Showing posts with label mandate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mandate. Show all posts

Saturday, July 12, 2014

The Boehner Lawsuit is about . . . Obamacare! Surprise!

photo 1567e57c-8cac-4ac2-ba58-82ed9dd971c8.jpg

On Monday, July 7, 2014, House Speaker John Boehner made his case against President Obama in an Op-Ed for CNN:
. . . later this month, we will bring legislation to the House floor that would authorize the House of Representatives to file suit in an effort to compel President Obama to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country.
The President's response: "So sue me."
What's disappointing is the President's flippant dismissal of the Constitution we are both sworn to defend. It is utterly beneath the dignity of the office. I know the President is frustrated. I'm frustrated. The American people are frustrated, too.
. . . Over the last five years, starting -- not coincidentally -- when his political party lost the majority in the House of Representatives, the President has consistently overstepped his authority under the Constitution, and in so doing eroded the power of the legislative branch.
The legislative branch has an obligation to defend the rights and responsibilities of the American people, and America's constitutional balance of powers -- before it is too late.

But it wasn't until Thursday that he actually explained the basis of the lawsuit: John Boehner and the Republicans in Congress are suing President Obama over the "employer mandate" part of ACA/Obamacare which was postponed for small business owners - because they asked for it! Now the GOP is saying that Obama shouldn't have delayed it, and he overstepped the bounds of his office. But let's not forget - the GOP hates both ACA and the mandate, so this is all a farce of epic proportions. Let's just hope a Judge sees it that way and isn't in cahoots, as the Supreme Court apparently is.

From the New York Times
On Thursday, Mr. Boehner said the lawsuit would specifically challenge the president’s decision to delay imposing penalties on employers who do not offer health insurance to employees in compliance with the Affordable Care Act.

“The current president believes he has the power to make his own laws — at times even boasting about it,” Mr. Boehner said in his statement. “He has said that if Congress won’t make the laws he wants, he’ll go ahead and make them himself, and in the case of the employer mandate in his health care law, that’s exactly what he did.”

“If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well,” the speaker added. “The House has an obligation to stand up for the legislative branch, and the Constitution, and that is exactly what we will do.”

When questioned about the lawsuit, Boehner blew up about Obama's lack of "responsibility." This is from a man famous for holding up votes in the House - such as Immigration - just because the Tea Party doesn't like Obama. But he's let them vote to repeal ACA/Obamacare FIFTY times! And this lawsuit is just more nonsense.

You're drunk, Boehner. Go home.

He's been President for five-and-a-half years! When is he going to take responsibility for something?



photo BsPKpPvCUAIydk5-1.jpg

The President had quite a bit to say about the lawsuit in Texas this week, and he couched it in terms of Congress doing nothing while he is at least trying to get things done.

Transcript via WhiteHouse.gov
There are a number of Republicans, including a number in the Texas delegation, who are mad at me for taking these actions. They actually plan to sue me. (Laughter.) Now, I don’t know which things they find most offensive -- me helping to create jobs, or me raising wages, or me easing the student loan burdens, or me making sure women can find out whether they’re getting paid the same as men for doing the same job. I don’t know which of these actions really bug them. (Laughter.)

The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years. So it’s not clear how it is that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did. (Applause.) Maybe it’s just me they don’t like. I don’t know. Maybe there’s some principle out there that I haven’t discerned, that I haven’t figure out. (Laughter.) You hear some of them -- “sue him,” “impeach him.” Really? (Laughter.) Really? For what? (Applause.) You’re going to sue me for doing my job? Okay. (Applause.)

I mean, think about that. You’re going to use taxpayer money to sue me for doing my job -- (laughter) -- while you don’t do your job. (Applause.)

photo bafdd117-9ff8-4b66-80cd-d8dc124716d9.jpg

There’s a great movie called “The Departed” -- a little violent for kids. But there’s a scene in the movie where Mark Wahlberg -- they’re on a stakeout and somehow the guy loses the guy that they’re tracking. And Wahlberg is all upset and yelling at the guy. And the guy looks up and he says, “Well, who are you?” And Wahlberg says, “I’m the guy doing my job. You must be the other guy.” (Laughter and applause.) Sometimes, I feel like saying to these guys, I’m the guy doing my job, you must be the other guy. (Applause.)

So rather than wage another political stunt that wastes time, wastes taxpayers’ money, I’ve got a better idea: Do something. (Applause.) If you’re mad at me for helping people on my own, let’s team up. Let’s pass some bills. Let’s help America together. (Applause.)

It is lonely, me just doing stuff. I’d love if the Republicans did stuff, too. (Laughter.) On immigration issues, we’ve got -- and to their credit, there are some Republicans in the Senate who actually worked with Democrats, passed a bill, would strengthen the borders, would help make the system more fair and more just. But the House Republicans, they haven’t even called the bill. They won’t even take a vote on the bill. They don’t have enough energy or organization or I don’t know what to just even vote no on the bill. (Laughter.) And then they’re mad at me for trying to do some things to make the immigration system work better. So it doesn’t make sense.

In the Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart quotes Lawrence Tribe, a professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard:
Tribe told me yesterday that he is “now convinced that there’s no ‘THERE there.” And that was BEFORE the speaker released language of a bill seeking authorization to sue the president “over the way President Obama unilaterally changed the employer mandate” in the Affordable Care Act. Boehner’s announced action solidified Tribe’s view.

"The very fact that Boehner is willing to say the House of Representatives is injured by the President’s decision to delay the implementation of the employer mandate is bizarre in itself, given how often the House has voted not just to delay it but to scuttle it,” Tribe told me via e-mail last night. “And it’s hard to imagine what conceivable remedy a federal court could possibly issue: an order directing the President to reverse course and implement the employer mandate sooner? Hardly!”

. . . the House of Representatives doesn’t have standing because none of Boehner’s accusations shows any harm to the House as an institution.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~













Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 25, 2013

Republican Hack Bob Woodward Blames Obama for Sequester

Photobucket




Republican Bob Woodward in The Washington Post
Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?

. . . Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

. . . So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.





The White House pushback is a classic case of distortion and confusion. We unfortunately have seen this too often in recent presidential history. First, the White House spent months denying paternity for the sequester. To Jay Carney's credit, he acknowledged [Tuesday] it was their ‘idea.’ [Carney: ‘The sequester was something that was discussed, and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward because it was put forward by Republican Senator Gramm and Rudman back in the ‘80s as part of the Gramm-Rudman deal -- there is a history here to this.’] But they do not want to talk about that now. The rest of the White House statement reflects a confusion of chronology. I do not think it is willful. They are just mixed up, surprisingly so.
~ Bob Woodward in an email to Politico



The argument is silly.
You can't start a discussion about the sequester without starting with the broader context. The sequester was offered during the GOP's unprecedented threat to not raise the debt ceiling, potentially putting the U.S. into default.
If offering spending cuts two years down the road is the only way to avoid such a calamity then a U.S. President should offer that 100 times out of 100. But is it really Obama's "fault"? The sequester wouldn't even be a term anyone knows if it weren't for the debt ceiling nonsense.
~ Joe Wiesenthal on Business Insider



To argue that the White House is "moving the goal posts" when it now asks for revenue in a sequestration replacement, you have to toss out the fact that the White House always wanted revenue in the supercommittee's sequestration replacement. This isn't confusing unless reporters make it confusing.
~ David Weigel on Slate







I don’t agree with my colleague Bob Woodward, who says the Obama administration is “moving the goalposts” when they insist on a sequester replacement that includes revenues. I remember talking to both members of the Obama administration and the Republican leadership in 2011, and everyone was perfectly clear that Democrats were going to pursue tax increases in any sequester replacement, and Republicans were going to oppose tax increases in any sequester replacement. What no one knew was who would win.
. . . Here in DC, we can get a bit buried in Beltway minutia. The ongoing blame game over who concocted the sequester is an excellent example. But it’s worth remembering that the goalposts in American politics aren’t set in backroom deals between politicians. They’re set in elections. And in the 2012 election, the American people were very clear on where they wanted the goalposts moved to.
~ Ezra Klein on Washington Post



. . . in this case Woodward is just dead wrong. Obama and Democrats have always insisted that a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher taxes replace sequestration. It’s true that John Boehner wouldn’t agree to include new taxes in the enforcement mechanism itself, and thus that the enforcement mechanism he and Obama settled upon — sequestration — is composed exclusively of spending cuts. But the entire purpose of an enforcement mechanism is to make sure that the enforcement mechanism is never triggered. The key question is what action it was designed to compel. And on that score, the Budget Control Act is unambiguous.
First: “Unless a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction as provided in section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control Act of 2011 is enacted by January 15, 2012, the discretionary spending limits listed in section 251(c) shall be revised, and discretionary appropriations and direct spending shall be reduced.”
Key words: “deficit reduction.” Not “spending cuts.” If Republicans wanted to make sure sequestration would be replaced with spending cuts only, that would have been the place to make a stand. Some of them certainly tried. But that’s not what ultimately won the day.
~ Brian Beutler on Talking Points Memo















Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 23, 2012

The Yin and Yang of Grover Norquist

Photobucket

source: internet weekly

~~~~~~~~~~

Previous Posts about Grover Norquist:
Surprised Poopy Heads Try to Rebrand GOP
Poppy Bush Asks "Who the Hell is Grover Norquist, Anyway?"


~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Rs are holding.
The fantasy is that the Republicans would cave on marginal tax rates — they’re non-negotiable.
. . . The entire Republican leadership has been elected on that commitment in the House and the Senate.
. . . President Obama “will eventually have to extend the tax cuts as is.
~ Grover Norquist in a speech to the conservative Think Tank, Center for the National Interest

Listening to these confident assertions, the simple conclusion would be that Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, had been on a long trip in a remote location. More likely, the answer involves the substantial amount of trauma inflicted on Norquist’s worldview in the election.
. . . He assured the old guard at the center-right think tank (25 of the 26 at the horseshoe table were men) that the Democratic wins this month did not mean a rejection of his Pledge. It’s “a little tough to see a strong mandate here,” Norquist argued. “The president won a mandate not to be Romney for the next four years, because Romney gives people cancer and is a bad person and is mean to dogs.” Further, he argued, Obama “dropped, what, 8 million votes from the time before, the margin he got was shrinking, he was the incumbent, he ran a better campaign and we had a candidate who had myriad flaws.”
Also, the dog ate Norquist’s homework.
. . . But didn’t exit polls show that voters want higher taxes on the wealthy?
“You can get ‘If there were unicorns, what color would you like?’ answers from voters,” Norquist reasoned.
~ Dana Milbank on Washington Post

Grover Norquist: Washington Enemy No. 1
No one is caving," Grover Norquist says emphatically and repeatedly when we meet this week in his office in the nation's capital. By "no one" he means congressional Republicans, and by "caving" he means surrendering to Barack Obama's call for tax increases. Republicans are facing an avalanche of pressure from the White House, the media and even many on Wall Street to abandon their antitax principles to avoid a "fiscal cliff."
. . . Are Republicans defecting from the taxpayer protection pledge? Sounding exasperated, he says, yes, a few are having "impure thoughts. But the media keeps interviewing the same five or so Republicans in Congress who want to cut a deal."
~ Norquist quotes from Stephen Moore on Wall Street Journal

What can Grover (Norquist) do to you? He can't murder you. He can't burn your house.
~ Republican Senator Alan Simpson

To show our seriousness, we've put revenue on the table as long as it's accompanied by significant spending cuts.
~ Speaker of the House John Boehner R-OH

We're prepared to put revenue on the table provided we fix the real problems.
~ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell R-KY

The yin and the yang of this is that we know there has to be revenues.
I haven't met a wealthy Republican or Democrat in Tennessee that's not willing to contribute more as long as they know we solve the problem.
~ Senator Bob Corker, R-Tennessee

I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge.
. . . if we do it his way, then we'll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.
. . . But I don't worry about that because I care too much about my country. (I'm) willing to do the right thing and let the political consequences take care of themselves.
~ Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia

The Senator's reference to me is odd. His promise is to the people of Georgia.
. . . Sen. Chambliss mentions his fear of losing a primary if he breaks his word to Georgians and votes to raise their taxes. History reminds us that when President George H.W. Bush raised taxes in a deal that promised (and did not deliver) spending cuts he was defeated not in the primary, but in the general.
~ Grover Norquist via The Hill

If you are a worthless Republican politician and you want some good press from the liberal media, all you have to do now days is say you are considering abandoning your pledge not to raise taxes. You will be haled (sp) as “heroic,” “courageous,” and “pragmatic.”
. . . To call Chambliss an idiot is to insult people of lower intelligence. Chambliss is a poster child for every thing that is wrong with the political class in Washington.
. . . Chambliss made a pledge to the citizens of his state. Pledges are meant to be honored. If you cannot honor your pledge, then you are simply as much of a lowlife as a used car salesman or a United States Senator.
If you give your word and you break your word, then you are a liar.
~ Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation

Photobucket

Some of Norquist's signers lost their seats. Some newly elected Republicans say they see no reason to sign a formal pledge on taxes. And at least six House members who once signed say they no longer consider themselves bound by it.
. . . when I asked him this week about his critics in the Senate, he was dismissive in return. None of them "are considered thought leaders on economic issues," he said. That's not a good sign. Describing senators from your own party as dim bulbs isn't normally how lobbyists win friends and influence people.
. . . an increasing number of prominent Republicans are dismissing Norquist as a pest.
~ Doyle McManus on L.A. Times

So Grover Norquist wants no tax increases. That's his right, and he deserves points for being intellectually consistent. But that doesn't mean members of Congress have to follow his (or anyone else's) rigid rules. Being a lawmaker is a grown-up job. Members of Congress should act like it.
~ Susan Milligan on U.S. News

The Norquist era has come and gone—and thank Heaven for that.
Whether you support tax increases for some or detest the very notion of anything short of a decrease in taxes, we elect leaders to think for themselves and to serve the needs of their constituents. Unless you are an elected official from a district that Grover Norquist calls home, Mr. Norquist, and his Americans For Tax Reform, are not a constituency—they are a special interest lobby.
The time has come for a little GOP courage....
. . . The clock on Grover Norquist’s fifteen minutes of fame has expired—and the sooner Republican incumbents and candidates figure this out, the sooner they will be able to impress the voters with their willingness to think for themselves and for their constituencies rather than turning control over to a lobbyist.
How can that possibly be a bad thing?
~ Rick Unger in Forbes

What is this? Fifth grade? Let's be blood brothers and like sheep follow Norquist or be banished from the Kingdom forever. OMG! Finally they are waking up to the hostage taker and ego-maniac Norquist!
~ comment by Constance on Wall Street Journal

Mock, jeer, taunt or ridicule Norquist all you want, liberals, as we move ever closer to the edge of the Fiscal Cliff. But, when we all fall off of it, you bloodsuckers who depend on the rich to subsidize your government handouts will hit the bottom hardest! We will see how many of you will be rescued by your messiah, Obama, as you scream in long, agonizing pain and stretch your arms (if they aren’t broken) up for help. Based on last four years, chances are that you won’t be!
~ Chief of Fraud on Washington Post

we petition the obama administration:
NO elected or appointed government official shall sign any pledge, take any oath, to special interests
To stop special interests Congress needs to have hearings, and consider the following:
No President, Congressman, or any other elected or appointed government official shall sign any pledge, take any oath, or make any commitment of any kind to any person, party or entity, in regards to their call of employment and duties thereof, save those prescribed by that of the Government of The United States of America.
Created: Nov 20, 2012
Issues: Budget and Taxes
Learn about Petition Thresholds
Signatures needed by December 20, 2012 to reach goal of 25,000
24,957
Total signatures on this petition
43
~ Petition at WhiteHouse.Gov

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, June 28, 2012

CNN & Fox Flub Headlines about SCOTUS

Photobucket

From New York Daily News
Like many Americans, Obama was watching CNN and FOX News Channel as they flashed graphics saying his law’s central health care mandate was found unconstitutional, ABC News reported. It wasn’t until White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler gave him two thumbs up that Obama realized that the cable news shows had got it wrong.
What became a very good day for the White House became a very bad day for the cable news channels as their early confusion became a viral joke. . . .
The mistake drew immediate comparisons to a media snafu from an earlier era: the Chicago Tribune’s famously incorrect 1948 headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman.” A Photoshopped image of Obama holding up an iPad displaying the incorrect news splashed across CNN.com quickly started swirling around the Internet.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
















Photobucket
gif made by gifhound on tumblr


























There are a lot of tweets, posts and pieces out there about our mistake. And more will come. Stay strong. This is the organization that has exposed and righted wrongs, that has brought knowledge and freedom to people worldwide. We made a mistake, as people and organizations sometimes do, and we swiftly and clearly corrected it.
We are not the story. The story is the story.
I want to sincerely thank everyone involved in the correction process for their focused effort and for their calm and clear heads.
~ Internal CNN Memo sent out by Meredith Artley, Vice President and Managing Editor of CNN Digital, via Poynter.org








Photobucket















Photobucket

Photobucket
Pic Via Brainwrap on Daily Kos
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 25, 2012

I Love the Smell of SCOTUS in the Morning ~ With Updates

Photobucket

Continuing the Speculation Fest of Fear, Loathing, Anticipation, and Boredom that started last week as we wait for verdicts on Obamacare and Immigration.

UPDATE: And it's over! No Health Care Ruling until Thursday, sorry!

Today they ruled on three things:

1. Juveniles cannot be given life in prison without parole. Good all around.
2. They refused to hear an appeal from the State of Montana about corporations buying elections, therefore they upheld their previous Citizen's United decision. That's good for Mitt Romney, because as he says "corporations are people, my friends." But the decision will only get the Democratic base more fired up.
3. The biggest deal today - they threw out most of Arizona's state immigration law, except for the right to check someone's papers under "reasonable suspicion." Sheriff Joe Arpaio will be so happy about that, but it's also a win for the Obama Administration.

See future posts as all these issues play out. :)















































































































ZOMG! Immigrants in Arizona!!! (And yes, the show was filmed in Old Tucson) And not everyone was a White Anglo Saxon. The High Chapparral was my father's favorite show. He would roll over in his grave to hear how some Arizona Republicans think about immigration.












10 AM ET



























Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Supreme Anticipation Just Before the Storm - UPDATE: No Ruling on HCRA



Photobucket


It could be Health Care or it could be Arizona Immigration decided today . . . or both, or neither. . . . I'm gathering tweets now because when (or if) the verdict - any verdict - comes this morning, Twitter is going to explode.

UPDATE: It was "Or Nothing" - no ruling on Health Care today! See you next Monday!

NPR: Ruling Could Come Today
Word about which of its remaining decisions the court releases today should come just after 10 a.m. ET. The court's website is here.
We'll be watching for news from the court. So will SCOTUSBlog, which is always quick with updates.
From the LA Times
WASHINGTON -- Television cameras will surround the Supreme Court on Thursday morning, as they did Monday, anticipating something that may, again, not happen.
The momentous healthcare decision could be announced Thursday. Or not. All we really know is that it is extremely likely to be handed down by the following Thursday, June 28, when the court is expected to end its current term.

. . . The decisions are printed inside the ornate 1935 Corinthian-style building, and handed out to reporters as the justice who authored the opinion announces the decision from the bench shortly after 10 a.m. By tradition the senior justice goes last, so healthcare is likely to be the last decision announced on the day it comes down.

Only a few times in modern history have the results leaked ahead of time, once reputedly from a comment by a justice to a reporter, another time from a talkative printer.
The court is not meeting Friday, so if the healthcare decision does not come Thursday, the next opportunity would be Monday.















































Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)