Jimmy Kimmel takes on Cassidy-Graham healthcare bill

Late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel is seen at Paramount Pictures Studios in Los Angeles, March 20, 2014.  (Associated Press)

Late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel took aim Tuesday at Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy’s new co-authored healthcare bill that would undo central components of ObamaCare and replace it with block grants -- or federal funds -- to the states.

The host of ABC's “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” who delivered a memorable monologue in May when he revealed his newborn son’s heart condition, mentioned that Cassidy appeared on that show and “was not very honest.”

“It seemed like he was being honest,” Kimmel said. “He got a lot of credit and attention for coming off like a rare, reasonable voice in the Republican Party when it came to healthcare.”
Kimmel said Cassidy coined the term, "the Jimmy Kimmel test," which was summed up by Kimmel as: No family should be denied medical care, emergency or otherwise, because they can’t afford it.
They agreed the Jimmy Kimmel test would mean no lifetime caps, Kimmel said.
“This new bill does pass the Jimmy Kimmel test,” the host joked. “But a different Jimmy Kimmel test: this one, your child with a preexisting condition will get the care he needs, if and only if, his father is Jimmy Kimmel. Otherwise you might be screwed.”
The new legislation was penned by Cassidy, of Louisiana, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Earlier Tueday, Cassidy retweeted a message by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who wrote that the bill’s authors “want states to implement better #healthcare ideas by taking more decision-making power out of Washington.”
Republicans must act by Sept. 30 in the Senate, or face the prospect of a Democratic filibuster. That blocking action is currently staved off by budget rules that will expire at the end of the fiscal year.
The bill would allow states to set their own coverage requirements, allow insurers to boost prices on people with serious medical conditions, end President Barack Obama's mandates that most Americans buy insurance and that companies offer coverage to workers, and cut and reshape Medicaid.
The bill's full impacts are difficult to predict because the Congressional Budget Office has not had time to assess it. But senators plan to move forward without a complete CBO "score," heightening outrage from Democrats.
“This guy, Bill Cassidy, just lied to my face,” Kimmel said.
By Tuesday evening the legislation remained at least one or two votes short of the number needed for passage.
Democrats are unanimously opposed, arguing that the legislation would result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance, decrease access to affordable care and damage the Medicaid health program for the poor.
McConnell must get yes votes from 50 of the 52 Senate Republicans. That would amount to victory in the 100-member Senate, because Vice President Mike Pence -- as president of the Senate -- would then break a tie.
"Governors and state legislators of both parties would have both the opportunity and the responsibility to help make quality and affordable health care available to their citizens in a way that works for their own particular states," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "It's an intriguing idea and one that has a great deal of support."
Pence appeared at the Capitol on Tuesday and declared the Trump administration was "all in" on the effort. President Donald Trump himself was closely in touch with Graham and others.
If the bill passes, House Speaker Paul Ryan has committed to pushing it through as is, and straight to the president's desk, according to Graham.

Clinton slams Trump, Putin during interview with Stephen Colbert

Hillary will end up going to jail because she's to stupid to keep a low profile.

Hillary Clinton holds a copy of her book, "It Takes A Village," at the Warner Theatre in Washington, Sept. 18, 2017.  (Associated Press)

Hillary Clinton had plenty to say about President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin during an appearance Tuesday night on CBS's "The Late Show."

Clinton told host Stephen Colbert that Putin interfered with the 2016 U.S. presidential election in part because she is a woman, and said Trump’s speech at the United Nations earlier in the day was “very dark, dangerous.”

The failed presidential candidate also reiterated her profound dislike for both Putin and Trump.
She said Putin interfered in the election partly because of her work as U.S. secretary of state (2009-2013), as that made her clash with Putin on numerous occasions. This, according to Clinton, evolved into a grudge on the Russian president’s part.
Clinton – who recently embarked on what critics have called a "blame game" book tour for “What Happened,” her account of her loss to Trump last November – claimed her gender bothered Putin and made him “agitated.” She also ridiculed the Russian leader for “manspreading” – a posture where a man sits with his legs spread widely.
Clinton suggested the Russian leader is “tied up with his anger and disappointment” following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But Putin was not Clinton's only target during the interview. When Colbert asked her about Trump’s U.N. speech, which he delivered earlier Tuesday, Clinton did not hold back.
“I thought it was very dark, dangerous, not the kind of message that the leader of the greatest nation in the world should be delivering,” she said about Trump's remarks to the U.N. General Assembly, in which the president threatened to “totally destroy North Korea” and taunted “Rocket Man” Kim Jong Un.
“What I hoped the president would have said," Clinton critiqued, "was something along the lines of, you know, we view this as dangerous to our allies, to the region, and even to our country. We call on all nations to work with us to try to end the threat posed by Kim Jong Un.
“And not call him 'Rocket Man,' the old Elton John song, but to say, clearly, we will not tolerate any attacks on our friends or ourselves,” Clinton added, noting that, “You should lead with diplomacy, you should lead with the commitment of trying to avoid conflict however you can.”

Trump 'saddened' about Emmys' lackluster ratings

Tucker's Thoughts: What we're watching is no longer a debate between conservatives and liberals. It's an unbridgeable divide between those who've reaped the benefits of global capitalism, and the rest of the country, which hasn't #Tucker

President Donald Trump tweeted late Tuesday that he was “saddened” to learn that the ratings for Sunday night's Emmy Awards telecast on CBS, hosted by Stephen Colbert, were not good.

Trump tweeted, “I was saddened to see how bad the ratings were on the Emmys last night - the worst ever.”

The president’s Tuesday night tweet was a little off: The show was on Sunday, not Monday, and the ratings didn’t quite hit bottom, though they were close.
The Nielsen company estimated that 11.4 million people watched, slightly more than last year’s lowest-ever audience of 11.3 million. But six markets in Florida have not reported, as Hurricane Irma is still holding up the process in areas that were severely impacted by the storm.
“The Emmys are a Hollywood bubble show," Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News. "Actors and directors get to pretend they are important because they are doing such insightful takes on life in America, when they have zero idea what life in America is for the other 330 million people."
Trump added, “Smartest people of them all are the ‘DEPLORABLES.’” That’s a reference to a remark Hillary Clinton made during last year’s presidential campaign, when she said half of Trump's supporters belonged in a “basket of deplorables.”
The Emmys went head-to-head against NBC’s “Sunday Night Football,” which presumably didn’t help viewership, but the awards have now hit new ratings lows for three straight years. Perhaps some viewers want to enjoy the awards show as an escape from politics, or perhaps some viewers simply don’t agree with everything the Hollywood elite has to say.
Colbert and the event’s producers didn’t seem to care that roughly half the country wouldn’t be amused by non-stop attacks on Trump. 

Academy Awards Political Cartoons

Emmys ratings crater; Trump-bashing to blame?

Idiot

How low can the Emmys go? 

It looks like the 69th annual Emmy Awards are heading into sub-basement territory in terms of ratings after host Stephen Colbert spent much of Sunday’s event attacking President Trump.

It turns out American viewers may not have been as into Trump bashing as Hollywood would like them to be, as the 8.2 overnight rating among metered market households is down 2.4 percent from the 2016 edition, which would make it the lowest rated Emmy telecast ever.
The reason it’s hasn't been officially labeled the lowest-rated Emmys yet is because six of the 56 markets are in Florida have not reported, as Hurricane Irma is still holding up the process in areas that were severely impacted by the storm.
DOLLY'S RACY EMMY MOMENT
“The Emmys are a Hollywood bubble show," Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News. "Actors and directors get to pretend they are important because they are doing such insightful takes on life in America, when they have zero idea what life in America is for the other 330 million people."
Yet despite the cratering viewership, Gainor doesn’t think the Emmys will shy away from bashing Trump anytime soon.
“Hollywood won’t walk away from politics. The left wants to force politics into every single aspect of our lives -- from sports to movies to the food we eat. They won’t be satisfied until we are all appropriately woke to their struggles du jour,” Gainor told Fox News.
NICOLE KIDMAN BREAKS DOWN IN TEARS
Trump was attacked from Colbert’s opening monologue through the end of the three-hour program. Alec Baldwin won an award for portraying Trump on “Saturday Night Live,” and used his speech to mock the president for not winning an Emmy during his time hosting “The Apprentice.”
Ex-White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer even made an appearance to poke fun at his tenure, but many viewers are even upset that CBS allowed the award show to normalize a former member of the Trump administration. Apparently it’s OK to laugh at Trump and his surrogates, but not with them.
Academy Awards prognosticator Steve Pond called the event “the most political Emmys show ever” and said voters even decided winners based on politics, opting for programs with a political agenda such as “The Handmaid’s Tale” and “Atlanta” over less-polarizing shows such as “Stranger Things.”
WAS ACTRESS REALLY A SORE LOSER?
“Voters made it clear: They were sending a message,” Pond wrote.
Gainor agrees. “The Emmys celebrate shows that almost no one either watches or cares about," he said. "No ordinary Americans care about ‘The Handmaid’s Tale.’ No ordinary Americans watch ‘Veep.’ The only show the Emmys were honoring that most people even recognize was ‘Saturday Night Live.’”
The Emmys went head-to-head against NBC’s “Sunday Night Football,” which presumably didn’t help viewership, but the awards have now hit new ratings lows for three straight years. Perhaps some viewers want to enjoy the awards show as an escape from politics, or perhaps some viewers simply don’t agree with everything the Hollywood elite has to say. Colbert and the event’s producers didn’t seem to care that roughly half the country wouldn’t be amused by non-stop attacks on Trump.
“Entertainment Tonight” anchor Kevin Frazier appeared on “CBS This Morning” on Monday to proclaim that “politics took center stage,” and the “recurring punchline was Donald Trump.” The CBS morning show co-hosts seemed to approve, with Norah O’Donnell calling it “one of the best shows ever,” but that was before the dismal rating came out.
Gainor asked, “Why would anyone who isn’t a die-hard liberal watch?”

Senate Republicans consider a trillion-dollar-plus tax cut for budget

Senate Republicans are considering writing a budget that would allow for up to $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade, said two people familiar with the discussions.
Budget talks are continuing and no final decision has been reached yet.
A budget that creates fiscal room for a $1.5 trillion tax cut, if adopted, would then be followed by a tax bill that would specify rate cuts and other policy changes that don't exceed that figure. Calling for a tax cut in the budget would let Republicans lower tax rates while making fewer tough decisions on what tax breaks to eliminate to help pay for the cuts.
Such a plan would assume that tax cuts would boost economic growth and generate revenue to help pay for themselves, but it would also likely mean that Republicans would need to make some of the tax cuts expire after 10 years, leaving decisions to a future Congress they may not control.
Republicans had talked earlier this year about tax proposals that would fully pay for themselves but they have been gradually shifting toward a tax plan that doesn't explicitly pay for itself in the first decade. Budget Committee member Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) said on Monday that the tax cut should be "as big as we can get."
The budget is an essential first step to the major tax bill Republicans want to pass this year. If the House and Senate agree on a budget, they can fast-track a tax bill through the Senate on a simple-majority vote through a process known as reconciliation, rather than seek a bigger 60-vote majority that would require support from Democrats.

Continue Reading Below

ADVERTISEMENT

The budget sets the maximum size of any tax cut over the next 10 years, making it a crucial fiscal marker in this fall's tax debate. A budget with a tax plan that is revenue-neutral would effectively pay for itself, meaning any reduction in tax rates would be offset by reducing breaks or other revenue-raising measures. A budget with $1.5 trillion in tax cuts wouldn't be revenue-neutral.
Republicans face internal tension in trying to bridge the gap between those warning about large federal debt levels and the desire of many to cut taxes. The Senate Budget Committee, led by Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) hasn't yet scheduled a committee vote or released a draft budget.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), a Budget Committee member, said in an interview Monday that he has been advocating a $2 trillion tax cut. Mr. Toomey's preference is partly based on arguments that the tax bill, which is still being written, would generate significant economic growth that would yield additional tax revenue on its own and make the actual hit to the budget from tax cuts smaller.

'Eyes Wide Shut' actress: Reaction to my 'coming out as a conservative' story was absolutely shocking

Julienne Davis is an American actress, singer and model.

A few weeks ago I wrote an op-ed for Fox News about some of my difficult experiences as a conservative in liberal Hollywood. I never expected it to have much impact – but I was wrong.

As people started reading and commenting in greater and greater numbers and thousands of personal messages started pouring in to me, one thing became abundantly clear: my experience of being attacked for holding conservative beliefs resonated with many people.

Sadly, bigotry and even hatred directed at conservatives remains politically correct among progressives. It is one of the few socially acceptable forms of prejudice still around.
My op-ed sparked so much reaction not because of who I am – a mostly unknown actress with some minor credits to my name, most prominently for acting in the film “Eyes Wide Shut” in 1999.
I’m convinced that my op-ed drew attention because it mirrored the experience of so many other conservatives in our daily lives. The response I got to the essay opened my eyes to just how common attacks on conservatives are in our country today.

Being conservative or a supporter of President Trump in America today invites attacks and insults from the left. We are shunned, unfriended, shamed, vilified, ridiculed and sometimes we even lose work. It seems we are considered part of a new Axis of Evil.

Being conservative or a supporter of President Trump in America today invites attacks and insults from the left. We are shunned, unfriended, shamed, vilified, ridiculed and sometimes we even lose work. It seems we are considered part of a new Axis of Evil.  
I have received messages from fellow conservatives – not just in the U.S. but from around the world – telling me their own stories of being attacked and offering their prayers and support. I was humbled to know I was clearly not alone.
Judging from all the positive messages, I hope that in some small way I have empowered other conservatives to stand up for what they believe and not be bullied into silence by progressives and the media and entertainment elites.
But in addition to messages of support, I got plenty of messages from the haters. The overwhelming response from them was basically: “Who are you?” As if to say that because I’m a “nobody” I’m irrelevant and what I have to say is also irrelevant.
Such irony, coming from progressives who claim to be for the underdog, the victimized and the oppressed. Apparently, the oppression of conservatives and conservative thought doesn’t count in this case.
I also got a dishonorable mention on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, complete with cutaways to others laughing at my “lack of fame” and my “irrelevance.”
Those like Maher, who see themselves as some kind of cosmopolitan liberal elite, are only too ready to sneer at the culture that worships fame. And yet, when someone who isn’t famous contradicts their worldview, their first response is: “Who is this person? They aren’t famous, why should we listen to anything they say?”
Rather than discuss what I said, these elites just sneered at the fact that I’m not a top-grossing film star with a shelf full of Academy Awards who is mobbed by fans everywhere I go.
I wonder why we value this thing called “fame” anyway. I learned with my small moment in the limelight that “fame” in and of itself has no real value. Looking at some of the personal train wrecks in Hollywood over the years, it’s sadly clear they took the fame game to heart.
Let me pose some questions to every successful “famous” leftist pundit and celebrity:
How are you using your voice? For a good cause, or just to burnish your brand, draw more fame and make more money? Are you trying to end the hate and the polarization in our country or increase it?
The sad truth is that so many who mount hysterical, hateful and almost nonstop attacks on conservatives and President Trump are fanning the flames of division that pit Americans against each other. Instead of seeking to bridge differences, they seek to accentuate them.
Our great country is called the United States of America – but so many are trying to make us the Divided States of America, filled with citizens who reject cooperation and embrace confrontation.
People with some measure of fame – whether from appearing in films or on TV – have the power to change minds and hearts. Yet instead, too many look lovingly at their bank balance and huge estates, and ignore the hypocritical monsters they have made of themselves and cater to the groupthink trolls they’ve created. It’s so ugly.
It was also telling that, in my case, the haters who attacked me rarely if ever were willing to engage in actual debate on the issues I raised. Sadly, they stuck to small-minded, petty, ad hominem insults on my character, my looks, my intelligence, my talent, and even my name.
And all the attacks on me came from a place of smug, egotistical, self-righteousness. En masse bullying, basically. But, oh, how I must have struck a nerve! Otherwise, why would they bother attacking me at all?
Moving forward, we are all still faced with the same dilemma: What do we do about this war of ideologies. Progressives can demonize and insult conservatives around the clock if they wish. Conservatives can even choose to respond in kind.
But what does this war of words accomplish? It reminds me of children on the playground, yelling insults at one another as they throw temper tantrums that are a sign of their immaturity.
My advice to conservatives is not to play dirty and return ad hominem insults with the same snarky smugness. This accomplishes nothing.
Instead, we need to bypass the insults, engage in rational discussion and serious debate, and not allow our egos to get in the way. And we need to invite our progressive critics to join us on the high road – if they are willing to act like mature adults. After all, what is the alternative?

Non-STEM professors reportedly push for boycott of UC Berkeley 'Free Speech Week'

Citing the threat to the student body’s “physical and mental safety,” 177 professors at the University of California, Berkeley, have signed an open letter calling for a boycott of the campus’ so-called “Free Speech Week.

The speakers scheduled for the week—from Sept. 24 to 27— reportedly include Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon and Ann Coulter.

The San Francisco Chronicle described the event as “four days of rallies and speeches.”
The report said that—even without the boycott—it is unclear if the event will go through. Organizers did not pay for the facilities, the report said. The price tag for such an event is expected to be exorbitant. It cost $600,000 to secure a recent speech by conservative Ben Shapiro.
The letter from the professors said the event forces some students to risk their “physical and mental safety in order to attend class.”
A spokesman for the school told the paper that faculty members can decide where or when to teach their classes.
The Daily Californian, the student newspaper, reported that only five professors who teach STEM courses on campus signed the letter.
Michael Cohen, a co-author of the letter, said the amount of STEM professors on the letter does not show any differences of opinions. The letter was released last week, and they could still join. He told the paper that the humanities buildings are near where these protests often take place.
Kristie Boering, a chemistry professor, told the student paper that she plans on holding her class as planned.
“I have a job to do,” she said.