GOP LEADERS vs TRUMP & PUTIN - "THESE HOES AIN'T LOYAL" (TWO PARTIES MORPH INTO ONE)

GOP LEADERS vs TRUMP & PUTIN - "THESE HOES AIN'T LOYAL"):

TRUMP HELPS GOP WIN IN 2016 & THEY TURN ON HIM.

IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT PUTIN, RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, NOR ELECTION FRAUD.

INSTEAD IT IS JUST DIRTY POLITICS AS USUAL PREPARING FOR THE 2020 ELECTION.

GOP TOP BRASS FINALLY REVEALS TWO PARTY GOV'T NO LONGER EXISTS.......TRUMP IS JUST A SCAPEGOAT.

DEMOCRATS AND THE GOP HAVE MORPHED INTO ONE GOV'T.

WHICH POLITICAL PARTY WINS IN 2020?

BOTH PARTIES WILL WIN BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORPHED INTO ONE.


Post Sources: ABC News, NBC News, NY Times, CNN, Youtube


***** Republicans Rebuke Trump for Siding With Putin as Democrats Demand Action


For nearly two years, Republicans have watched uncomfortably, and often in silence, as President Trump has swatted away accusations that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential race, attacked his own intelligence agencies and flattered President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

On Monday, even for members of his own party, Mr. Trump apparently went too far.

The president’s extraordinary news conference with Mr. Putin in Helsinki, Finland, stunned Republicans across the ideological spectrum and the party’s political apparatus, leaving them struggling to respond after the president undermined his national intelligence director, blamed both the United States and Russia for poor relations between the two countries and seemingly agreed to Mr. Putin’s suggestion that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, cooperate with Russia.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, declared, “No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant.” Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and Trump adviser, declared the news conference “the most serious mistake of his presidency.” Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee and current Senate candidate from Utah, called it “disgraceful and detrimental to our democratic principles.”

The effect extended far beyond official Washington. One local official — Chris Gagin, the chairman of the Republican Party in Belmont County, Ohio — resigned his post, announcing on Twitter that he “did so as a matter of conscience, and my sense of duty.” Neil Cavuto, a Fox Business Network host, called Mr. Trump’s performance “disgusting,” adding, “I’m sorry, it’s the only way I feel. It’s not a right or left thing to me, it’s just wrong.”

Yet no Republican in Congress pledged any particular action to punish Mr. Trump, such as holding up his nominees or delaying legislation, nor did any Republican promise hearings or increased oversight.

It was left to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to demand actual action. He called for increased sanctions on Russia; for Mr. Trump’s national security team to testify before Congress; for defense of the Department of Justice and other intelligence agencies; and for Mr. Trump to press Mr. Putin to extradite the 12 Russian intelligence agents who were indicted Friday.

“In the entire history of our country, Americans have never seen a president of the United States support an adversary the way President Trump has supported President Putin,” Mr. Schumer said.

He added: “A single, ominous question now hangs over the White House: What could possibly cause President Trump to put the interests of Russia over those of the United States? Millions of Americans will continue to wonder. The only possible explanation for this dangerous behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump.”

Republican leaders largely tempered their remarks, confining their backhanded comments to denunciations of Russia and expressions of faith in American intelligence agencies. But even they appeared to have given up hope that they could shape the actions of an erratic and unpredictable president.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, concluded that Mr. Trump was unable to distinguish between the fact that Russia had interfered in the election and the accusation — as yet unproven — that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia.

“In the president’s mind, I think he’s conflating different things — the meddling and the collusion allegations for which there does not appear to be any evidence,” Mr. Cornyn said.

Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and a former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who has defended Mr. Trump amid the Russia inquiry, was not quite as charitable: “I understand in the bigger picture the president genuinely feels that he can establish better relations with Russia the way Nixon did with China,” Mr. King said in an interview, “but the nuance eludes him.”

And as to Mr. Trump’s openness to having Russia cooperate with Mr. Mueller’s investigation, Mr. King said, “It would be like bringing ISIS into a joint terrorism task force.”

At least one Republican, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, veered from the script and delivered a full-throated defense of Mr. Trump: “I think it’s a good idea to have engagement, and I guess I don’t quite understand all of the people who have gone completely deranged criticizing the president.”

Elected Republicans have been uneasy about Mr. Trump’s unorthodox views toward Russia and his willingness to embrace Mr. Putin since Mr. Trump first grabbed the attention of the party as its primary contest heated up in summer 2015. Many thought that once he was in office, surrounded by Washington’s national security experts, Mr. Trump would adopt the wary stance that has guided previous American presidents.

Instead, time and again he has defied those expectations, as he repeatedly called into question the collective conclusions of the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other intelligence agencies, and ignored his own advisers’ advice in seeking a personal relationship with Mr. Putin.

For most Republicans on Capitol Hill and around the country, Mr. Trump’s stance toward Mr. Putin, coupled with his recent attacks on the United States’ allies in Europe, have presented a challenge: either defend the post-World War II international order, and risk angering a president who is immensely popular with their voters, or hold their tongues.

That challenge is especially tricky for Republican leaders, who must work closely with Mr. Trump and are especially reluctant to criticize him in public.

Hours passed on Monday before Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, commented. During a rare hallway interview in the Capitol, he uttered three terse sentences: “The Russians are not our friends. I’ve said that repeatedly, I say it again today. And I have complete confidence in our intelligence community and the findings that they have announced.” He refused to answer questions.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan was a bit more pointed. “The president must appreciate that Russia is not our ally,” he said in a carefully worded statement. “There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia, which remains hostile to our most basic values and ideals.”

Democrats wanted more than carefully calibrated statements.

“This is a disgraceful moment. The president’s party knows better,” John Kerry, the former secretary of state and senator, wrote in a statement. “America needs them to speak out with clarity and conviction not just in this news cycle, but until there’s common sense governing America’s foreign policy.”

Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, suggested on Twitter that if Republicans “were serious,” they would pass a long-stalled legislation protecting the jobs of special counsels such as Mr. Mueller.

But Republican leaders did not appear ready to go beyond measured phrases. Mr. Cornyn told reporters that it was “wishful thinking” to expect Mr. Putin to agree to the extradition of the 12 Russian agents. “Much of what Senator Schumer’s asking for, I think we’ve already done,” he added.

As Republican leaders struggled to come up with tactful ways to respond to a stunning news conference, responses from some of their colleagues signified a moment when Republicans could not defend their president.

Mr. McCain’s was undoubtedly the harshest.

“It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout — as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience,” said Mr. McCain, who has brain cancer.

“But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician,” he continued. “These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world.”

Mr. McCain’s fellow Republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, released his own rebuke: “I never thought I would see the day when our American President would stand on the stage with the Russian President and place blame on the United States for Russian aggression. This is shameful.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican Alaska, struck a mournful tone: “Sadly President Trump did not defend America to the Russian president, and for the world to see. Instead, what I saw today was not ‘America First,’ it was simply a sad diminishment of our great nation.”

Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska and a frequent critic of Mr. Trump, echoed the sentiment. “Everyone in this body should be disgusted by what happened in Helsinki today,” he said Monday in a speech on the Senate floor.

Even for congressional Republicans used to avoiding commenting on the president’s outbursts, Mr. Trump’s performance in Helsinki was difficult to ignore. For those who are accustomed to speaking out against Mr. Trump, and those whose impending retirements have freed them to do so, it was yet another occasion for public hand-wringing.

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the retiring chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that he “did not think this was a good moment for our country.”

It was, he added, a very good moment for Mr. Putin.

“It was almost an approval, if you will, a public approval by the greatest nation on earth towards him,” Mr. Corker told reporters. “I would guess he’s having caviar right now.”

GOP VOTES TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS (2018 & 2020)

GOP WORKS TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS:

IS THIS HOW THE GOP PLANS TO WIN IN 2020?


Sources: NY Times, Bloomberg Politics, Youtube


****** Senate Weighs Changes to Tax Bill on the Same Day They Could Vote


• The Senate will convene at 10 a.m. Friday to continue the debate on taxes, ahead of a possible final vote later in the day.

• Republicans seemed to be inching toward victory on Thursday and picked up the support of Senator John McCain of Arizona.

• But they faced a setback late in the day when they were left scrambling to find hundreds of billions of dollars in extra revenue to satisfy concerns about the bill’s deficit effects.

• Lawmakers are now mulling options that would result in a tax increase down the road, including a possible increase in the corporate tax rate and the revival of the alternative minimum tax on wealthy individuals and some companies.

Republican leaders ended Thursday with the same problem they started with: They still need to secure 50 votes to be able to pass their tax bill.

Their effort appeared to be gaining momentum on Thursday, with talk of a final vote later that night or early Friday.

But by the end of the day, they were contending with twin setbacks, both involving how the bill would affect federal budget deficits.

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said in an analysis released on Thursday afternoon that the legislation would add $1 trillion to federal budget deficits over a decade, even after accounting for economic growth.

In addition, a provision meant to prevent ballooning deficits ran into parliamentary problems. The provision would have increased taxes if economic growth fell short of expectations, but it was deemed by the Senate parliamentarian to run afoul of budget rules that must be followed if the bill is to be shielded from a Democratic filibuster.

Without the so-called trigger, the votes of a handful of Republicans, including Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, appeared at risk.

“Senator Corker has been pretty clear he doesn’t want any deficit spending,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said on Thursday, adding that he did not agree with the Joint Committee on Taxation’s assessment.

To pass the tax bill in the Senate, Republican leaders can lose only two of their members, assuming Democrats are unified against the measure.

The Senate will convene on Friday morning and the debate on taxes will continue. At some point, the Senate will undertake a marathon of amendment votes known as a vote-a-rama. Eventually, there would be a final vote on the legislation.

But in the meantime, Republicans need to decide how they want to change their bill. To satisfy Mr. Corker, for example, Republicans were discussing putting in place tax increases that would take effect some years from now, a step that would soften the deficit effects of the legislation.

Will they decide to raise taxes?

The options under discussion to satisfy the deficit hawks could essentially result in a tax increase down the road. Lawmakers have talked about raising the corporate tax rate above 20 percent after a period of years. There’s also discussion about reviving the alternative minimum tax, or A.M.T., on high-net individuals and some companies.

Both of those ideas are unlikely to sit well with some Republicans, including those in the House, who could be criticized for essentially voting to increase taxes.

Lawmakers may decide that’s a risk worth taking or they could ultimately decide to jettison the deficit hawks’ concerns and lose their votes.

Several senators are worth watching.

As Republicans mull changes to their tax plan, the spotlight will focus on several senators with varying concerns.

Republican leaders do not need to win over all of these lawmakers. In fact, they could decide that some demands are simply not worth meeting — assuming they can satisfy other Republicans and therefore get the 50 votes they need. Vice President Mike Pence can also provide a tiebreaking vote.

At least a handful of senators have expressed concerns about the deficit, including Mr. Corker and Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and James Lankford of Oklahoma. Now that the trigger is dead, Republicans may need to come up with another idea to protect against piling up debt as a result of the tax overhaul.

Two Republicans, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Steve Daines of Montana, have objected to how the bill treats pass-through businesses, whose profits are distributed to owners and taxed at individual rates. In light of their concerns, Republicans plan to sweeten the tax treatment of these businesses.

Finally, there is Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican who has her own concerns about the tax overhaul. She wants the bill to allow individuals to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes, and adding that provision could help win her over.

51 - 50 JOHN MCCAIN RETURNS TO VOTE FOR REPEAL OF OBAMACARE (HISTORY)

51 - 50 JOHN MCCAIN RETURNS TO VOTE FOR REPEAL OF OBAMACARE (HISTORY):

US SENATE MAJORITY VOTES TO CLEAR TEST VOTE FOR FLOOR DEBATES.

AUTHENTIC AFFORDABLE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS POSSIBLE.

NOT TAXES AND POPULATION CONTROL DISGUISED AS UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE BUT AUTHENTIC UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

GOP LEADERS MUST KEEP THEIR HEALTH CARE CAMPAIGN PROMISE TO AMERICAN VOTERS WHO GAVE THEM CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE.


Sources: Fox News, Euro News, Youtube


***** Senate health bill clears test vote, aided by McCain


Senate Republicans on Tuesday resuscitated their health care legislation for now, narrowly clearing it past a key hurdle with the help of Sen. John McCain’s dramatic return to the chamber for the first time since his brain cancer diagnosis.

The Senate voted 51-50 to start debate, with Vice President Pence casting the tie-breaker. The procedural vote once again brings the ObamaCare overhaul legislation back from the brink of collapse, after intense pressure from President Trump who had demanded senators skip recess until they act on health care.

The bill still faces a tough road ahead. But it was a heavy lift just to get to this point.

No Democrats supported the motion, leaving Republicans to corral the necessary 50 votes. They got exactly that, requiring Pence to break the tie, for the fifth time under the Trump administration.

The airtight vote made McCain’s return all the more significant, as the measure could not have advanced without him.

The result was kept in suspense for a while. Sens. Susan Collins, of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, voted no from the start. Several other Republican senators then delayed casting their vote, with no wiggle room left for additional defections on the GOP side.

Applause then broke out as McCain entered the chamber, pointing at his colleagues and shaking hands. As he joined, the last GOP holdout, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., voted with the Arizona senator to start debate.

Trump applauded the development in a statement, urging the Senate to follow through:

"I applaud the Senate for taking a giant step to end the Obamacare nightmare. As this vote shows, inaction is not an option, and now the legislative process can move forward as intended to produce a bill that lowers costs and increases options for all Americans. The Senate must now pass a bill and get it to my desk so we can finally end the Obamacare disaster once and for all."

Tuesday’s procedural vote kicks off what is likely to be another intense round of debate on health care, in which senators are sure to propose numerous changes to the plan – which could either boost or doom its chances. If a bill passes, it would still have to be reconciled with the House version.

McCain warned colleagues after the test vote that he would not support the bare-bones, “shell” bill in its current form as he urged lawmakers from both parties to reach across the aisle.

“We’re getting nothing done my friends,” McCain said from the floor, adding “something has to be done” on health care.

As the test vote began, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urged his Republican colleagues to follow through on campaign promises to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

“We have a duty to act. … The president is ready with his pen,” he said. “We can’t let this moment slip by.”

Moments earlier, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., beseeched Republicans to “turn back.”

“We know the ACA is not perfect. But we also know what you’ve proposed is much worse,” he said.

A rowdy group of protesters also interrupted the start of proceedings, chanting, “kill the bill, don’t kill us” and “shame.”

For their part, Democrats uniformly oppose the effort to tear down President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement. Republicans control the chamber 52-48, meaning they could afford to lose just two Republicans with McCain around.

Trump had kept up the pressure on GOP lawmakers, tweeting that "After 7 years of talking, we will soon see whether or not Republicans are willing to step up to the plate!" He added: "ObamaCare is torturing the American People. The Democrats have fooled the people long enough. Repeal or Repeal & Replace! I have pen in hand."

McConnell's original bill would abolish much of Obama's law, eliminating its tax penalties on people not buying policies, cutting Medicaid, eliminating its tax boosts on medical companies and providing less generous health care subsidies for consumers. But at least a dozen GOP senators have openly said they oppose or criticized the measure, which McConnell revised as he's hunted Republican support.

For the time being, he won over Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who backed starting debate. He said McConnell told him the Senate would debate Paul's proposal to scuttle much of Obama's law and give Congress two years to enact a replacement -- an amendment that seemed certain to lose.

Moderates also were seeking additional money for states that would be hurt by cuts in Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor, the disabled and nursing home patients. Conservatives wanted a vote on a proposal by Ted Cruz, R-Texas, letting insurers offer bare-bones policies with low premiums, which would be illegal under Obama's law.

With leaders still struggling to line up enough votes to approve a wide-ranging overhaul of Obama's law, there was talk of trying to pass a narrow bill -- details still unclear -- so House-Senate bargainers could craft a compromise.

HEALTH CARE BILL CUTS MANAGES MEDICAID SPENDING BUT DOESN'T KILL IT

HEALTH CARE BILL REDUCES MEDICAID SPENDING BUT DOESN'T KILL IT:

QUALITY CARE NOT WASTE AND ABUSE.

PROVIDES MORE HEALTHCARE JOBS & TRAINING.

GOP LEADERS MUST WORK TOGETHER FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM.


Sources: Fox Business, Washington Times, Youtube


**** GOP Senator on Health Care Bill: Medicaid Spending Will Increase


Sen. John Thune, (R-SD), one of the senators who worked behind closed doors on the GOP health care bill, said that Medicaid spending will increase under the new bill.

"It will increase every year at the rate of inflation," Thune stated. He added that the bill aims to build upon the success of innovation already happening with respect to Medicaid.

Sen. John Thune, (R-SD), one of the senators who worked behind closed doors on the GOP health care bill, said that Medicaid spending will increase under the new bill.

"It will increase every year at the rate of inflation," Thune stated. He added that the bill aims to build upon the success of innovation already happening with respect to Medicaid.

House Speaker Paul Ryan also downplayed concerns, saying the bill must be written before it is presented.

"This shifts power, distributes power back to the states," Thune said.

The GOP bill will allow for more choices and competition, the South Dakota congressman promised.

"Too often these programs are driven out of Washington, D.C. in a one size fits all approach," Thune concluded.

Later on in the show, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) pushed back on Thune's claims, saying the Medicaid cuts are deeper than in the House version.

He said the bill "shifts the burden" for covering Medicaid to states, rather than providing more money for the program.

NEIL GORSUCH: DEMS STOP THE BULL & GIVE UP-OR-DOWN VOTE NOW

NEIL GORSUCH: DEMS STOP THE BULL & GIVE UP-OR-DOWN VOTE:

GORSUCH IS NOT ROBERT BORK.

GORSUCH IS BALANCED, QUALIFIED AND FIRMLY UPHOLDS US CONSTITUTION.


Sources: CBS News, CNN, The Hill, YouTube


***** McConnell Says "Give Gorsuch An Up-Or-Down Vote"


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is calling for Democrats to give President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, an up-or-down vote.

In a piece published Monday in Politico, McConnell called Gorsuch an "exceptional nominee." He said Gorsuch is recognized as "an accomplished, principled and fair jurist," adding that when he was nominated to his current seat on the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, "no one cast a single negative vote against his nomination."

"Now, Schumer says he has such 'serious concerns' about Gorsuch that he’s threatening to filibuster his nomination and leave open the seat indefinitely," McConnell said.

"What changed?"

Gorsuch hasn't changed, McConnell said.

"So why would Democrats contemplate doing something so radical and out of the mainstream now — against a superbly qualified judge Democrats didn’t raise objections to before, a man Democrats have praised many times since?" he asked.

"Turns out, much of the opposition we’re seeing from far left groups and Democratic senators isn’t really about Judge Gorsuch at all. It’s about President Donald Trump."

McConnell went on to blast the Democrats for vowing to fight whomever the president tapped for the Supreme Court before Trump even named his nominee.

The Senate majority leader acknowledged the Democrats are having a "rough time coming to grips with the election results."

"I realize that Leader Schumer in particular is under immense pressure from the radical fringes of our politics," he wrote.

"But he and his party can’t allow themselves to be led around by the far left."

McConnell said he's been consistent in his belief that the next president should select the next Supreme Court justice.

He said he maintained that opinion — even when many believed former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would be elected.

"But now the election season is over, and we have a new president who has nominated a superbly qualified candidate to fill that ninth seat," he said.

"Democrats now have a choice. They can tear our country apart further, or they can stand up and lead. I invite Leader Schumer and his party, who repeatedly declared how necessary it was to have nine justices on the court, to now follow through on their refrain of 'we need nine' by giving this tremendously well-qualified nominee fair consideration and an up-or-down vote."

GOP KEEPS CONGRESS IN 2016 ELECTION; REFERENDUM ON CORRUPTION

GOP MAINTAINS CONTROL OF CONGRESS IN 2016:

IT'S A REFERENDUM ON CORRUPTION.

THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN.

Sources: CNN, Bloomberg Politics, YouTube


**** Republicans keep control of Congress

Republicans won virtually all the battlegrounds needed to keep the Senate majority
The Donald Trump wave helped several incumbents hold on to their seats
Republicans pulled off a political stunner Tuesday night -- running the table down-ballot and keeping control of the House and Senate, CNN projects.

In a year when the GOP was almost entirely on defense, the party's incumbents -- many outspent and hobbled by struggling campaigns -- managed to survive a political landscape that long appeared all but certain to cost them the Senate.

Democrats believed they had the perfect mix: Near-locks in blue Illinois and Wisconsin. Top-grade recruits in red states Indiana and Missouri to get them close. And Donald Trump would drag down Republican incumbents in the battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and North Carolina.

Then, on Tuesday night, everything went wrong for them.

The biggest surprise is that Trump was no drag on the GOP ticket at all -- and might have even helped carry the party.

Trump's margin of victory matched or exceeded those of Todd Young in Indiana and Sen. Richard Burr in North Carolina. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who embraced Trump despite expectations the GOP nominee lose his historically Democratic-leaning state, surged late in the race and benefited from Trump's stunning performance there. Incumbents Roy Blunt in Missouri and Pat Toomey won as well, CNN projects.

As of 3 a.m. ET, Republicans held 51 seats to 47 for the Democrats.

The Democrats' lone bright spots were knocking off Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk and holding retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's seat in Nevada with a victory by Catherine Cortez Masto. There is still a chance in New Hampshire, where GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Democrat Maggie Hassan were neck-and-neck at votes were still being counted.

But there's nothing that will lessen the sting for Democrats.

The Republicans easily held the House, and on a night party officials were confident they'd tip the balance of power in the Senate, Republicans not only remain the majority party -- but appear to head into the 2018 midterms with a map so favorable that a filibuster-proof, 60-seat supermajority is within reach.

The magnitude of the GOP's down-ballot victories was stunning. Its incumbents held seats most Republicans began the 2016 election cycle assuming were lost in some states and overcame weak campaigns in others.

In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio -- whose late decision to seek re-election after his failed presidential bid was a boon to the GOP's chances of keeping the Senate -- will best Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy, CNN projects. Republican Sen. Rob Portman will also win re-election in Ohio, CNN projects. He ran what's likely the best Republican campaign of the cycle -- turning what was expected to be a close race with Democratic former Gov. Ted Strickland into a likely blowout.

Indiana delivered major a blow to Democrats' hopes. Former governor and senator Evan Bayh's late entry was expected to turn the state into a guaranteed pickup -- but scrutiny over his residency and lobbying work catapulted Republican Rep. Todd Young to victory, CNN projects.

Democrats picked off one of the five seats they need when Tammy Duckworth defeated Republican Sen. Mark Kirk in Illinois. That race was always a challenge for Kirk, who won Illinois in the 2010 Tea Party wave in the mid-term elections.

(CNN)Republicans pulled off a political stunner Tuesday night -- running the table down-ballot and keeping control of the House and Senate, CNN projects.

In a year when the GOP was almost entirely on defense, the party's incumbents -- many outspent and hobbled by struggling campaigns -- managed to survive a political landscape that long appeared all but certain to cost them the Senate.

Democrats believed they had the perfect mix: Near-locks in blue Illinois and Wisconsin. Top-grade recruits in red states Indiana and Missouri to get them close. And Donald Trump would drag down Republican incumbents in the battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and North Carolina.


Then, on Tuesday night, everything went wrong for them.

The biggest surprise is that Trump was no drag on the GOP ticket at all -- and might have even helped carry the party.

Trump's margin of victory matched or exceeded those of Todd Young in Indiana and Sen. Richard Burr in North Carolina. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who embraced Trump despite expectations the GOP nominee lose his historically Democratic-leaning state, surged late in the race and benefited from Trump's stunning performance there. Incumbents Roy Blunt in Missouri and Pat Toomey won as well, CNN projects.

As of 3 a.m. ET, Republicans held 51 seats to 47 for the Democrats.

The Democrats' lone bright spots were knocking off Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk and holding retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's seat in Nevada with a victory by Catherine Cortez Masto. There is still a chance in New Hampshire, where GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Democrat Maggie Hassan were neck-and-neck at votes were still being counted.

But there's nothing that will lessen the sting for Democrats.

The Republicans easily held the House, and on a night party officials were confident they'd tip the balance of power in the Senate, Republicans not only remain the majority party -- but appear to head into the 2018 midterms with a map so favorable that a filibuster-proof, 60-seat supermajority is within reach.

The magnitude of the GOP's down-ballot victories was stunning. Its incumbents held seats most Republicans began the 2016 election cycle assuming were lost in some states and overcame weak campaigns in others.

In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio -- whose late decision to seek re-election after his failed presidential bid was a boon to the GOP's chances of keeping the Senate -- will best Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy, CNN projects. Republican Sen. Rob Portman will also win re-election in Ohio, CNN projects. He ran what's likely the best Republican campaign of the cycle -- turning what was expected to be a close race with Democratic former Gov. Ted Strickland into a likely blowout.

Indiana delivered major a blow to Democrats' hopes. Former governor and senator Evan Bayh's late entry was expected to turn the state into a guaranteed pickup -- but scrutiny over his residency and lobbying work catapulted Republican Rep. Todd Young to victory, CNN projects.

Democrats picked off one of the five seats they need when Tammy Duckworth defeated Republican Sen. Mark Kirk in Illinois. That race was always a challenge for Kirk, who won Illinois in the 2010 Tea Party wave in the mid-term elections.

View this interactive content on CNN.com
Control of the Senate will be key to the early successes of a Trump administration. In theory, controlling Congress and the White House will let the GOP swiftly pass legislation that reverses many of Obama's policies.

Republicans holding their own

Republicans faced a daunting task at the outset of the 2016 election cycle: They held 24 of the 34 seats on the ballot -- meaning many more to defend.

But strong GOP candidates have helped the party pull some contests in presidential swing states off the board such as Florida and Ohio.

In Florida, Rubio's loss in the presidential primary turned out to be the GOP's gain, as he held on to that seat.

Two other former GOP presidential candidates also won their Senate re-election bids, CNN projects. Sen. Rand Paul won in Kentucky, as did 2008 nominee John McCain in Arizona.

In Georgia, Sen. Johnny Isakson was struggling earlier in the year, but he will defeat Democratic challenger Jim Barksdale, CNN projects.

Two more Republicans who were expected to be safe -- Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt and North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr -- found themselves in closer races than expected.

In North Carolina, Burr's late fundraising start -- combined with the Clinton campaign's focus there -- allowed Democrat Ross to turn the state into a toss-up, but he won impressively.

And in Missouri, Secretary of State Jason Kander has run one of the strongest Democratic campaigns -- punctuated by a TV spot that featured the military veteran rebutting attack ads from the National Rifle Association by assembling an AR-15 rifle while blindfolded. But it doesn't appear to be enough to defeat Blunt.

Blame Comey?

Clinton's recent troubles, including the late focus on her email server, may have hurt Democrats down ballot.

House Democrats remain frustrated with FBI Director James Comey, who made a revelation 11 days before the election that the bureau was once again looking into emails potentially tied to its investigation of Clinton. Democrats believe his announcement provided down-ballot Republicans an opportunity to shift topics and attack Clinton, rather than defend Trump.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that Comey "became the leading political operative in the country -- wittingly or unwittingly."

Pelosi blamed Comey for costing Democrats a shot at winning Republican seats across the country, saying he created "more of an obstacle that we hope to overcome" but adding, "it's difficult."

Mitch McConnell Concedes Repealing Obamacare Is Darn Near Impossible! (2012 Campaign Gimmick)

Mitch McConnell: Odds Are Against Health Care Law Repeal

It's on his to-do list, but U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says the odds are against repealing the health care law championed by President Barack Obama.

The Kentucky Republican said Monday it's hard to unravel something of the magnitude of the 2,700-page health care law, WHAS-TV reports.

"If you thought it was a good idea for the federal government to go in this direction, I'd say the odds are still on your side," McConnell said. "Because it's a lot harder to undo something than it is to stop it in the first place."

McConnell discussed the law in comments to about 50 people at Hardin Memorial Hospital in Elizabethtown. The state's senior senator was making stops at Kentucky hospitals discussing what's next since last week's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court's that the law was constitutional.

The court upheld the law's crucial mandate that individuals buy health insurance or face a penalty.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, provided the pivotal vote in that decision by ruling that the penalty was legal under the government's taxing authority. While technically handing a political victory to Obama, Roberts' ruling invigorated Republicans eager to cast the law as a new tax.

McConnell still says he'll do whatever he can to repeal the law.

If given control of the Senate next year, McConnell said he would support using budget reconciliation rules to repeal it. Doing so would prohibit Senate filibusters and require only 51 votes to succeed. In 2010, Republicans lambasted Democrats for relying on these rules to pass the health care bill, calling their tactics unusual and hyperpartisan.

"I'm confident they're going to give us the votes to repeal it," he said of the American public.





Even with Repeal, "Obamacare" will be hard to unwind, McConnell says

In his first Kentucky comments since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that even if "Obamacare" is repealed, the health care law will not easily go away.

"If you thought it was a good idea for the federal government to go in this direction, I'd say the odds are still on your side," McConnell told workers at Hardin Memorial Hospital, "because it's a lot harder to undo something than it is to stop it in the first place."

Yet, McConnell is still calling for the repeal, calling it a "mega issue" of the general election.

"I don't think there is any bigger issue in the fall election except for the general effect of the economy," McConnell said to several reporters after the hospital appearance, "which this has contributed to making so poor."

President Obama's Supreme Court victory on Thursday came with a road map for Republican plans to reverse the law.

Because Chief Justice John Roberts ruled the law constitutional under Congress' taxing authority, McConnell said Congress can use that same power to roll back the tax, explaining that process would take a simple majority, not a 60 vote super majority.

"The Chief Justice has made it clear, it's a tax," McConnell said. "That's the last word. It's a tax. That's appropriate for the Senate to consider with 51 votes."

McConnell's embrace of the taxation definition is at odds with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, whose campaign on Monday agreed with the Obama administration's stance that the government will impose a penalty, and not a tax, on people who fail to purchase health insurance.

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney spearheaded a policy that also included penalties under similar circumstances.

McConnell told the hospital workers that while Romney's policy was an acceptable exercise of a state's prerogative, the Obama policy was an overreach by the federal government.

"I didn't say it was appropriate," McConnell responded when asked to explain the difference. "I said it was (Romney's) decision. A state can do it legally. There's no question that a state can do this legally if they choose to. The question before the court was whether the federal government could. And, they actually said you couldn't under the Commerce Clause, but you could with tax power."

In Shelbyville, fellow Senate Republican Rand Paul expressed concern about the judicial branch granting any more taxing power to Congress.

"I think it's an important battle still that goes on whether or not Congress is limited by certain proscriptions within the constitution," Paul lamented. "And I think this gets away from that. And, I think that's why it's a really bad decision."

Yet, Paul agreed that the Supreme Court decision will galvanize Republican voters.

"I think it emboldens the conservative base," Paul told WHAS11. "It emboldens the Tea Party. I think you start to see bigger crowds again accumulating. I think Governor Romney has said that he would give a 50 state waiver immediately, day one. I think it will be a rallying cry."

Asked what he would do to improve health care access in place of "Obamacare," McConnell said the key is to make health care more affordable. He suggested increased competition among health insurance companies across state lines and a reduction in legal costs of medical practitioners through tort reform.

Those suggestions, however, do not address a central tenet of the health care law, which brings into the fold an estimated 30 million Americans who do not have health insurance.

While the Republican Leader has said that individual states can facilitate high risk pools for the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions, only 35 states currently offer such a program.

Asked about the remainder, McConnell told WHAS11 that voters should insist that individual states tackle the issue.

"I think the people are going to demand high-risk pools in all the states," McConnell said. "That's what happens in a political process. There's a need and people run for office with a promise to fill that need. And, that's the way to do it."

Though a recent Associated-Press poll showed that only 33 percent of Americans support the health care law while 47 percent of Americans oppose it, Democrats appear confident in other poll results which show Americans more supportive of individual provisions of the law, such as providing insurance coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

Asked if the GOP wants to run on a platform of taking something away that President Obama has secured, McConnell didn't blink.

"Sure," the senator replied. "We're going to take away the half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts, take away the $500 billion in new taxes, (we'll) be happy to take that away."

"I don't think anybody likes any of that," McConnell continued, "This Obamacare law is extremely unpopular and I think it's important to have a referendum on it. The Chief Justice in his decision said it would be up to the American people to make this decision. That's why we have elections. We have one on the first Tuesday in November."

The U.S. House is scheduled to vote on the repeal next week. The Democrat controlled Senate, however, is not expected to consider it. The House vote puts all members on the record four months before the election.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, AOL, Fox News, Huffington Post, WHAS11, Youtube, Google Maps

Romney & GOP Can't Repeal "Obamacare" EVER! 4 Reasons Why

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

4 Reasons Why Republicans Won’t Be Able To Repeal Obamacare

Responding to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Congressional Republicans have scheduled a vote in the House to repeal the law and Mitt Romney pledged to undo the measure if he’s elected president in November.

But unless the GOP wins a super majority in the Senate — a scenario no one thinks is plausible — it can do little more than weaken Obamacare’s regulations and defund some of its provisions.


Here is why:

1) Romney has no authority to issue waivers.

Romney has promised to expand a provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows states to opt out of certain sections of the law to permit states to ignore it entirely. But the executive branch and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) likely don’t have the authority to grant such broad waivers.

According to the law, HHS (together with the IRS) have waiver authority, but only if the states meet very specific requirements.

Neither have blanket waiver authority, which would have to come from Congress.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — the author of the waiver provision — has challenged Romney’s claims, saying, “Anybody who tries to move outside the standards of the bill — which is the coverage and costs and the like — well I’ll certainly fight that. But I think lots of other people will too.”


2) Congress can’t repeal the full law through reconciliation.

Without the necessary 60 votes in the Senate for full repeal, Republicans are pledging to use a budget reconciliation bill to undo the ACA.

But this process would only apply to the budget-related elements of the law and would thus leave many portions — including the mandate — intact.

As health care expert Robert Laszewski put it, “Romney could end up creating a chaotic environment driven by enormous uncertainty over just which parts of the new health care law would be implemented–for consumers, health care providers, and insurers.”


3) Republicans have nothing to replace it with.

David Frum explains that since the expansion of coverage provisions go into effect in 2014, Romney would have just one year to both repeal and replace the law.

Republicans haven’t even coalesced around a single plan — and many in the party believe that the federal government should leave health care alone and want to leave the entire reform process to the states.

Thus, “if replacement does not happen in the first 100 days, it won’t happen at all—that is, it won’t happen as a single measure, but rather will take the form of dozens of small incremental changes adopted episodically over the next 20 years.”


4) Americans support Obamacare’s provisions.

While Americans may not like “Obamacare” — and the political process of passing it — they do support its major provisions and are likely to resist any effort by Republicans to take away their benefits.

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that while 56 percent of Americans oppose the law as a whole, 61 percent of respondents favored allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26, 72 percent wish to maintain the requirement that companies with more than 50 workers provide health insurance for their employees, and 82 percent of respondents favored banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

As more benefits roll out in 2014, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to argue for their repeal.


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, Meet The Press, MSNBC, Think Progress, Youtube, Google Maps

"30 Million Uninsured Not the Issue" Says McConnell: 4 Reasons Romney & GOP Can't Repeal

4 Reasons Why Republicans Won’t Be Able To Repeal Obamacare

Responding to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Congressional Republicans have scheduled a vote in the House to repeal the law and Mitt Romney pledged to undo the measure if he’s elected president in November.

But unless the GOP wins a super majority in the Senate — a scenario no one thinks is plausible — it can do little more than weaken Obamacare’s regulations and defund some of its provisions.


Here is why:

1) Romney has no authority to issue waivers.

Romney has promised to expand a provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows states to opt out of certain sections of the law to permit states to ignore it entirely. But the executive branch and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) likely don’t have the authority to grant such broad waivers.

According to the law, HHS (together with the IRS) have waiver authority, but only if the states meet very specific requirements.

Neither have blanket waiver authority, which would have to come from Congress.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — the author of the waiver provision — has challenged Romney’s claims, saying, “Anybody who tries to move outside the standards of the bill — which is the coverage and costs and the like — well I’ll certainly fight that. But I think lots of other people will too.”


2) Congress can’t repeal the full law through reconciliation.

Without the necessary 60 votes in the Senate for full repeal, Republicans are pledging to use a budget reconciliation bill to undo the ACA.

But this process would only apply to the budget-related elements of the law and would thus leave many portions — including the mandate — intact.

As health care expert Robert Laszewski put it, “Romney could end up creating a chaotic environment driven by enormous uncertainty over just which parts of the new health care law would be implemented–for consumers, health care providers, and insurers.”


3) Republicans have nothing to replace it with.

David Frum explains that since the expansion of coverage provisions go into effect in 2014, Romney would have just one year to both repeal and replace the law.

Republicans haven’t even coalesced around a single plan — and many in the party believe that the federal government should leave health care alone and want to leave the entire reform process to the states.

Thus, “if replacement does not happen in the first 100 days, it won’t happen at all—that is, it won’t happen as a single measure, but rather will take the form of dozens of small incremental changes adopted episodically over the next 20 years.”


4) Americans support Obamacare’s provisions.

While Americans may not like “Obamacare” — and the political process of passing it — they do support its major provisions and are likely to resist any effort by Republicans to take away their benefits.

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that while 56 percent of Americans oppose the law as a whole, 61 percent of respondents favored allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26, 72 percent wish to maintain the requirement that companies with more than 50 workers provide health insurance for their employees, and 82 percent of respondents favored banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

As more benefits roll out in 2014, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to argue for their repeal.





WHY ROMNEY WON’T REPEAL OBAMACARE

Mitt Romney, speaking just before noon today, declared that on his first day in office, “I will act to repeal Obamacare.” I think he chose his words carefully. As President, he may indeed “act” to repeal it on Day One, but I don’t believe he will actually be able to overturn the law.

If Romney were to win in November, the first matter he’d have to deal with would be the fallout from the so-called fiscal cliff of December 31st, the day when some five hundred billion dollars worth of tax increases and spending reductions take effect, which could put the economy into another recession (if it’s not already in recession by then).

This moment would perhaps be Romney’s greatest chance at repeal.

Because the fiscal-cliff negotiations will be an enormous fight over the size and scope of the federal government, every government policy will theoretically be open to debate—including, Romney might insist, repeal of the A.C.A.

But it’s a fantasy.

The negotiations would be dead before they started if Republicans demanded repeal as a price for a Grand Bargain on taxes, spending, and entitlements. The fiscal-cliff negotiations will undoubtedly include a great deal of horse-trading that will infuriate and cheer partisans on both sides.

But there is literally nothing Republicans could offer Democrats in return for repealing the Party’s greatest achievement since the Johnson Administration.

Assuming that Romney comes through this period of his transition and Presidency with a deal that settles the tax and spending issues brought about by the fiscal cliff (and the related debt-ceiling vote that will likely happen weeks later), he could then return to his domestic agenda, which, he declared today, includes repeal of the A.C.A. as the first priority.

But he would immediately face a set of political circumstances similar to the ones that made health care such a difficult issue for Obama in 2009.

Absent the Senate Democratic Caucus being found to be running a crack house or chid-prostitution ring, there is no prospect whatsoever of the Republicans winning a sixty-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate this year.

The most likely outcome is the Democrats narrowly retaining control, though Republican control is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Assuming that Romney comes to Washington without a sixty-vote majority in the Senate, the task of repeal will be nearly insurmountable.

First of all, the Congressional Budget Office, which “scores” all legislation—and which so frustrated Obama in 2009 that he refused to mention its name in White House meetings, demanding instead that aides call it “banana”—would now be the A.C.A.’s best friend.

The last time the C.B.O. weighed in on the matter, it reported that repeal of the A.C.A. would cost the government almost three hundred billion dollars.

Republicans dispute that, but they’d still be under pressure to explain where they would come up with that money.
The bigger problem, of course, would be in the Senate.

Remember the weeks that the Senate Finance Committee spent arguing over health care?

The committee would need to return for a repeat performance.

If Democrats still controlled the committee, Republicans would have to somehow force it to debate repeal and find at least one Democratic vote to send repeal legislation to the full Senate.

This is unlikely to happen.

But if it does, in order to become law, Romney’s repeal of the A.C.A. would face a battery of three separate tests requiring sixty Senate votes: one to bring the legislation to the floor, one to start the debate, and one to end the debate.

The filibuster, the G.O.P.’s favorite parliamentary device of the Obama era, would now be the Party’s great enemy.

Many Republicans, especially in the blog and talk-radio swamps, would cry, “Use reconciliation!” Readers familiar with the congressional debates of 2009-2010 will remember that this procedure allows certain budgetary measures to pass through the Senate with a simple majority.

(After Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by the Republican Scott Brown, Obama and congressional Democrats used the reconciliation process to make some final, crucial changes to the health-care law.)

But reconciliation wouldn’t work here—the process can only be used for policies that have budgetary effects and a C.B.O. score. Much of the A.C.A., such as the insurance exchanges and subsidies, would fall under these categories.

But a lot of it, including the hated individual mandate, does not. Repealing the exchanges and subsides without repealing the mandate and the other regulations and cost controls in the law would create a health-care Frankenstein that a President Romney would be rather nuts to support.

If the Supreme Court had gutted the law today by throwing out the mandate and the regulations and several of the other “non-scoreable” items, a President Romney with a G.O.P. Congress might have had a relatively easy time finishing the job of killing Obama’s law, even without sixty votes in the Senate.

But today the Court did two things that make repeal of the A.C.A. nearly impossible now: it has given its not-inconsequential stamp of legitimacy to the law, and it has made the parliamentary path of repeal through Congress highly unlikely and probably impossible, at least in the near future.

Far-sighted conservatives always thought that their great hope for toppling Obama’s most important legislative achievement was through the courts.

They were correct.



Sources: CBS News, Face The Nation, Fox News, New Yorker, Think Progress, Youtube

Obamacare Can't Legally Be Repealed! GOP Leaders Use "Repeal" As 2012 Campaign Fundraising Strategy

Could the Republicans really repeal Obamacare?

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of key provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the health care law commonly known as Obamacare, on Thursday, but on Capitol Hill, Republicans are vowing to press on with plans to fully repeal the law.

Repealing the law won't happen before January 2013. It would be dependent on a triple Republican victory this November: Mitt Romney would need to defeat President Barack Obama, Republicans must hold their majority in the House, and they must also gain enough seats in the Senate so they have at least 50 of their own in the upper chamber.

What about the filibuster? Don't you need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate?

Not in this case. Because Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion ruled the individual mandate a "tax," a Republican-led Senate could repeal that provision--and others--using what is called "budget reconciliation," a procedural tactic that requires only a simple majority vote. The Republican vice president, in this hypothetical scenario, would break the tie. (Democrats used the same method in 2010 to pass the health care bill.)

Budget reconciliation is at least one option that Senate Republicans are considering.

"There are a lot of ways to protect the American people from this horrible law, and Republicans are looking at all of them," John Ashbrook, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told Yahoo News when asked if the party's congressional leadership was open to repeal using that process.

In the meantime, House Republicans are scheduling their own vote to repeal the law on July 11, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced Thursday. The vote would be symbolic because it would never pass the Democrat-controlled Senate. Also, the same House a lready voted to repeal the law in January 2011, during the same Congress that is up for re-election in November.

Speaking outside the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Democratic leaders criticized Republicans for moving forward with another repeal vote after the Supreme Court ruled its key provisions constitutional.

"Now that all three branches of government have ratified the law, the time for quarreling is over," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer. "The time for disputing its validity is over. Congress should now return to its full time focus: The issue of jobs and the economy in America."

"If you ask people what they want us to focus on," he added, "it's not rehashing health care."


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, CNN, McClatchy Newspapers, Google Maps

Repeal Obamacare! Ignore SCOTUS Ruling! GOP Leaders Launch 2012 Repeal Campaign (What About The People?)

On June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court historically ruled Pres. Barack Obama's Affordable Health Care Act i.e., "Obamacare" to be Constitutional.

This includes the Mandatory Coverage provision which allows the Federal Government to Penalize Citizens who Refuse to purchase Health Care Insurance or who Refuse to Enroll in any kind of Health Care Insurance program, not excluding Medicaid & Medicare.

Many U.S. Presidents have tried however only one Truly Succeeded in Reforming our nation's Health Care Insurance System FOREVER.

Is it a Perfect Law?

Of Course Not!

However Perfect should NEVER be the enemy of what is Good.

Thus the Affordable Health Care Act is a Good Law which not only allows Children/ Dependents to remain on their Parents' Health Care Insurance plans until the age of 26, but also prohibits Health Care Insurance Companies from Denying Citizens the right for Coverage due to Pre-Existing Conditions.

The Affordable Health Care Act will Also help Create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs in the Health Care Industry.

And......

Most Importantly it will ultimately within the next 3 years Lower Health Care Insurance Premiums, allowing more Uninsured people to have Health Care Insurance Coverage versus using Hospital Emergency Rooms to receive Medical Care.

This is GREAT!!!

Absolutely GREAT!!!

Even Skeptics like myself agree that the SCOTUS decision to Uphold the Affordable Health Care was a Wonderful Decision!

Hold it!

Because Not everyone is celebrating.

Not everyone is happy to see Millions of Uninsured American Citizens have Affordable Access to Quality Health Care.

NOT Everyone!

Who isn't happy about this landmark legal decision?

Most GOP Leaders!

That's right!

Most GOP Leaders are Angry & Unhappy to see Millions of American Citizens have Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care in this Country.

Instead of celebrating & agreeing with the SCOTUS Decision on this ruling, they are plotting and scheming to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.

How Selfish & Stupid!

What about the PEOPLE who Elected them into Public Office?

What about the Millions of Uninsured, Underinsured, Sick people who will benefit from this ruling?

Don't they matter?

Apparently NOT!

Because Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, John Boehner & Michelle Bachmann are planning to use ALL of their Political Capital and more Taxpayer Money to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act i.e,., "Obamacare".

GOP Leaders have now launched a Tax Mandate/ Repeal "Obamacare" Campaign to Defeat Pres. Obama this Fall and Completely Ignore the recent SCOTUS ruling of his Affordable Health Care Act.

This is So Sad!

Thus Regardless of whom this GOP Repeal Effort will harm (American Voters), GOP Leaders are Hell-bent on making the Affordable Health Care Act Obsolete.

Regardless of the fact that Mitt Romney created the Original Blue Print for the Affordable Health Care Act via "Romneycare", GOP Leaders are Laser-Focused on Obliterating "Obamacare".

By the way "Romneycare" has been Very Successful in the State of Massachusetts, with more than 98% of the Population in that State being Properly Insured and the Health Care Insurance Premiums more Affordable than in other states.

Regardless of the Hundreds of Thousands of Health Care Industry JOBS that will be
Destroyed, GOP Leaders are Determined to wipe the Affordable Health Care Act off the Face of this Earth.

Why?

Because Most GOP Leaders are using the Affordable Health Care Act to hide behind RACISM.

They HATE Pres. Obama and Everything he stands for due to him being a BLACK Leader.

If Mitt Romney or George W. Bush had Passed Comprehensive Health Care Legislation, everyone of those GOP Leaders currently Opposing the Affordable Health Care Act would be 100% on board with Romney or Bush.

However because a BLACK Man passed this Important, Necessary Legislation (FOR THE PEOPLE), GOP Leaders are now Wroth with HATE.

And since the Affordable Health Care Act is Pres. Obama's Signature Legislation, the ONLY way those GOP Leaders can Eliminate his Complete Existence & Legacy is to Repeal that Law.

Please correct me if I'm Wrong but since the SCOTUS has already ruled the Affordable Health Care Act to be Constitutional and LEGAL, I don't see how GOP Leaders can Ignore this Law or Repeal it.

Any effort by Congress to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act would simply be Symbolic at best because the Law can NEVER legally be completely Repealed. EVER!

I believe GOP Leaders are LYING to the American People just to raise Money for Mitt Romney's Campaign.

Those GOP Leaders in Congress know good & well that they can NOT easily Repeal a Comprehensive Health Care Insurance Act that was Passed by Congress and Ruled Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

They know this!

So they have instead decided to LIE to Voters for Political Gain by attacking Justice John Roberts a Republican, launch a Massive Repeal "Obamacare" Campaign & Encourage Hospitals and Doctors to Largely Ignore the SCOTUS Health Care Law Ruling.

This is CRAZY!

I've often said that Racism makes people STUPID & Crazy, now I know its True.

It doesn't matter if Pres. Obama attempts to pass Financial Industry Reform, Comprehensive Education Reform, Student Loan Reform, Health Care Insurance Reform, Criminal Justice System Reform, Comprehensive Tax Reform, Affordable Housing Reform, Small Business Reform, Elderly Care Reform, Wall Street Reform, Tort Reform, Employment Discrimination Reform, etc.,

Whatever type of Meaningful Legislation Pres. Obama attempts to Pass, he will ALWAYS be blind-sided by Severe Political Opposition from some RACIST GOP & Democrat Leaders.

So what can the Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team do to Diminish what GOP Leaders are plotting against the Affordable Health Care Act?

Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team Need to Launch a Major Campaign to Educate the American People on ALL the Good, Effective Components & Provisions included within "Obamacare".

Educate the American VOTERS about why Justice John Roberts a True Conservative, decided to cast his Vote with the Court's so-called "Liberal" Justices.

Justice Roberts cast his Vote alongside Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor because the Affordable Health Care Act is Effective, Constitutional Legislation that will HELP All American Citizens including Many Children, have Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care without being Denied Coverage by Greedy Health Insurance Monopolies who previously used Pre-Existing Conditions to NOT Provide Insurance.

Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team MUST Broadcast the Benefits of the Affordable Health Care Act from all 4 Corners of American Soil.

NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST!!!!

Broadcast those Benefits Non-Stop from Now until the November Election!!

On June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Health Care Act to be CONSTITUTIONAL.

Thank You Pres. Obama!

Thank You Justice Roberts!!!

The American People Thank You Immensely!!!!








Roberts Hits the Reset Button

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding virtually all of the health care reform law (with the exception of a provision on Medicaid that does not really have much practical impact) is a great development, first of all, for Americans. The Affordable Care Act will provide insurance for tens of millions of working people and it will eventually help rationalize and bring down the costs of health care for everyone. This is a huge victory for President Obama at a critical time and a big loss for the right.

The decision also says a lot about Chief Justice John Roberts, who was on the verge of writing himself a reputation after seven years in office as a highly partisan player who was using see-saw majorities to further not just a conservative judicial philosophy but also the broad aims of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party.

This week began, however, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the majority in striking down most of Arizona’s immigration law and strongly reaffirming the power of the federal government to make immigration policy as part of its overall power to make foreign and national security policy.

Today, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, including the individual mandate to buy health insurance. It’s true that he rejected the government’s commerce clause defense—that it can impose a mandate under its power to regulate interstate commerce. With this reasoning, he arguably weakened the Commerce Clause itself, which has been the foundation of so many important laws and court rulings in the modern era, including those guaranteeing all Americans’ civil rights.

The Chief Justice made it clear from the start, in his testimony at his confirmation hearing, that he would apply a rigorous test for Commerce Clause arguments. “It’s not a question of abstract fact,” he said, “does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate.”

That part of the ruling could, in the long run, prove even more significant than upholding the health care reform law. But the health care ruling still was momentous, and it’s clear that Chief Justice Roberts was instrumental in making that happen. He did so by taking a relatively refined view: The requirement that all Americans buy health insurance is not really a mandate at all, but a tax, and is therefore constitutional since Congress clearly has the power to tax and spend.

As Scotusblog noted this morning, “That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.”

Chief Justice Roberts could have chosen to ignore that narrow way out and joined the four right-wing judges in striking down the entire law – an act of judicial recklessness that would have been read as an endorsement of Mr. Romney’s presidential candidacy. As it is, the Chief justice could hardly be accused of throwing his support to Mr. Obama.

This is going to be hard for right-wingers to swallow, since Chief Justice Roberts was their great standard bearer for conservative judicial and political thought and against “judicial activism.” But he has enhanced, in no small way, the reputation of a court whose standing has suffered greatly since Bush v Gore.

The next step for the right is to try to repeal the health care law through the legislative process. Only about an hour after the Court’s decision was announced, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor scheduled a vote for July 11.





Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law, 5-4, in Victory for Obama

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Obama’s health care overhaul law, saying its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members.

The decision was a victory for Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats, affirming the central legislative achievement of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the administration had pressed most vigorously in support of the law, that its individual mandate was justified by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The vote was again 5 to 4, but in this instance Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s four more conservative members were in agreement.

The court also substantially limited the law’s expansion of Medicaid, the joint federal-state program that provides health care to poor and disabled people. Seven justices agreed that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by coercing states into participating in the expansion by threatening them with the loss of existing federal payments.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who had been thought to be the administration’s best hope to provide a fifth vote to uphold the law, joined three more conservative members in an unusual jointly written dissent that said the court should have struck down the entire law. The majority’s approach, he said from the bench, “amounts to a vast judicial overreaching.”

The court’s ruling was the most significant federalism decision since the New Deal and the most closely watched case since Bush v. Gore in 2000. It was a crucial milestone for the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, allowing almost all — and perhaps, in the end, all — of its far-reaching changes to roll forward.

Mr. Obama welcomed the court’s decision on the health care law, which has inspired fierce protests, legal challenges and vows of repeal since it was passed. “Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives are more secure because of this law,” he said at the White House.

Republicans, though, used the occasion to attack it again.

“Obamacare was bad policy yesterday; it’s bad policy today,” Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said in remarks near the Capitol. “Obamacare was bad law yesterday; it’s bad law today.” He, like Congressional Republicans, renewed his pledge to undo the law.

The historic decision, coming after three days of lively oral arguments in March and in the midst of a presidential campaign, drew intense attention across the nation. Outside the court, more than 1,000 people gathered — packing the sidewalk, playing music, chanting slogans — and a loud cheer went up as word spread that the law had been largely upheld. Chants of “Yes we can!” rang out, but the ruling also provoked disappointment among Tea Party supporters.

In Loudoun County, Va., Angela Laws, 58, the owner of a cleaning service, said she and her fiancé were relieved at the news. “We laughed, and we shouted with joy and hugged each other,” she said, explaining that she had been unable to get insurance because of her diabetes and back problems until a provision in the health care law went into effect.

After months of uncertainty about the law’s fate, the court’s ruling provides some clarity — and perhaps an alert — to states, insurers, employers and consumers about what they are required to do by 2014, when much of the law comes into force.

The Obama administration had argued that the mandate was necessary because it allowed other provisions of the law to function: those overhauling the way insurance is sold and those preventing sick people from being denied or charged extra for insurance. The mandate’s supporters had said it was necessary to ensure that not only sick people but also healthy individuals would sign up for coverage, keeping insurance premiums more affordable.

Conservatives took comfort from two parts of the decision: the new limits it placed on federal regulation of commerce and on the conditions the federal government may impose on money it gives the states.

Five justices accepted the argument that had been at the heart of the challenges brought by 26 states and other plaintiffs: that the federal government is not permitted to force individuals not engaged in commercial activities to buy services they do not want. That was a stunning victory for a theory pressed by a small band of conservative and libertarian lawyers. Most members of the legal academy view the theory as misguided,if not frivolous.

“To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “But the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the framers, who were practical statesmen, not metaphysical philosophers.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an opinion joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented on this point, calling the view “stunningly retrogressive.” She wondered why Chief Justice Roberts had seen fit to address it at all in light of his vote to uphold the mandate under the tax power.

Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and a champion of the health care law, said that it was “important to look at the dark cloud behind the silver lining.”

“Federal power has more restrictions on it,” he said, referring to the new limits on regulating commerce. “Going forward, there may even be laws on the books that have to be re-examined.”

The restrictions placed on the Medicaid expansion may also have significant ripple effects. A splintered group of justices effectively revised the law to allow states to choose between participating in the expansion while receiving additional payments or forgoing the expansion and retaining the existing payments. The law had called for an all-or-nothing choice.

The expansion had been designed to provide coverage to 17 million Americans. While some states have indicated that they will participate in the expansion, others may be resistant, leaving more people outside the safety net than the Obama administration had intended.

Although the decision did not turn on it, the back-and-forth between Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the four liberals and the joint opinion by the four conservatives — Justice Kennedy and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — revisited the by-now-familiar arguments. Broccoli made a dozen appearances.

“Although an individual might buy a car or a crown of broccoli one day, there is no certainty she will ever do so,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “And if she eventually wants a car or has a craving for broccoli, she will be obliged to pay at the counter before receiving the vehicle or nourishment. She will get no free ride or food, at the expense of another consumer forced to pay an inflated price.”

The conservative dissenters responded that “one day the failure of some of the public to purchase American cars may endanger the existence of domestic automobile manufacturers; or the failure of some to eat broccoli may be found to deprive them of a newly discovered cancer-fighting chemical which only that food contains, producing health care costs that are a burden on the rest of us.”

All of the justices agreed that their review of the health care law was not barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, which allows suits over some sorts of taxes only after they become due. That could have delayed the health care challenge to 2015. The conservative dissenters said that the majority could not have it both ways by calling the mandate a tax for some purposes but not others.

“That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of sophists,” they said.

As a general matter, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the decision in the case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393, offered no endorsement of the law’s wisdom.

Some decisions, the chief justice said, “are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.”

Justice Ginsburg, speaking to a crowded courtroom that sat rapt for the better part of an hour, drew a different conclusion.

“In the end,” she said, “the Affordable Care Act survives largely unscathed.”


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, AP, Boston Globe, CNN, Forbes, McClatchy Newspapers, Mediaite, NBC Politics, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps