Lisa Murkowki is a Republican Senator from Alaska who voted against even opening debate on repeal and replace of Obamacare.
Murkowski has betrayed her constituents. She betrayed them this week by trying to block debate on repeal and replace. Or, she betrayed her constituents when she lied to them in 2015 with her vote in favor of repeal in the full knowledge that her vote didn’t matter because then-President Barack Obama (D) would veto the matter.
In a Wall Street Journaleditorial about Republican Senators’ timorous attitude toward actual repeal and replace of Obamacare now that what they do matters, the editors had this remark toward the end of their piece:
One vote to watch would repeal ObamaCare with a two-year window to replace it, which is similar to a bill that 51 Senate Republicans voted for in 2015. We’ll see how many have changed their minds.
We’ll see how many have changed their minds. The rest of that sentence is this: …now that their vote has actual consequences, and they can’t hide behind their virtue signaling.
The Progressive-Democratic Party is rolling out a new plan of campaign for the 2018 elections. It’s a populist one, but what interests me is this. The Republicans have run, for the last several election cycles, on “take back our country.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA), in endorsing her party’s new campaign plan, said
This is one step that Democrats are offering to take back our government[.]
…to sweep the ones we can’t trust from the Republican Party of Castrati and from Congress.
When Republicans voted on the repeal-only bill in 2015, they knew Mr Obama would veto it, making their vote largely symbolic. Of the GOP senators currently in the chamber, 49 voted for it at the time. …
Moreover, many GOP lawmakers have already acknowledged that they would vote differently now that the stakes are far higher….
Now that these persons have to take action more concrete than virtue signaling, they’re exposing themselves as porch dogs. They’re betraying their country, and more specifically, they’re betraying their constituents, to whom they promised for the last seven years, they’d repeal Obamacare and replace it.
Susan Collins is the Republican Senator from Maine whose refusal to vote for the health care reform bill on offer (and any of the prior efforts) is centered on her insistence that the bill’s cuts to reductions to growth in Medicaid payments to the States—Maine in particular—are too great. Collins needs to be asked, and required to give straight, substantive answers to, a number of questions.
What is Maine’s government doing to reduce the costs to its citizens of health care and of health coverage?
What is Maine’s government doing to make health care available to its citizens in the absence of health coverage?
Investigators are re-examining conversations detected by US intelligence agencies in spring 2015 that captured Russian government officials discussing associates of Donald Trump, according to current and former US officials, a move prompted by revelations that the president’s eldest son met with a Russian lawyer last year.
Why is Special Counsel Robert Mueller allowing these leaks? Is he not interested in running an honest investigation?
Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) has said he will not vote for the latest Senate effort at beginning the repeal and replace process of Obamacare. He claims he can’t tell the difference between this offer and the Obamacare that exists because, in part, it leaves some of the Obamacare taxes in place.
Never mind that a critical difference between the offer and Obamacare is that the offer does repeal some of the Obamacare taxes.
A Dodd-Frank requirement to report the pay ratio between a company’s leadership and its rank and file—specifically, the total earnings of the chief executive compared with those of the median employee—is on the chopping block.
Supporters of the rule, part of the post-financial crisis Dodd-Frank Act, hope disclosure at an individual-company level might focus more attention on inequality and sky-high CEO pay.
This sort of pay ratio metric may well have value to a company’s investors, but it has no value at all to the Federal government beyond a cynical social-justice virtue signal kind of mandate from the Progressive-Democrats. The requirement needs to be chopped (along with the whole of Dodd-Frank, but that’s a different story).
Congressmen Jamie Raskin (D, MD), Sheila Jackson Lee (D, TX), and Anthony Brown (D, MD), and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D, DC) are pushing a bill that would remove President Donald Trump under the 25th Amendment because, as these Progressive-Democrats insist, Trump is mentally unfit for office.
Indeed, Raskin has said he’s been thinking about this bill since he was elected last fall. He insists now
This is a president who seems increasingly at odds with everyone and everything around him[.]
For the Left it means sanctuary from inconvenient laws. Nevertheless, the House has passed two bills aimed at eliminating such sanctuary by reducing the ability of local cities and counties to give sanctuary to illegal aliens. One such is the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which looks to persuade—notice that: not force, as many on the Left insist it does—locals to hold folks in jail who’ve already been arrested by locals for local violations for up to 48 hours in response to an ICE detainer. Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien who had just been released—deliberately in contradiction of an ICE request. Opponents, though, insist that