Radio America Online News Bureau

government

Trump Urges West to Cherish Values that Made it Strong

by

President Trump hailed Poland as a great success of western civilization, on Friday, holding up the eastern European ally as a model of how a commitment to faith and freedom can overcome great challenges and oppression.

In the speech, Trump urged other western nations to follow in Poland’s footsteps and embrace the heritage that made the West great.

“Through four decades of communist rule, Poland and the other captive nations of Europe endured a brutal campaign to demolish freedom, your faith, your laws, your history, your identity — indeed the very essence of your culture and your humanity.  Yet, through it all, you never lost that spirit.  Your oppressors tried to break you, but Poland could not be broken,” said Trump.

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation Chairman Lee Edwards says steering the West back to a position of championing its values was hugely important.

“The United States are Poland are coming together and sending a very clear signal to the rest of Europe.  ‘Let’s remember where we came from, what has made us great and powerful, making the West an invaluable part of history over the last 1,000 years.  Let’s not cast that all aside and get caught up in bureaucracy,'” said Edwards, who is also a scholar in conservative thought at the Heritage Foundation.

He says Poland’s remarkable resilience against the scourges of fascism and communism – among many other challenges over the centuries – is a testament to it’s fidelity to western values.

“Poland proves it is possible to be a people of faith and a people of independence and to do well economically,” said Edwards.

Trump noted that western civilization is under siege from within and without, starting with radical Islam.

We are confronted by another oppressive ideology — one that seeks to export terrorism and extremism all around the globe.  America and Europe have suffered one terror attack after another.  We’re going to get it to stop,” said Trump.  “We are fighting hard against radical Islamic terrorism, and we will prevail.  We cannot accept those who reject our values and who use hatred to justify violence against the innocent.”

Edwards says it’s an ideological battle the Polish people know well.

“Just as we were able to defeat communism, so too can we defeat radical Islam if we come together, if we pull together, if we work together, if we are united by a common faith and a common commitment to democracy and to liberal ideas – to those basic ideas of free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion,” said Edwards.

Trump also noted the crushing growth of government.

“[O]n both sides of the Atlantic, our citizens are confronted by yet another danger — one firmly within our control.  This danger is invisible to some but familiar to the Poles:  the steady creep of government bureaucracy that drains the vitality and wealth of the people.  The West became great not because of paperwork and regulations but because people were allowed to chase their dreams and pursue their destinies,” said Trump.

 

And he extolled the value of faith and family in the rise of the West and as a vital key to its future.

“We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive,” said Trump.

Edwards says the message was perfectly clear and critical for Europe to hear at a time when cultures are changing and faith plays a smaller and smaller role in society.

“What Mr. Trump was trying to do was say, ‘Look, let’s go back to the tried and to the true, to those values which did bring us together, did unite us, made us a strong continent and a strong West,” said Edwards.

Standard Podcast [ 11:47 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

‘All the Wrong Moves in the Obamacare Direction’

by

A key member of the House Freedom Caucus says the Senate health care bill drifts too far towards the existing framework and that the smartest approach would be to repeal Obamacare and then get to work on a replacement, although he does not expect GOP leaders to choose that path.

Rep. Dave Brat, R-Virginia, taught economics for 20 years before pulling off a stunning defeat of then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 Republican primary.  He could not support the Senate bill unveiled by leaders last week.

“The original bill coming out of the Senate kind of made all the wrong moves in the Obamacare direction, which is shocking,” said Brat.

“It’s not just about adding more coverage or helping more people.  That’s the way most people are thinking about this.  What I think people lost track of is Economics 101.  Obamacare is in the ditch because of its own economic logic,” said Brat.

He says lawmakers on both sides struggle to see the big picture.

“That Obamacare logic was just about 100 percent attention paid to coverage and no attention paid to the price of health care.  As a result, people were covered with gold-plated health insurance policies, but no one could afford health coverage,” said Brat.

With Senate Republicans now unable to move their own bill, Brat enthusiastically endorses the suggestion of Sens. Rand Paul, R-Kent., and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., to repeal Obamacare now and then get to work on a replacement that can pass.

“The rational politics would have been, initially, to repeal Obamacare, which all of those senators voted for when it didn’t count.  They all voted for the 2015 package to repeal Obamacare,” said Brat.

He says that’s exactly what Republican voters expected after the 2016 elections, but they aren’t getting it.

“When you vote 50 times to repeal and then you tell the American people you’re going to repeal and then you end up very close to Obamacare logic.  That is not good for the Republican brand,” said Brat.

Brat is confident that if repeal came first, there would be plenty of interest across the spectrum in getting on board with the replacement bill.

“Then you have the leverage to work with the Democrats.  There’s no shortage of people who want to add programs in D.C. in the swamp, right?  So you first repeal and then the floodgates are open to add.  You can get as many votes as you want from any politician to say yes.  Politicians love to say yes.  That would have been a brilliant move back in January,” he said.

So will House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell embrace that idea now that a comprehensive bill is flailing in the Senate?  Brat is not holding his breath.

“I went to seminary so I’ll be praying for it, but I’m doubtful.  That would be too good of news.  I don’t think we’ve got a big enough spine to carry that off,” said Brat.

But why?  Republicans scored decisive wins in three separate election cycles, due in large part to their promises to repeal Obamacare.  So why aren’t they following through?

Brat sees three key reasons: keeping the special interests happy, the effort to protect vulnerable Senate incumbents from unpopular votes, and a relentlessly hostile media.

“Up in D.C., you’ve got to appease the swamp, so there’s all sorts of moneyed special interests you have to appease, ” said Brat, noting that the insurance companies love what the Senate GOP produced.  “Then if you’re in tough seats, you’ve got to try to support those tough seats.”

Brat says the influence of the major insurance companies is a big problem, one that James Madison and Adam Smith warned against long ago.

“Both of them had the exact same logic.  You want a large number  of small competitors duking it out in this country.  We’ve lost that.  That’s the American way.  Instead, we’ve got a few huge oligopolies running from D.C., which the elites can put their thumb down on and that’s why the American person is getting hammered right now,” said Brat.

As for the media, Brat says the avalanche of false, negative coverage is tough for many members to weather.

“After we passed the House bill, the mainstream media repeated misinformation and fake news for the next week.  It was one simple line: House bill gets rid of pre-existing conditions.  Everybody with pre-existing conditions is on their own and there’s going to be death in the streets,” said Brat.

“It is daunting to have confidence in the people back home, that they can see through that message when that’s all you see as a politician is that mainstream media.  CNN, New York Times, Washington Post: House guts, destroys obliterates – all these crazy words.  Then they say, ‘Politicians, you guys have to be more civil,’ as they lambaste us with falsehoods constantly,” said Brat.

One of the main reasons Brat opposes the Senate bill is because it fails to deal with what he sees as the fatally flawed framework of Obamacare.

“At least the House package had a little bit of room to negotiate some of the regulations and the regulations are Obamacare.  If you don’t get rid of the Obamacare regulations, a young person cannot go out and buy a catastrophic package out of college, so they’re left with a gold-plated plan with a $2,000-$3,000 deductible.  And I don’t know a lot of college grads with two or three grand in their pocket,” said Brat.

He is imploring his fellow Republicans to proceed on the principles they constantly espouse about the success of the free market.

“If you believe in free markets and the standard American package of free enterprise, etc., that will deliver the goods.  Everybody knows these eye surgeries that started out at $6,000 per eye are down to $450 per eye to get your Tiger Woods eye surgery,” said Brat.

“That’s what the market can do if you let it alone.  If you let the government intervene, you end up with Medicare, which is insolvent in 2034.  You end up with Social Security, which is insolvent for the kids in 2034.  $20 trillion in debt, $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities to those major programs, and we’re going to add more government,” said Brat.

Standard Podcast [ 12:24 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Coburn Details Convention of States

by

After concluding Washington is incapable of solving some of America’s biggest problems over his 16 years in Congress, former Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says a constitutionally provided convention of the states is the only realistic remedy to what ails us.

Article V of the Constitution allows for amendments through a convention of two-thirds of the states proposing changes that would then need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.  Currently, 34 states would need to get on board to force Congress to call a convention and 38 states would need to approve any proposed amendments.

“Before our constitutional convention, everything was decided through a convention like this,” said Coburn, who points out George Mason insisted on the inclusion of the convention of the states option after pointing out no government in history has ever given back power to the people.

Coburn further explained the process.

“You have to an application that aggregates (among the states).  You have to have the same application everywhere.  You can’t have one application for a balanced budget and one application for something else.  You have to have 34 that say the same thing,” said Coburn.

The current push for a convention of the states calls for three amendments: one to balance the budget, one to rein in the reach of the federal government , and one to limit the length of terms in the House and Senate.

Coburn says a balanced budget amendment is desperately needed.

“We think the federal government ought to be fiscally responsible.  They ought to have to live under the same accounting guidelines everybody else does and they ought to have to live within their means,” said Coburn.  “That’s a balanced budget amendment but it also means you can’t just go and add mandates to the states to balance the budget.  You have to make hard choices.”

Congress came within one vote of approving a balanced budget amendment in 1995, just months after Republicans won control of both chambers.  The plan passed the House 300-132, but the 65-35 tally in the Senate was just shy of sending the amendment to the states.

The vote was really 66-34, but when it was clear the measure would fail then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, changed his vote to no so he would be eligible under Senate rules to reconsider the issue.  A subsequent vote also failed.

Since 1995, no balanced budget proposal has come anywhere close to passing, and Coburn says that should come as no surprise.

“They don’t want to balance the budget, because then they have to make hard choices, then they have to be accountable to their electorate.  If the electorate doesn’t like the choices that they made, they’ll replace them.  It’s an insurance policy if I don’t have to have a balanced budget,” said Coburn.

“The easiest thing in the world is to spend somebody else’s money and that’s what they do every day.  They spend our grandchildren’s money because we’re certainly not spending our own right now,” said Coburn.

Next on the amendment list is to “limit the scope and jurisdiction of the federal government.”  Coburn says a ridiculous case from 1942 effectively gave the federal government to meddle far too intimately in our lives.

“An Ohio wheat farmer grew 18 acres more wheat than he was allotted, but he used every bit of it to feed his own cattle, his own family and used it for feed the next year.  The federal government said that’s interstate commerce because you didn’t buy that 18 acres worth of wheat from somewhere else,” said Coburn.

“So they expanded the commerce clause and that is what has allowed the federal government to tell every state – in everything they do now – what to do,” said Coburn.

Coburn says returning power to state and local authorities also heightens accountability, pointing out it is much easier to get an appointment with your state representative than a member of the House or Senate.

Coburn cited a recent poll showing 86 percent of Americans don’t trust the federal government.  He says that places America in a crisis that returning power to states and locales can help to address.

“When you quit trusting the central authority, then you will no longer follow its will.  That’s called anarchy.  So we have to take back our freedom.  We have to re-establish the rule of law and make sure it’s followed.  But also it has to have the integrity of the central government in terms of a limited federal government,” said Coburn.

The third and final amendment Coburn and his allies are pushing would limit lawmakers to 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and 12 years in the U.S. Senate.

“Prior to a Supreme Court ruling in 1994, 26 states had limited the terms of their members of Congress.  In an Arkansas case, the Supreme Court decided that we as citizens can’t decide whether we want to limit the terms of our federal representatives.  Well that’s ludicrous.  So what you do is pass an amendment that puts a limit on the amount of time people can serve,” said Coburn.

Coburn says 12 states are already on board.  He expects another 10-12 states to join the effort in the next 12 months and another 10-12 in the year after that, meaning a convention of states could take place within two to three years.

He is quick to stress that the convention itself cannot ratify the amendments.  That role still belongs to the states.  Coburn is bullish on that front as well, noting that Republicans are just 24 seats away from controlling the legislatures in 38 states.

Ultimately, Coburn believes the success or failure of this campaign will depend upon the courage to do what has to be done.

“Do we have the moral structure with which to make these hard decisions for the future or do we just let this train run out of control down the mountain?  That’s the real question,” said Coburn.

“If you love your kids, you love your country, and you love your future, you ought to be about choking down the federal government and having it live within its means, lessening it’s impact on the economy so the economy can actually grow,” said Coburn.

Standard Podcast [ 9:48 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

‘Written Out of History’

by

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, says some of the most important names associated with the push for limited government at our nation’s founding have been shoved out of history and the effort has coincided almost perfectly with America’s push for a bigger and bigger federal government.

Lee, who was just elected to a second term in the U.S. Senate, is the author of “Written out of History: The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government,” which he says is designed to give adults and children a better idea of what the vision of our founding fathers truly was.  Lee says limited government isn’t some anachronistic vestige of the colonial era, but the fundamental premise of our system of government.

“It’s very important for parents to emphasize to their children at a young age that that’s the whole reason why we have a constitution is to limit the power of government.  Those limits need to mean something, but they can only be meaningful if we recognize them, enforce them, and talk about them,” said Lee.

Reiterating the famous James Madison quotation that if men were angels, no government would be necessary, Lee says we do need government, but not one that smothers the people who rule over it.

“It’s important for us to remind our children that they should respect government.  Government is a good thing.  It is a tool for good, as long as it remains subject to the limitations brought about by elections,” said Lee, who says the book is not meant to address current partisan squabbles but return America’s focus to the point of government as envisioned by our founders.

“I’m talking in this book about advocating any particular conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Democratic agenda.  What I’m talking about here is returning power back to the people, allowing more of the people in America to have access to more of the kind of government they want and less of the government they don’t want,” said Lee.

“That’s what our founding-era principles do and that’s what they could do for us if we were to follow them more consistently,” said Lee.

Lee says the founders are of greater interest these days, even to young people, as result of the smash Broadway musical, “Hamilton.”  In addition to the performance, Lee says there is always fascination with that part of our history.

“They respond this way in part because the American people intuitively understand something about the founding generation.  They understand that generation knew something about who we are as a people and that we have a lot to learn if we learn from their stories,” said Lee.

And Lee says getting American to understand the lessons from our founders, especially the less known figures, is the point of the book.

“I knew there were a whole lot of founding fathers that the American people know little or nothing about, in part because they don’t fit our modern, progressive narrative.  I wanted to reintroduce the people to those stories,” said Lee.

According to Lee, that “modern, progressive narrative” has been chipping away the key figures and principles of the American founding for generations.

“We tend to remember those whose narratives fit with our world view from our day.  Over the last 80 years or so, we have – within our public education system and our higher education system – seen a big push toward a centralization of power.  People are taught to have a whole lot of faith a whole lot of confidence in the federal government, almost as if it were endowed with certain deity-like qualities,” said Lee.

He says it is no coincidence that the push to adjust history to fit more of a big government narrative began about the same time our own leaders were pushing for great expansion of federal powers.

“There’s nothing coincidental about it at all.  The fact is that since the New Deal the American people have been asked to simply trust government, to have faith in government almost as they would in God.  That narrative isn’t supportable by the facts.  It’s not supportable by history,” said Lee.

As such, Lee believes his book is ideal for high school or college graduates who likely heard little to nothing about the virtues of limited government.

“These are things not likely to have been taught in any high school or college history course, for the simple reason that they conflict with this modern narrative that says that government in general is great, you don’t need to fear it as much as some people might think and the federal government in particular can be trusted,” said Lee.

In the book, Lee highlights multiple figures forgotten or marginalized by history, starting with an unlikely figure from before the American founding.

“I chose, for example, Canasatego, the Iroquois Indian chief who hardly ever gets mentioned but in many respects is the father of American federalism, this concept of vertical separation of powers that says most of the governing is supposed to take place at the state and the local level,” said Lee.

“A few powers are given to our federal government in Washington, but everything else is supposed to remain with the people.  That’s the essence of the 10th amendment and the rest of the Constitution even prior to the 10th amendment,” said Lee.

Lee also focuses on Aaron Burr, whose legacy goes far deeper than killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

“We forget about the fact that one of America’s most revered presidents (Thomas Jefferson) actually became quite dangerous in the case of Aaron Burr, had him prosecuted based on a perceived political fit of rage and very nearly won, but the Constitution held out and Aaron Burr was found not guilty,” said Lee.

“This is a reminder to us that even a revered man like Thomas Jefferson could abuse power and tried to abuse power,” said Lee.

Lee is also struck by how similar the debates over the intrusion of government are today compared with the founding era.

“Back then they were intrusions that, prior to the revolution, were considered against the right of Englishmen as established by laws of England, using things like Writs of Assistance, whereby law enforcement personnel would kick down doors, search people’s homes just looking for anything they might want to find to use as evidence against someone,” said Lee.

“This is one of the reasons why we ended up with protections found in the 4th amendment requiring that any searches be conducted pursuant to warrants and that those warrants be substantiated by probable cause and a warrant signed by a judge,” said Lee.

Lee says he is well aware of the conditioning Americans have undergone over the past 80 years to expect and accept big government, but he believes the momentum can be reversed.

“The hardest part is getting people to think about it, to talk about it, to read about it in books, to talk about it around the dinner table.  Because once you have that part done, you can quickly move and bring about real change, the kind of change that returns power to the people,” said Lee.

Standard Podcast [ 11:32 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

How to Avoid ‘Ransom’ Payments

by

One ransomware attack seems to be behind us but experts warn one or more could be right around the corner, making it more important than ever to protect your information and your wallet.

The WannaCry ransomware attack hit Europe and Asia hardest, with the perpetrators demanding victims pay up in order to get their own information back.

Cyber Scout Chairman and Founder Adam Levin says ransomware is a more modern version of hacking but is one where the criminals have even more leverage.

“Ransomware is basically malware.  It gets on your computer and it encrypts the files.  Then you have to pay a ransom in order to get those files decrypted,” said Levin, noting that paying the ransom usually does result in you getting your information back.

“Ransomware is the new black.  Instead of having to break into a system, get your hands on the data, exfiltrate the data, put it on the black market, hope you can sell it for a certain amount of money depending upon what it is,” said Levin.

“With ransomware, it’s almost instant return.  You basically lock up a computer, terrify the computer user and basically say, ‘It’s not longer about what your information is worth to someone else.  It’s about how much is your information worth to you.’  Unless you have a backup system in place, you’re in a lot of trouble,” said Levin.

How does ransomware get in a position to take over your files?

“Ransomware can get on your computer in a variety of ways.  One, which we’re seeing occur right now worldwide, has to do with a vulnerability in a Microsoft program.  Generally, it involves expired but not supported Microsoft systems as well as pirated Microsoft software,” said Levin.

So far, Levin sees little impact on Apple customers, pointing out that they are very unlikely to install Microsoft programming.

However, neglecting to use updated software isn’t the only way ransomware can burrow into your system.

“Another way to get ransomware is if you click on a link or you download an attachment.  It could put malware on your computer.  All of a sudden there will be a skull on your screen with a tacking clock, counting back from let’s say 90 hours.  If you don’t pay a certain amount in Bitcoin, either your files will be deleted or they will be encrypted forever,” said Levin.

Levin says the Bitcoin aspect of the attacks makes it very difficult to track down the perpetrators.  Even worse, many of the hackers operate in nations where the governments are OK with that sort of extortion.

But even in the United States, the government is way behind in dealing with this threat.

“If the NSA had notified Microsoft when they found the vulnerability, as opposed to theoretically notifying Microsoft when they learned that hackers were going to release information about tools and vulnerabilities, then we might be better off than we are today,” said Levin.

“When you hear things like the Apple vs. FBI debate and you hear people in government saying, ‘We need a back door to encrypted systems,’ this is a perfect example that when government gets their hands on a back door it is highly unlikely that they will be able to properly protect it,” said Levin.

Levin says there are plenty of steps you can take to reduce your chance of becoming a victim, starting with paying attention to and installing your software updates.

“Don’t think of these things as mosquitoes to be flicked away.  There’s a reason why these updates are sent to you.  Often times it’s because a vulnerability has been discovered.  That vulnerability has been patched, and they’re trying to get you to make sure that what you have on your system is as up to date as possible so you can be best protected,” said Levin.

Levin says if Microsoft customers had installed their patches, they would not have been hit with the WannaCry ransomware.  He also says Asia and Europe got hit hardest because people there are far more likely to use expired or pirated software.

Another key to avoid being stuck at the mercy of internet criminals is to back up your information.

“Make sure that the data on your network or the data on your device is backed up.  But you can’t just back it up on your device or on your network.  You literally have to back it up to an independent system that is not connected 24/7 to your network or your computer or your mobile device,” said Levin.

He says the independent system should only be connected to do the backup work and then disconnected or else that source can be compromised as well.

If you’ve already been targeted, Levin says you really don’t have many options.

“In general, if you get hit with ransomware, the bottom line is either you pay or those files could be encrypted forever or deleted,” said Levin.

Standard Podcast [ 10:20 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Obamacare Death Spiral Continues, GOP More Trusting in Government, Who Is Elite?

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America groan as Aetna announces it will pull out of Virginia and Iowa’s last insurer is leaving most of the state for the individual marketplace.  They’re stunned as more Republicans tell pollsters they trust the government to do the right thing more than Democrats do.  And they react as an MSNBC contributor declares that anyone who doesn’t rely on government is elitist.

Share

Shutdown Showdown

by

Democrats are banding together in refusing to support any short-term spending measure that includes funding for a border wall, a move that could lead to a government shutdown in the near term and the implosion of the legislative filibuster in the U.S. Senate.

In December, the lame duck Congress and President Obama agreed on a spending bill to keep the federal government funded through April.  That means lawmakers must pass another continuing resolution next week to keep the government running.

And while fiscal conservatives like FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon expects Republicans to get tough on spending heading into Fiscal 2018, he says this legislation ought to be moved in order to make way for President Trump’s big ticket items.

“I don’t think any Republican is that interested in a shutdown, they’d rather kick the can and move some of these larger priorities,” said Brandon, referring specifically to health care and tax reform.

“You’re going to see the repeal of Obamacare coming back to a vote this week,” said Brandon.  “And then next week, I expect we’ll start hearing about fundamental tax reform,” he said.

But there’s a showdown already forming over this short term spending bill over whether to approve funding for construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.  White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney says “elections have consequences” and the administration wants that funding in this bill.

Democrats claim Trump’s demand for that funding is a non-starter and is scuttling what they claim was excellent progress on a spending bill.  Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, R-N.Y., also feigned confusion over the request, noting that Trump repeatedly promised Mexico would pay for the wall.

Brandon says Democrats are refusing to deal, even when Republicans are offering to boost spending on their priorities in exchange for the border security funds.

“Republicans will come to the Democrats with an offer saying, ‘We’ll do this continuing resolution.  We’ll even give you some more money for some of your welfare stuff if you give us more money to build the border wall,” said Brandon.

He says if Democrats won’t play ball with an offer like that, this relatively minor spending debate could have major repercussions.

“This little CR debate could end up being one of the most important political debates for the next few years, if not decade, if not longer,” said Brandon.  “If Democrats balk at that deal and you start heading toward a shutdown, I wouldn’t be surprised if there would be an overhaul of Senate rules and a change in the parliamentary procedures.”

Yes, Brandon believes the intransigence of Democrats could lead to the obliteration of the legislative filibuster in the Senate.  And he says we should know within the next few days whether that option needs to be explored.

“Over this weekend is the test to see whether Democrats will mildly work with the Republicans or if they decide to shut the government down because you have eight or nine Democrats who can’t vote for a short, short continuing resolution.  That sends the signal that politics has changed.  If Republicans are going to move their legislative agenda, you might see a change in Senate rules,” said Brandon.

While Democrats and some in the media might paint Trump and Republicans at fault for an impasse on the spending bill, Brandon says the GOP approach to this standoff proves which party really refuses to budge.

“I’m the one who’s been told, as a conservative Republican I’m the one who won’t deal.  What I think is going to come out here is that Democrats decide, ‘We’re not going to deal.’  That means either that you’re going to have government that is absolutely paralyzed or you’re going to have to change some things so you can start moving some legislation,” said Brandon.

Brandon appears to welcome the idea, noting that if Democrats want to obstruct on a relatively minor issue, forcing the GOP to kill the filibuster would grease the skids for aggressive action on health care and tax reform.  He says drawing the line over one of Trump’s top campaign promises makes sense and could trigger wins for conservatives on major issues.

“Republicans need to do something on immigration and the border.  They’ve been screaming about it for so long, it has to get done.  They’ve been saying we’re going to do something on fundamental tax reform.  It has to get done.  You’ve got to grow the economy.  Finally, we been promising the American people for seven years we’re going to repeal Obamacare,” said Brandon.

“If you get all of those things done, this Trump presidency has been a success in the early part,” he added

Brandon says getting those things done is also key to the GOP having midterm success next year.

“Democrats will try to make the 2018 election based on a referendum on Trump.  I’d like to make the 2018 election a referendum on three or four percent economic growth,” said Brandon.

But while Brandon says the big ticket items are more important than fights over short-term spending provisions, he expects a robust Republican effort to rein in spending when it comes time to fund the government for Fiscal Year 2018.

“We’re $20 trillion debt.  It;s time to get that under control.  The way to do that is to hold the line.  You don’t add new spending and at the same time you grow the economy.  If you have two or three years of three and four percent growth, almost every one of our problems gets better,” said Brandon.

Standard Podcast [ 9:43 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Three Martini Lunch 3/1/17

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America found a lot to like in Pres. Trump’s speech, from conservative principles to powerful moments to a calm but determined delivery.  They also point areas where Trump is embracing big government: including infrastructure, family leave, and health reform.  And they have fun with the very awkward Democratic response.

Standard Podcast [ 17:29 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Three Martini Lunch 1/19/17

by

In the final podcast of the Obama presidency, Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer Donald Trump’s goal of aggressively reducing the size of government but acknowledge it will not be easy.  They also react to Bernie Sanders saying America is not compassionate because our government does not do as much for people as more liberal governments do.  And they scratch their heads as Rep. Tulsi Gabbard embarks on a mysterious trip to Syria.

Standard Podcast [ 19:27 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

‘They Know It’s in Trouble’

by

Health care expert Grace-Marie Turner says Bill Clinton’s public criticism of Obamacare and obvious infighting within Obama’s own administration proves the U.S. health care system is in big trouble on its current course.

The former president made headlines Monday, when he discussed the big problems created by President Obama’s signature domestic legislation.

“The people that are getting killed on this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies.  Why?  Because they’re not organized.  They don’t have any bargaining power with insurance companies.  They’re getting whacked,” said Clinton.

“So you’ve got this crazy system where suddenly 25 million more people have health care and the people busting it sometimes 60 hours a week wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half.  It’s the craziest thing in the world,” said Clinton.

Turner, who actively fought Clinton’s health care reform in the 1990s and the push for Obamacare says, Clinton is on the right track – but only to a point.

“He’s got the diagnosis right.  People are very unhappy with this law.  The longer it’s in place, the more unhappy they are.  He’s clearly hearing from small businesses.  He’s hearing from families who cannot afford their premiums,” said Turner.

However, Turner suspects Clinton’s solution to the problem will only create more problems.

“What he’s doing I fear is teeing up, if Hillary is elected president, even more government control over the health sector.  The American people know the problem is too much government control over health care,” said Turner.

She also says his characterization of what those millions of new people with health care coverage are receiving is badly misleading.

“He’s saying people have health care.  No, they have health insurance.  Ask people how hard it is to find a doctor to see them.  People on Medicaid still have to go to hospital emergency rooms, particularly if they need specialty care,” said Turner.

Turner says the reasons for Obamacare’s failures are obvious.

“The health insurance companies are absolutely in straitjackets.  The American people are being told the kind of health insurance they must buy, soup to nuts and absolutely everything anybody could think of, instead of actually having a policy that may work for them and their families that they may be able to afford.  That’s not a choice they have right now,” said said Turner.

She fears a Hillary Clinton presidency would look to add a public option or some other way to increase government control of the health care system.  Bill Clinton hinted similarly by suggesting those not qualifying for subsidies should be able to buy in to Medicare or Medicaid at a cost that’s comfortable for them, even if they don’t qualify for them.

Turner says that’s a recipe for disaster.  She says the average senior citizen couple pays about $160,000 into the Medicare system but ends up needing more than $400,000 in care.  She says the math of stuffing more people into that system should be clear to everyone.

“The system is not sustainable.  It will go broke.  It will go broke even faster if you put more people on it,” said Turner.

The Obama administration is also reportedly split on what do about insurance companies dropping out of the exchanges and demanding reimbursement in the billions of dollars.  Some in the administration are apparently trying to work around existing law that forbids insurance company bailouts to keep the system alive.

At the same, the Justice Department is also fighting back against court challenges from insurance companies to pay them overdue subsidies.

Turner says this contradiction shows a fierce debate playing out within the administration.

“You have a big disagreement between the political people who want to do everything they can to rescue Obamacare and the civil servants who understand that these payments are illegal.  Congress has passed very specific legislation forbidding any more corporate welfare,” said Turner.

Turner says this public infighting, plus the Clinton comments prove this administration understands the perilous state of our health care system.

“They know it’s in trouble.  We have been talking since the beginning, since before this law passed, about the problems with this law.  It was totally predictable that this was going to happen.  Finally the supporters are saying it has problems.  I think it is a whole other level when former President Bill Clinton basically says the law is a mess and a crazy scheme,” said Turner.

She says it will be difficult to fix the law because the Democrats are only interested in spending more money in a bad direction and Republicans want nothing to do with that.  Turner says real negotiation will have to take place since Republicans will have to be part of the discussions, unlike 2010 when the law passed with support only from Democrats.

But Turner isn’t interested in tinkering with what she sees as a failure.  She wants to return to healthy competition in the health care sector.

“Give consumers choices.  They’re happy with the product.  They’re engaged in helping to make sure that they spend their health care dollars wisely.  And they see the savings when they make smart decisions,” said Turner.

“That’s what we need more of, not more government spending and government control, thinking that somehow we’re going to be able to spend enoughto that everybody can have all the health care they want all the time without any strings attached.  That’s not possible,” said Turner.

 

Standard Podcast [ 11:51 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share