing bipartisan about the budget debate, though. Republicans supported it, 228-17, while all 182 Democrats who voted were opposed.
The House plan calls for $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction over a decade, including about $2 trillion from repeal of the law known as Obamacare. Nearly $1 trillion would be saved from from Medicaid and CHIP, health care programs for the low-income, and $1 billion from other unspecified benefit programs. Another $500 billion would come from general government programs that already have been squeezed in recent years by deficit-reduction agreements between Congress and the White House.
The budget outline itself provides few if any details of the cuts envisioned, although once they appear in legislation they are highly likely to spark a veto showdown with Obama.
The president has also vowed to defend the health care law that stands as his signature domestic achievement. The House has already voted more than 60 times to repeal it in part or whole, but for the first time since the law passed, House members have a willing partner in the Senate.
The prospect of sending Obama legislation to repeal the health care law contributed to the unusual degree of unity among House conservatives. Without a budget in place, they noted, the repeal measure would not have special protection against a Senate filibuster -- and would not reach the White House.
As they have in recent years, House Republicans call for the transformation of Medicare into a voucher-like program. Senate Republicans, already worried about defending their majority in 2016, omitted that from their plan.
Both the House and Senate plans call for an overhaul of the tax code.
Defense spending caused a few anxious moments for Boehner and the leadership as the budget moved through the House Budget Committee and across the floor.
As drafted by the panel, it called for $610 billion for the Pentagon for the coming budget year. Of that, $87 billion would come from an account that supports overseas military operations, and $21.5 billion would be dependent on offsetting spending cuts elsewhere.
On a vote of 219-208, Republicans raised the overall level to $612 billion, none of it contingent on offsetting savings.
Obama's budget called for $612 billion in defense spending. Republicans are eager to exceed his recommendation, and may decide to raise their level further in House-Senate compromise talks.
House Republicans said their budget would yield a surplus of $13 billion in 2024 and $33 billion in 2025.
Democrats scoffed at the claim. They pointed out such an outcome would rely in part on allowing $900 billion in popular tax breaks to expire as scheduled, and also assumed that tax hikes would be retained from the health care law that Republicans want to repeal.
By contrast, Obama's budget would fail to eliminate deficits, despite the presence of nearly $2 trillion in higher taxes.
In a years-old ritual, much of the day was consumed by debate and rejection of alternatives. House Democrats, progressives and the Congressional Black Caucus all advanced no-balance budgets that called for more domestic spending and higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations. The Democratic alternative drew more votes than the others, but failed 264-160.
The conservative Republican Study Committee proposed far deeper spending cuts than the Budget Committee recommended, a delay in Medicare eligibility to age 67 for younger workers, and a balanced budget in six years. Republicans voted for it 132-112, but all 182 Democrats opposed it, and it went down to defeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
