Radio America Online News Bureau

legislation

Congressional Border Battles

by

Listen to “Congressional Border Battles” on Spreaker.

The House and Senate will need to reconcile vastly different bills designed to provide billions of dollars in emergency aid for the humanitarian crisis building on our southern border.

On Wednesday, The Senate rejected legislation passed by House Democrats and approved its own $4.6 billion measure.  House Democrats say the Senate bill is a non-starter.

While the two chambers head to the reconciliation process, Florida Rep. Ted Yoho says lawmakers cannot embrace what he considers an abandonment of law enforcement personnel along the border.

“It limits the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to surge employees at the border.  [The House bill] cuts overtime hours cuts overtime for the exhausted officers that we have working overtime.  They want to cut this.  These are the very people doing what we hired them to do,” said Yoho.

Yoho says Democrats also want to cut funding for the National Guard at the border and voted down funding for enhanced border technology that could not only detect illegal entry into the country but also protect migrants from sexual assault and trafficking by drug cartels.

He says the partisan bickering on this issue needs to stop.

“The border crisis is not a political crisis.  Well, it is a political crisis because Congress has failed to act.  But we should not be Republicans or Democrats.  We should come together to have a border security bill that solves this problem,” said Yoho.

“If we were doing what we were supposed to with border security and enforced the laws on the books, we wouldn’t have a crisis down there,” said Yoho.

Listen to the full podcast to hear Yoho discuss whether the House and Senate can find common ground in the border funding bill.  He also details why he believes the Freedom Caucus deserves credit for forcing a fight on this issue and how his forthcoming bill to reform policy for immigrant workers in the agriculture, hospitality, and construction sectors can help address the larger need for immigration reform.

Share

Battle Over the Border: What’s in the Bill and the Emergency Declaration?

by

Listen to “Battle Over the Border: What’s in the Bill and the Emergency Declaration?” on Spreaker.

President Trump says he will sign the bipartisan budget bill providing almost $1.4 billion for border security but he will also declare a national emergency to give himself greater latitude for addressing the issue.

The legislation is expected to pass both chambers of Congress as very few lawmakers have a stomach for another government shutdown, but some of the president’s strongest allies are not happy with the contents of the bill.

“This certainly is not as acceptable as was advertised or previewed as recently as Tuesday. There are a number of concerning provisions,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Vaughan is fine with less money than Trump wanted. She is not OK with local governments having the power to prevent wall construction in their jurisdictions or providing legal protection to many smugglers because of language designed to shield those responsible for unaccompanied alien children at the border.

As for Trump’s emergency declaration, Vaughan expects a limited expansion of executive power.

Listen to the full podcast to hear Vaughan explain why Trump really has no choice but to sign the bill and what this deal means for the next round of the immigration debate.

Share

Why We’re Politically Thankful

by

Listen to “Why We’re Politically Thankful” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America prepare for Thanksgiving by each discussing three things for which they’re politically thankful.  They discuss the positive aspects of the midterm elections, the big confirmation fight, and important news this year from the courts and the Congress.  Happy Thanksgiving and join us again on Friday for another special edition of the Three Martini Lunch.

Share

Congress May Act on Immigration, Leftists Demand Open Borders, Nazi Hysteria

by

David French of National Review and Chad Benson of Radio America fill in for Jim Geraghty and Greg Corombos. They hope that Congress may exert its constitutional authority by passing legislation to end the family separation policy, secure the border, and stop illegal immigration. They also fear the growing divide between conservatives and liberals as they each adopt more extreme policy positions. And they react to the insane comparisons between the U.S. border and Nazi concentration camps.

Share

Individual Mandate Repealed: Now What?

by

Republicans succeeded in repealing the individual mandate in the 2010 Affordable Care Act as part of the recent tax reform package, but a leading health care expert urges President Trump and members of Congress to do even more this year to bring financial relief to Americans saddled by high premiums and deductibles.

Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner has been on the front lines of the health care debate since before the Clinton administration attempted to give government a greater role in the sector in the 1990’s.  A fierce critic of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, Turner is relishing how the individual mandate was sent to the scrap heap starting in 2019.

“The lovely irony is that the least popular provision of Obamacare was repealed in the tax bill.  It’s a bit of a touché to the Supreme Court,” said Turner, noting that the court upheld the individual mandate as constitutional only if it was considered a tax.

Beyond the political and legal drama, Turner says the mandate improved nothing and was a major burden on people.

“It was ineffective.  It was not doing what it needed to do.  Health insurance was so expensive that it was driving people away from policies.  Even with the tax penalties, people still found it was cheaper to pay the penalties than to buy this expensive coverage,” said Turner.

“The people who were most effected by these penalties were people making less than $50,000 a year.  It was backfiring from all perspectives,” said Turner.

As a result of the mandate being ineffective, Turner does not expect costs to rise noticeably when people can refuse to buy health coverage with no penalty next year.

As Congress was voting the tax bill into law, President Trump suggested in comments to reporters that ending the individual mandate was akin to repealing Obamacare.

“The individual mandate is being repealed.  When the individual mandate is being repealed, that means Obamacare is being repealed because they get their money from the individual mandate,” said Trump on Dec. 20.

Turner says Trump is right to be excited over nixing one of the most burdensome aspects of Obamacare, but she says Trump and Republicans in Congress need to stay focused on even more health care policy changes.

“There’s still lots of things on the books.  We’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars still on subsidies for people who may decide that they would rather purchase a different kind of coverage.

“All the rules and regulations are still on the books about the kind of coverage that we have to purchase, the expansion of Medicaid to the point where many states are finding they can’t begin to afford their share of the costs of Medicaid; all of that is still on the books,” said Turner.

And Turner know Trump is fully aware of this, as evidenced by his impending plan to offer expanded temporary health insurance.  The Obama administration allowed only one-time, three-month temporary insurance policies for people between jobs or going through other transitions.  The Trump plan will approve year-long policies that can be renewed year after year.

Trump is also expected to give the green light to association health plans through executive orders in the coming days.  Turner say this will allow smaller companies that share a similar focus to band together so employees can be offered plans at competitive rates.

“Let’s say you’re a small contractor or you run a barber shop or a beauty parlor.  You really can’t afford to compete with the big guys in offering good health insurance to your workers.  But if you were able to aggregate your policy with a lot of other similar businesses, then you can get the economies of scale.  You could get more choices for your employees,” said Turner.

She believes getting Washington bureaucrats out of health care also ought to be a top legislative priority.

“Give states a lot more authority in being able to approve the kind of health insurance policies that people want to buy, to allow the market to work to bring more players into the market.  In many parts of the country, people are still only going to have a choice of only one plan.  That’s not a choice,” said Turner.

Turner admits Republicans will be less motivated to address health reforms in 2018 since they repealed the mandate in the tax bill and want to avoid a repeat of of their Obamacare failures in 2017.

But she says that is not an option and voters will demand results.

“If Republicans don’t act, they are going to be on the defensive,” said Turner.  “I believe the voters are going to insist they take action this year.”

She says Republicans have about six months to get these reforms through Congress and onto Trump’s desk, otherwise the improvements will not appear in premium forecasts just weeks before Election Day.

Standard Podcast [ 13:04 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Filibuster Forcing Tortured Health Care Bill

by

As Senate Republican leaders scramble to find the votes to pass a health care bill, their fidelity to a warped understanding of the filibuster rules is deeply impacting the content of the legislation and the odds of passing anything in a deeply divided chamber.

The filibuster is a powerful tool by which the minority in the Senate can delay or kill legislation simply by preventing the 60 votes necessary to open or close debate on a bill.

However, a top official at the conservative Hillsdale College believes that embracing the original understanding and implementation of the procedure would provide for much more robust debate and a stronger legislative branch.

Matthew Spalding is the dean of educational programs at Hillsdale and also runs the school’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center in Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington.  He says the filibuster is diluting the purpose of Congress.

“The underlying problem here is that Congress doesn’t really legislate in the way it was supposed to.  It gave up on that, in many ways, decades ago, as it delegated its powers away,” said Spalding, who says the filibuster was never intended to give the minority that much power.

“The filibuster was not intended to stop legislation.  It was intended to delay it.  It was intended to slow walk it.  It was intended to allow the minority to say whatever they wanted to say in objection in a public forum, in a deliberate legislative way,” said Spalding.

Instead of the traditional filibuster, which required exhausting speeches that lasted hours on the Senate floor, Spalding says the tool has become the lazy way to stop what members don’t like.

“A filibuster (now) becomes a silent veto.  They no longer have to debate and keep the floor open.  It doesn’t force deliberation the way the filibuster is supposed to.  It’s essentially this silent killing mechanism that stops legislation in its tracks,” said Spalding.

As a result, he says the American people glaze over while the Senate plays parliamentary games instead of publicly debating the best course for the nation.

“I think Congress too often hides behind processes, whether it’s the filibuster or reconciliation or omnibus legislation rather than doing the hard work of legislating.  That’s the Madisonian answer here, and in the long run, that’s the best thing to solve our problems,” said Spalding.

He says that problem is front and center right now as GOP efforts to address Obamacare are complicated by the inability to get to 60 votes to do anything.  As a result, Republicans are trying to shoehorn changes through the Senate by way of the budget tactic known as reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority of votes to begin or end debate but also restricts what can be considered in such circumstances.

“The Senate is forced to try to go around the filibusters so they use things like reconciliation, an obscure budget process rather than regular legislation to get policy matters done,” said Spalding, who also says the GOP should have been crafting and debating the bill in public rather than writing it behind closed doors like the Democrats did with Obamacare in 2009 and 2010.

Spalding says two simple changes in approach to the filibuster would maker a world of difference.  First, he wants the Senate to return to the policy where all other business is halted until a filibuster is resolved.  He also encourages Senate leaders to embrace the “two-speech” rule, which would allow each member two opportunities to speak as long as they want in opposition to a bill.

However, once all the opportunities for speeches are done, the bill would proceed to a simple up-or-down vote.

Spalding says this would be very simple to accomplish.

“One of the reasons I point to these two reforms is that neither one of them requires a rules change.  All they actually require is for the majority leader to agree to do this.  This is merely a procedural move,” said Spalding, noting that those policies used to be in place before getting changed by leaders back in 1970’s when Democrats ran the chamber.

Such moves would still allow for filibusters, but would require real filibusters where lawmakers are forced to stand for hours on end to demonstrate how fiercely they oppose a bill.

“So I’m in favor of legislating but also keeping the filibuster so you can object.  But if you’re going to object, you’ve got to get up, you’ve got to debate and you’ve got to really filibuster,” said Spalding.

“You force the opposition to a piece of legislation to each get up there, and they can speak twice at whatever length they want, but it does come to an end at some point.  The political point is made.  Everything stops.  The Senate shuts down and you get a filibuster.  You have the effect but it does not stop the legislative branch from fulfilling its constitutional duties,” said Spalding.

The instant concern for those in the minority now or in the future is that Spalding’s approach all but guarantees the majority gets its way and that the minority’s ability to scuttle bad legislation is limited.

He acknowledges that’s true but says there is a remedy for that too.

“We shouldn’t hide behind it to stop bad things.  We should argue to stop bad things and have more politics better elections and get better people in there,” said Spalding.

Left to the status quo, Spalding says the legislative branch of the U.S. government will only get weaker and weaker.

“Congress is the weakest branch.  It doesn’t legislate.  It doesn’t budget.  Its muscles are so atrophied (that) we should think about the underlying reforms needed to revive it as an institution, which is good for constitutional government,” said Spalding.

Standard Podcast [ 11:28 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

‘This Is A Really Terrible Piece of Legislation’

by

The first man to sue the federal government over the Affordable Care Act says Republicans are breaking their campaign promises to repeal the health care law and are instead abandoning free market principles with legislation that will make health care even worse and let the Democrats off the hook for the blame.

Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli III launched the first constitutional challenge to the law, widely known as Obamacare, in 2010.  His efforts, along with others, ultimately ended in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision that saved President Obama’s most significant domestic policy.

Late Monday, House Republicans unveiled the text of the American Health Care Act and promoted as a means of getting Washington out of health care, reducing costs and regulations and setting the stage for market-based reforms.

But Cuccinelli says the bill is nothing more than a GOP version of Obamacare.

“This is a sloppy Democrat bill.  The people who call this Obamacare-lite are wrong.  It’s not lite.  It’s just a Republican form.  This is a really terrible piece of legislation on its own merits.  It’s even worse when you realize this is what’s supposed to pass for keeping their promise to actually repeal Obamacare,” said Cuccinelli.

He says any members trying to keep their promise to repeal the law have to vote against it.

“The problem for conservatives is if it doesn’t really mean actually getting rid of Obamacare and all of the worst features of it, then it should be voted against,” he said.

“Otherwise, it’s an adoption by the Republicans of all the worst elements of Obamacare.  They’re going to own the consequences.  They’re going to own those price increases and health insurance increases, which will keep happening,” said Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli says it will be up to congressional Republicans to get this right because President Trump has yet to wade into many specifics.

“Whatever bill gets to the president’s desk, he’s going to sign it.  He was very unspecific in the campaign.  They’ve been very unspecific in the last week or two.  Clearly, they just want to check this box and ‘get it done,’ whatever that means,” said Cuccinelli.

Republicans ran on repealing Obamacare in the past four election cycles.  The issue was largely responsible for the GOP takeover of the House of Representatives in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.  Cuccinelli says the promise resonated with voters, so it makes no sense to abandon that mission now.

“They’re all running around, at least leadership is,  afraid that they’ll upset somebody.  Well, I’ve got news for you.  People are already upset, and it isn’t a question of whether people are upset after you do whatever you’re going to do.  If that’s all you care about, what will they be more upset about: doing what you said you would or going in another direction?” said Cuccinelli.

“If you go in another direction to appease a constituency you didn’t rely on to get elected, what you’ve succeeded in doing is ticking everyone off.  That’s the direction Republicans are headed right now,” Cuccinelli.

But Cuccinelli goes a step farther.  He says Republicans are really abandoning a full repeal because they do not actually want a market-based health care system.

“They don’t want the regulations to go away.  That’s their dirty little secret.  They don’t want market-based health care.  They want big government control, even though someday it’s all going to come crashing down just because of how bankrupt it will all be,” said Cuccinelli.

He says GOP leaders have gotten comfortable turning to government to address problems.

“Let’s take (House Speaker) Paul Ryan for instance.  Paul Ryan has never done anything in his adult life except be in government.  It’s his solution to every perceived problem.  He doesn’t rely on the market.  He doesn’t trust the one force in the history of the world that has raised more people up out of poverty than any other, and that’s free market capitalism,” said Cuccinelli.

So what does Cuccinelli specifically see s the biggest problems with the GOP bill?

“There were 24 major regulations with Obamacare.  Under Ryancare, 22 and a half of those stay in place.  And of course we get blessed with a brand new entitlement.  I don’t know if anybody in the Republican leadership noticed, but we are bankrupt.  They do nothing really to resolve that problem,” said Cuccinelli.

“They make no move toward a market-based approach to health care.  There’s no expansion of freedom and there’s no reason for people to want to become a doctor any more than under Obamacare,” he added

Supporters of the GOP point out that this legislation needs to start the reform process because it can pass through reconciliation, meaning a simple majority in both chambers can get the job done.  They also suggest Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price can tackle most of the regulations unilaterally.  Then, they say market-based ideas can come in later legislation.

Cuccinelli isn’t buying it.

“I could swallow [all of that] a whole lot more easily if the first bill was a repeal bill.  So if you want us to trust you, then you do what you said you were going to do.  Is that really too much to ask?  Just do what you’ve been promising for seven years,” said Cuccinelli.

“Don’t put it on Tom Price to get rid of the regulations.  You do it in the legislation.  You do it as part of the vote.  It’s what repealing means,” said Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli says Republicans had no problem passing a full repeal in 2015 so there’s no good reason not to pass it again.

“All of them have voted on that bill.  Were they lying then when they voted on it?  It sure seems like it now.  Why not just pass a true repeal again?” he said.

“They were loudly speechifying back then.  Now they’re using scare tactics to say, ‘Those of you people who want to hold us up for this repeal bill are for Obamacare,” said Cuccinelli.

“That is the worst kind of ducking of a debate on the substance of an important, important issue to every family in America.  And it’s a dodge on their campaign promises.  They’re all breaking their promises and making liars out of themselves,” said Cuccinelli.

Standard Podcast [ 13:01 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share