JOHN MCCAIN KILLED GOP HEALTH CARE BILL & SMILED (IN CONCERT WITH DEMS?)

JOHN MCCAIN KILLED GOP HEALTH CARE BILL AND SMILED:

IS MCCAIN IN CONCERT WITH DEMS' STRATEGY OR IS HE TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING GOP HEALTH CARE BILL RIGHT??

NO DISRESPECT, I'M JUST ASKING.


Sources: Washington Post, Youtube


*****The night John McCain killed the GOP’s health-care fight


It was the most dramatic night in the United States Senate in recent history. Just ask the senators who witnessed it.

A seven-year quest to undo the Affordable Care Act collapsed — at least for now — as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) kept his colleagues and the press corps in suspense over a little more than two hours late Thursday into early Friday.

Not since September 2008, when the House of Representatives rejected the Troubled Asset Relief Program — causing the Dow Jones industrial average to plunge nearly 800 points in a single afternoon — had such an unexpected vote caused such a striking twist.

The bold move by the nation’s most famous senator stunned his colleagues and possibly put the Senate on the verge of protracted bipartisan talks that McCain is unlikely to witness as he begins treatment for an aggressive form of brain cancer.

“I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of Obamacare was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict party-line basis without a single Republican vote,” he said in a statement explaining his vote. “We should not make the mistakes of the past.”

Rumors swirled late Thursday that the Arizona Republican, who had captured the nation’s sympathy this week after delaying his cancer treatment in order to return to Washington, might vote against the GOP’s “skinny repeal” plan — a watered-down version of earlier Republican proposals to repeal the 2010 health-care law.

McCain warned at a hastily arranged news conference Thursday afternoon that he was leaning against supporting the legislation unless House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) assured GOP senators that the House would not move to quickly approve the bill in its current form. McCain and Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wanted Ryan to launch broad House-Senate negotiations for a wider rollback of the law. Two hours later, Ryan issued a statement signaling he would launch negotiations, and Graham and Johnson announced their support.

But not McCain.

Reporters spotted him around 11 p.m.

“Have you decided how you’ll vote?” they asked.

“Yes,” McCain replied.

“How?”

“Wait for the show,” he said.

McCain headed for the stage — the Senate floor — around midnight, emerging from his office in the Russell Senate Office Building for the subway ride to the U.S. Capitol.

When he arrived, he held a brief conversation with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer ( D-N.Y.), an exchange that left the New Yorker smiling.

“I knew it when he walked on the floor,” Schumer later recounted, explaining that McCain had already called to share his plans.

But few, if any, of his Republican colleagues realized what was about to transpire.

Two votes were called just after midnight. The first was on a Democratic proposal to refer the “skinny repeal” bill back to a committee. The second vote was to pass “skinny repeal,” which would have repealed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and rolled back a tax on medical devices.

“Let’s vote against skinny repeal,” Schumer told his colleagues before the votes as he once again derided the rushed nature of the health-care debate.

McCain stood on the Republican side of the room nodding in agreement.

With Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) already planning to vote against the plan, Republicans could not afford to lose McCain. Vice President Pence was already at the Capitol prepared to break a tie. Instead, he launched a last-ditch effort to win McCain’s support.

As the first vote began, McCain took his seat next to Graham, his closest friend in the Senate. The South Carolinian mostly nodded as McCain gesticulated, and signaled — through his body language — that he was likely to vote no. When Murkowski walked over to join the conversation, McCain winked and gave her a thumbs down — signaling his intentions.

Collins joined the group as another clutch of Republican senators formed in the well of the Senate Chamber. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who operates in McCain’s long shadow, stood next to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who counts GOP votes, and Pence. Eventually, Flake was dispatched to talk to McCain.

He obliged, walked over to McCain and asked Graham to move over one seat. But McCain did not acknowledge Flake, focusing instead on Murkowski and Collins.

That left Flake, one of the most polite members of the Senate, leaning into the conversation uncomfortably with a pained look on his face, as if he had to tell his father that he had run over the family dog with his car.

Seeing that Flake was not making progress, Pence walked over at 12:44 a.m. McCain smiled, pointed at Collins and Murkowski, said something about “marching orders,” and stood up.

“Mr. Vice President,” he said, greeting Pence. For the next 21 minutes, the vice president cajoled McCain, Collins and Murkowski. Twice during the conversation, a Pence aide came to whisper in the vice president’s ear — other reporters learned it was the White House calling. Pence finally left to take a call, but later returned to speak with McCain.

By then, other senators around the room realized what was happening.

“You could see the body language in the entire chamber change in two hours,” Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) recalled. “One side was kind of ebullient, moving around and talking and the other side was subdued, and all of a sudden it began to change. There was an instinctive reaction that maybe this thing wasn’t going to pass. Nobody knew for sure.”

“It was pretty somber,” added Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

At 1:10 a.m., McCain crossed the Senate Chamber to talk to Schumer, Klobuchar and other Democrats, including Sens. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). As he approached, McCain told them he worried that reporters watching from the gallery above could read his lips. When he realized that the press was indeed watching, he looked up at the ceiling and shouted, “No!” as senators and reporters laughed. Then, Democrats beamed when McCain shared his news. Feinstein gave him a hug.

Walking back to the Republican side of the room, McCain was stopped by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) who also offered a hug.

“I love John McCain. He’s one of the great heroes of this country,” Hatch explained later. “Whether we agree or not, I still love the guy.”

The vote on “skinny repeal” began at 1:24 a.m., but McCain was out in the lobby once again conferring with Pence. In his absence, Collins and Murkowski cast their “no” votes along with the 48 members of the Democratic caucus.

McCain returned at 1:29 a.m. without Pence, approached the Senate clerk and gave a thumbs down — the third “no” vote.

Several people gasped. Others applauded. Reporters dashed out to report the news.

McCain returned to his seat, walking past Cornyn and Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who stood grim-faced and despondent. Cassidy rubbed his face several times with his hands. Thune’s face contorted. The color in Cornyn’s face seemed to drain.

“Certainly Senator McCain knows how to improve the drama,” Cassidy recalled later.

The vote concluded, and the results were announced — the bill was voted down, 51 to 49. Just days before, McCain had fired a warning shot with a lengthy floor speech that criticized the rushed, secretive process that led to “skinny repeal.” Early Friday morning, McCain, Collins and Murkowski delivered the fatal blow.

McConnell, humiliated by the results, stood to address his colleagues. The color of his face now matched the pink in his necktie.

“This is clearly a disappointing moment,” he said.

Obama's Tax Cut Bill Passes In The Senate 83-15; Next Nancy's House

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama's Tax Cut Bill Easily Clears Senate Hurdle


Far-reaching legislation to avert a Jan. 1 income-tax increase for millions won overwhelming support in a Senate test vote on Monday, backed by an uneasy and unusual alliance between the White House and lawmakers in both parties.

By a vote of 83 to 15, the measure easily cleared the 60-vote threshold needed for most legislation to advance in the 100-seat Senate.

Even before the vote was complete, President Barack Obama said the show of support "proves that both parties can in fact work together to grow our economy and look out for the American people."

Senate passage, expected within a day or two, would set up a final showdown in the House between Obama and liberals in his own party who want the White House to scale back the billions the bill includes in relief ticketed for the rich.

In his remarks, the president gave no indication he was willing to accept further changes to the measure he negotiated with senior Republicans.

"I understand those concerns," he said of the objections from some of his usual allies in Congress. "I share some of them. But that's the nature of compromise, sacrificing something that each of us cares about."

Despite strong criticism from fellow Democrats, Obama has made passage of the bill a key year-end priority, essential for the economy as it struggles to recover from the worst recession in decades.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and his GOP counterpart, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, were joint sponsors of the bill, a symbolic gesture of bipartisanship on an issue that

produced nothing but gridlock until midterm elections gave Republicans additional leverage in negotiations.

"We're telling the American people to keep money that's rightfully theirs, so they can spend it and invest it as they please," said McConnell.

In a jab at Democrats, he added, "This is an important shift, and the White House should be applauded for agreeing to it."

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said, "This bipartisan compromise is about creating jobs. Extending middle class tax cuts will help create jobs. ... Job creation needs to be our number one priority."

The bill needed 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle. It achieved that level quickly in a long roll call, although no final tally was expected for hours.

The bill would provide a two-year reprieve in the tax increases scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1 at all income levels, reduce Social Security taxes for every wage earner in 2011 and extend an expiring program of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. The estimated cost, $858 billion over two years, would be added to already-huge federal deficits.

The measure represents a reach across party lines after two years of political combat in which Republicans wanted a permanent extension of all the tax cuts enacted when George W. Bush was president, while Democrats insisted rates be permitted to rise on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.

Despite the bipartisanship in the Senate, disgruntled House Democrats have vowed to block a final vote unless the legislation is changed to scale back the tax relief for the nation's wealthiest.

"I think we're going to have a vote on the Senate bill, with possible changes," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said. "We may have it with amendments, we'll see what the process is."

The compromise emerged a week ago after private talks involving the White House and top leaders in Congress, including Republicans who emerged from midterm elections with significantly increased strength.

In the days since, Obama has drawn strong criticism from liberals unhappy that he agreed to changes in the estate tax and income tax that will benefit the rich. Firing back, he said failure to compromise would produce gridlock at a time the economy is still frail and unemployment is at a persistently high rate of 9.8 percent.

The administration's outgoing top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, said in a speech a few hours before the vote that the agreement should increase consumer spending and help the economy "now and for the next several years."

On the other end of the political spectrum, some conservatives have spoken out against the bill, saying that the renewal of jobless benefits should be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.

In fact, even supporters of the bill were at pains to point out parts they found objectionable.

Baucus singled out the decision to leave tax rates unchanged on upper income earners.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., highlighted a series of energy tax breaks added to the bill late last week, including an extension of the federal subsidy for ethanol.

McConnell cited "the Democrats' insistence that we borrow the money we need to pay for a further extension of unemployment insurance. In my view, if both parties agree that the debt is a serious problem, we shouldn't be writing checks that we don't have the money to cover."

Many House Democrats objected strongly to a change in the estate tax that Republicans won as part of the deal. The first $5 million of a couple's estate could pass to heirs without taxation, and an additional $5 million could be passed along for the spouse. The balance would be subject to a 35 percent tax rate.

The estate tax was repealed for 2010. But under current law, it is scheduled to return next year with a top rate of 55 percent on the portion above $1 million, $2 million for couples.


Sources: MSNBC

GOP Wins Tax Cut Extension Showdown! Now Jobs!

Senate Showdown May Pave Way For Year-End Tax Deal


U.S. Senate Republicans derailed legislation Saturday to extend expiring tax cuts at all but the highest income levels in a political showdown that paradoxically clears a path for a compromise with the White House on steps to boost the economy.

"We need to get this resolved and I'm confident we can do it," President Barack Obama said shortly after the near party-line votes. The public must have "the peace of mind that their taxes will not go up" on Jan. 1, he added.

Obama has signaled that he will bow to Republican demands for extending tax cuts at all income levels, and his remarks capped a day that lurched between political conflict and talk of compromise on an issue that played a leading role in last month's elections.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., eyeing the 2012 campaign, accused Republicans of siding with "millionaires and billionaires" with their rejection of proposals that would let tax cuts passed during George W. Bush's presidency lapse on seven-figure incomes.

Republicans noted that unemployment rose to 9.8 percent last month and said it made no sense to raise taxes on anyone in a weak economy. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., jabbed that Democrats were undergoing a "political catharsis" in public after losing control of the House and surrendering several seats in the Senate in the Nov. 2 election.

But the rhetoric subsided quickly after the votes, and Senate leaders in both parties said they hoped political clashes would give way to compromise in the next several days.

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the GOP leader, said he was relatively confident there would be a deal with the White House "not to raise taxes in the middle of a recession." He said talks were continuing on the length of an extension to be enacted for the cuts that were put in place in 2001 and 2003.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he hoped for an agreement by the middle or end of next week on legislation that would combine an extension of tax cuts with a renewal of expiring jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.

Officials have said that in addition to tax cuts and unemployment benefits, the White House wants to include renewal of several other tax provisions that are expiring. They include a break for lower- and middle- class wage earners, even if they don't make enough to pay the government, as well as for college students and for companies that hire the unemployed.

Key lawmakers and administration officials have been at work negotiating the terms of a possible deal for several days.

But many congressional Democrats privately have expressed anger at Obama for his willingness to surrender to Republican demands to let the tax cuts remain in place at upper incomes, and numerous officials said no compromise would be possible until they had engineered votes in both the House and Senate.

Any deal would mean a reversal for Obama, who said in the 2008 presidential race and this year that he wanted to let cuts expire above incomes of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.

In the Senate, a bill to enact Obama's original position was blocked on a vote of 53-36, seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and were joined by Democratic Sens. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Jim Webb of Virginia and independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

The second measure would have kept the tax cuts in place on incomes over $1 million. It appeared crafted to appeal to senators from states with large high-income populations, as well as cast Republicans as protectors of the rich.

It was blocked on a vote of 53-37, also seven short of the 60 needed. A slightly different lineup of Democrats sided with Republicans, including Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Feingold. Lieberman also opposed it.

The White House opposed the second measure bill, and given the president's willingness to sign a bill to extend all the expiring tax cuts, there was never any doubt about the outcome of the day's proceedings in the Senate.

But Democrats said that even with elections nearly two years away, they intended to try and depict Republicans as defenders of the rich whose policies contribute to rising deficits.

"Do we want to extend those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires at a time of huge deficits. I would argue vociferously we shouldn't, said Schumer.

Referring to the 2012 elections, he said about Republicans: "I'm going to be here for the next year, next two years, to remind my colleagues that they were willing to increase the deficit $300 billion to give tax breaks to people who have income over a million dollars."

Republicans sounded alternately bemused and offended.

"It is the most astounding theory I have ever seen. Raise taxes to create jobs," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Democrats perhaps viewed the votes as a gift to their political constituents. But, he added, "two years of wall to wall Democratic rule has only made the situation worse" in the economy.

The day's events capped a week that included a meeting at the White House at which Obama and top congressional Republicans sat down together for the first time since the elections.

Both the president and GOP lawmakers pledged afterward they would try to work together for the good of the economy, and agreed to set up a small negotiating group to discuss the tax issues.

The White House, Reid and Republicans have been negotiating quietly, and McConnell made a point of saying he had been in frequent touch with the administration in recent days.

In addition to tax cuts, Obama has made ratification of a new arms control treaty with Russia a priority of the postelection session of Congress, reducing his leverage with Republicans in the struggle over taxes.

Senior Senate Republicans have indicated they will not try to interfere with a debate on the issue as long as government spending and tax cut issues have been resolved to their satisfaction.

A two-thirds majority is required for ratification, meaning the White House will need the support of at least nine Republicans to prevail. Vice President Joseph Biden and other officials have been involved in talks with several GOP senators in hopes of lining up the votes needed.


Sources: AP, CNN, McClatchy Newspapers

Bret Baier Trumps Pres. Obama On Reconciliation, "Deem & Pass"

Sources: Fox News, Youtube

Brown's Win Could Nullify Kirk's Senate Health Care Vote

Scott Brown's Win Could Spark Legal Battle


A victory by Republican Scott Brown Tuesday in Massachusetts could quickly turn into a legal battle over the man he would replace – Sen. Paul Kirk – with the future of health reform in the Senate hanging in the balance.

Conservative commentator Fred Barnes is arguing that Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday's special election, no matter who wins, signaling a possible GOP line of attack against health reform if it passes with Kirk’s vote.

GOP elected officials haven't embraced that argument, and two academic election law experts contacted by POLITICO refuted the notion that Kirk will no longer be a senator after Tuesday's election. But it’s a sign of the fierce legal and political battles likely to ensue if Brown upsets Democrat Martha Coakley in the race to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

And Kirk would be in the middle of it all. Brown would take over for Kirk, a supporter of reform, and become the 41st vote against the health bill - ending the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority and throwing reform's future into serious doubt.

Republicans are worried that if Brown wins, Democrats will try to jam through a Senate health reform vote while Kirk still occupies the seat, in the time between Brown's election and when he is certified the winner.

Kirk has pledged to vote for reform for as long as he remains a senator, even if Brown wins Tuesday. Some Republican lawyers are arguing he won’t have the chance.

"Appointed Senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday's election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation, according to Republican attorneys," Barnes, the Weekly Standard’s executive editor, wrote on the conservative magazine's website Saturday night. "Based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period."

So if Brown wins and Democrats vote on reform before he is seated, they will have to defend the rushed vote and, now, the legitimacy of Kirk's clutch 60th vote.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Fearing a political backlash in the Senate, Democrats could try to pass the Senate bill through the House with no changes, sending it straight to President Barack Obama's desk. But that is still considered a last-ditch maneuver fraught with its own perils.

Health care insiders see an even bigger problem should Brown win on Tuesday - nervous Senate Democratic moderates reconsidering their support for the bill.

"This has now turned into a referendum on health care in the bluest state. If Brown wins, technical 60 vote aside, there are a lot of mod[erate] Ds who are going to flip and this thing will be in trouble, not dead, but delayed and possibly scaled back," said a Democratic health care industry insider, adding that a Republican win will make it that much harder for Democratic congressional leaders to sell a final deal to their members.

Republican strategist Phil Blando agreed. He said the argument over whether Kirk's vote will count or not is "a legal technicality in the broader political earthquake that a Brown victory would signal. The concern isn't that you lose Kirk's vote, but that you lose Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman and a bunch of Blue Dogs."

And any Democratic move to slow-walk seating Brown in order to pass reform, Blando said, is "just naked, pure power politics where, at that point, you're just thwarting the will of the people."

Congressional Republicans, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, were wary of making the Kirk argument before Tuesday's election and declined to say Sunday whether they plan to advance it should Brown win.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called the possibility that Kirk's term may expire after Tuesday an "interesting academic question" on "Fox News Sunday."

"What we have to do is wait until the election is held and then focus on that. I think the first step is to see what the people of Massachusetts say on Tuesday, and then everybody will be looking at the process for swearing in the new senator after that," said McConnell, adding that the winner "should be sworn in promptly."

Democrats pushed back against the GOP argument that Kirk loses his vote on Tuesday saying it would, at a minimum, raise constitutional questions because Kirk is a duly sworn U.S. senator.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said Republicans are wrong to argue that Kirk will no longer be a senator after Election Day, adding that the point will be moot when Coakley wins. Senate leadership will follow the law and Senate rules when seating the next senator from Massachusetts, Manley said.

Still, concern over Brown helped fuel last week's Democratic scramble to finish reform. Obama and congressional Democrats held marathon White House meetings to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of reform and craft a final bill that can pass Congress.

On Sunday, Kirk spokesman Keith Maley told POLITICO that his boss has no plans to step aside until Massachusetts election officials take the necessary steps to certify the election and a new senator is sworn in.

"Senator Kirk plans to serve until the winner of the election is sworn into office and will work to ensure a seamless transition for the new senator," Maley said.

To be sworn into the Senate, a member needs to have certification papers signed by the governor and the secretary of state, a precedent that was underlined over last year's flap in seating Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.).

And if certification becomes an issue, Democrats and Republicans will almost certainly be forced to reverse the positions they took in another legal dispute in a Senate race: last year's prolonged battle between Al Franken and Norm Coleman that didn't end until the Minnesota Supreme Court sided with Franken in June.

For months, Republicans argued that Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty didn't have to sign the certification papers if Coleman were to take his case into federal court, thereby preventing Franken from taking his seat until the matter was resolved months - or even years - later. But Democrats accused the GOP of attempting to delay the certification in order to deny Democrats a pivotal vote in the Senate.

The battle didn't come to a head since Coleman declined to press the matter into federal court, but if Massachusetts' elected Democrats don't swiftly move to certify Brown, and Senate Democrats don't move to quickly swear him in, the Republican Party is almost certain to erupt - and consider legal challenges to Kirk's standing in the Senate.

"The chances of an election result being so close that it is within the margin of litigation is very small," said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola law school in Los Angeles. "That said, if it is that close, I am sure it would be litigated even more fiercely."

David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, said that "Democrats have to accept Brown as soon as Massachusetts certifies the election or delivers the election certificate to the Senate."

Delaying it, Schultz said, would be the same situation as if Pawlenty refused to sign an election certificate for Franken.

"However, to argue that Kirk is no longer senator if Brown wins is not exactly accurate -- Kirk is senator until the state certifies the election," Schultz said. "The reason for that is that there could be a recount in a close election, litigation, etc. What could be really interesting is if the election is close, Brown appears to be a winner, and then the Democrats go to court to delay his seating.

"That would really open them up to criticism that parallels what happened in Minnesota," Schultz said.

And it's far from clear whether the legal argument that Kirk is no longer a senator would hold up.

Guy-Uriel Charles, an election law expert at Duke University, disagrees with the GOP's contention, saying that the Senate is the ultimate judge of its members. Charles said that Kirk has the proper certifications to serve in office and, under the law, can do so "until the next person is certified."

"Now if the Republicans were in charge in the U.S. Senate, they could do away with Massachusetts certification requirement," Charles said. "But it is obviously unlikely that the Democrats would do so. If the Massachusetts' Democrats engage in delaying tactics, if Brown wins, the Republicans can go the courts.

"But I don't buy the argument that the results of the election itself, without certification, is sufficient to divest Kirk of the office."



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, Hardball, Google Maps