How Rand Paul And A Few Other RINO Douchebags Let Congress Keep Its Fraudulent Obamacare Subsidies

How Five Republicans Let Congress Keep Its Fraudulent Obamacare Subsidies – National Review

.

.
The rumors began trickling in about a week before the scheduled vote on April 23: Republican leadership was quietly pushing senators to pull support for subpoenaing Congress’s fraudulent application to the District of Columbia’s health exchange – the document that facilitated Congress’s “exemption” from Obamacare by allowing lawmakers and staffers to keep their employer subsidies.

The application said Congress employed just 45 people. Names were faked; one employee was listed as “First Last,” another simply as “Congress.” To Small Business Committee chairman David Vitter, who has fought for years against the Obamacare exemption, it was clear that someone in Congress had falsified the document in order to make lawmakers and their staff eligible for taxpayer subsidies provided under the exchange for small-business employees.

But until Vitter got a green light from the Small Business Committee to subpoena the unredacted application from the District of Columbia health exchange, it would be impossible to determine who in Congress gave it a stamp of approval. When Vitter asked Republicans on his committee to approve the subpoena, however, he was unexpectedly stonewalled.

With nine Democrats on the committee lined up against the proposal, the chairman needed the support of all ten Republicans to issue the subpoena. But, though it seems an issue tailor-made for the tea-party star and Republican presidential candidate, Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) refused to lend his support. And when the Louisiana senator set a public vote for April 23, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his allies got involved.

“For whatever reason, leadership decided they wanted that vote to be 5-5, all Republicans, to give Senator Paul cover,” one high-ranking committee staffer tells National Review. “So they worked at a member level to change the votes of otherwise supportive senators.” Four Republicans – senators Mike Enzi, James Risch, Kelly Ayotte, and Deb Fischer – had promised to support Vitter, but that would soon change.

Senate staffers, according to a top committee aide, reported seeing Missouri senator Roy Blunt make calls to at least two Republican committee members, lobbying them, at McConnell’s behest, to vote no on subpoenaing the exchange. By the time the committee was called to quorum, Enzi, Risch, Ayotte, and Fischer voted no.

To many observers, it was curious that any Republican would move to put the brakes on an investigation into Obamacare fraud, and particularly curious that they would pull back in an instance where the federal government was actually defrauding itself, one that so clearly illustrates Obamacare’s flaws by exposing the bureaucratic jujitsu and outright dishonesty required of federal employees themselves to navigate the law.

Conservative health-care experts can’t understand the reasoning behind the GOP senators’ opposition. They see politics and self-interest at play, and they allege that Republican leaders are as invested as their Democratic counterparts in maintaining their subsidies, fraudulently obtained, while avoiding scrutiny from an overwhelmingly disapproving American public.

“We deserve to know who signed that application, because they are robbing taxpayers,” says Michael Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. The staffers who signed the fraudulent application, he says, “know who was directing them to do this. And so we have to follow the trail of breadcrumbs. This is the next breadcrumb, and whoever is farther up the trail wants to stop Vitter right here.”

The story of the ill-fated subpoena can be traced back to the debate over the Affordable Care Act, when Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) insisted that lawmakers and congressional staff join a health-care exchange set up under the bill. For government employees, that meant giving up government-subsidized health-care contributions of between $5,000 and $10,000 per person. The White House scrambled to find a way to allow congressional employees to keep those subsidies. In Washington, D.C., only the small-business exchange allowed them to do so. After secret meetings with House speaker John Boehner in 2013, President Obama instructed the Office of Personnel Management to allow Congress to file for classification as a small business, despite the fact that the law defines a small business as having no more than 50 employees and the House and Senate together employ tens of thousands.

When Vitter’s staffers tracked down the application and discovered obvious signs of fraud, Vitter requested approval to subpoena an unredacted copy of the application. The value of that document, says Cannon, is that it would reveal the name of the person who filed it. “Now you’ve got someone to call to testify,” he says, predicting that testimony would precipitate a congressional vote on whether to end the congressional exemption altogether.

“I think it makes sense to find out what happened,” says Yuval Levin, the editor of National Affairs, a noted conservative health-care voice and a National Review contributor. “It would be pretty interesting to see whose name is on the forms,” he says. “It has to go beyond mid-level staffers.”

But some congressional Republicans, it seems, are also resistant to getting to the bottom of the mystery – or, at the very least, they are content to let sleeping dogs lie.

Committee rules for a subpoena require either the consent of the ranking member or a majority of the group’s 19 senators. Because Democrats quickly made their opposition clear, Vitter needed the approval of all ten Republicans. Nine of them quickly consented via e-mail; one senator was strangely unresponsive.

Senior committee aides say that Rand Paul’s staff didn’t immediately reply to an e-mail requesting the senator’s consent and, when they did, they refused to provide it. When Vitter attempted to set up a member-to-member meeting, his overtures were ignored or put off. Paul’s policy staff refused to take a meeting. When Vitter tried to confront Paul on the Senate floor, they say, the Kentucky senator skirted the issue.

It wasn’t until after the vote that Paul shared his reasoning. “Senator Paul opposes allowing Congress to exempt themselves from any legislation,” an aide told the Conservative Review. “To that end, yesterday, he reintroduced his proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit Congress from passing any law that exempts themselves. Senator Paul prefers this option over a partisan cross-examination of Congressional staff.”

But a constitutional amendment is a longshot that would take years, and it hardly precluded an investigation of congressional corruption here and now.

“That’s absurd,” says Robert Moffit, the director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “You don’t need a constitutional amendment to get a subpoena… I don’t know where he’s coming from.”

“The answers he has given do not make sense,” Cannon says of Paul. “And when someone with his principles does something that is so obviously against his principles, and does not give an adequate explanation, you begin to think that politics is afoot. It would have to be someone very powerful that made him a powerful pitch – or threat – to keep him from doing this.”

Paul’s press secretary tells National Review that the senator “examines every opportunity to [oppose Obamacare] individually, and does not base his vote on requests made by other senators, including the majority leader.”

Asked whether McConnell pushed Paul or any other senator on the subpoena, a spokesman for McConnell says the majority leader “didn’t make any announcements when that committee voted.”

The flip-flopping Republicans justified their change of heart. Risch said in the April 23 committee meeting that legal wrangling with the D.C. exchange could take time away from the committee’s small-business work. Enzi said he saw little wrong with the application as is.

“Each of us has our own budget, each of us has our own staff,” he said. “I don’t know about everybody else, but I’m way under 50 [employees]. So my staff qualifies as a small business.”

Enzi was one of the original sponsors of Vitter’s 2013 amendment to end the congressional Obamacare exemption, but his press secretary tells National Review he felt the probe “could inadvertently target staff who simply completed paperwork as part of their job.” He insists that Enzi “made up his own mind.” Risch, Ayotte, and Fischer declined to comment.

A spokesman for South Carolina senator Tim Scott, who voted for the subpoena, says that nobody lobbied him one way or the other, while a spokesman for Florida senator Marco Rubio, who also voted in favor of the measure, declined to comment.

Health-care experts dismiss Enzi’s claim that each member’s office is its own small business, and not just because the health exchange application was filed for Congress as a whole. “These congressional offices that think they’re small businesses, are they LLCs?” Cannon asks. “Are they S-Corps? Are they shareholder-owned? Are they privately held? What is the ownership structure of this small business that you’re running, senator? It’s just utterly ridiculous.”

“They’re transparently absurd,” says Moffit of Senate Republicans claiming small-business status. “Who made the determination that Congress is a small business and is therefore eligible for subsidies that do not legally exist? How did that happen?”

No one quite knows what’s behind leadership’s apparent push to kill the subpoena. The move baffled some committee staffers. “The amount of blood that McConnell and Paul spilled to prevent [the subpoena] from happening makes me wonder [if] maybe that isn’t all that there is to it,” the high-ranking staffer says. “Maybe other people signed it… They’re clearly afraid of something bigger than a person’s name getting out there.”

Others, however, think the motives behind GOP leadership’s apparent obfuscation are clear. “If there’s one thing that absolutely drives Americans fundamentally crazy, it’s the idea that Congress can set one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else,” says Moffit. “That’s political poison, and that’s why they have been so desperate to avoid the issue.”

“The most powerful interest group in Washington D.C., is not the Chamber or the unions or anyone else,” Cannon says. “It is members of Congress and their staffs. And when it comes to their benefits, they are all members of the same party.”

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

.

.

.

RINO Assclown Panders To Mexicans In New Cinco De Mayo Video


.

.

Here Are The 10 RINO Idiots In The Senate Who Just Helped Make Loretta Lynch Attorney General


.
Kelly Ayotte
Thad Cochran
Susan Collins
Jeff Flake
Lindsey Graham
Orrin Hatch
Ron Johnson
Mark Kirk
Rob Portman
Mitch McConnell
.

Thanks a lot, assholes!

.

.

*LIVE STREAMING* New Hampshire Republican Party Leadership Summit – Day 1 – 04/17/15


Former Governor Rick Perry, Senator Marco Rubio, former Governor Jeb Bush, and Governor Chris Christie take part in the New Hampshire Republican Party’s “First in the Nation” leadership summit in Nashua, NH. Streaming begins at 11:00am eastern time.

.


………………………Click on image above to watch stream.
.

Alternate Stream

.

Click HERE to visit the official website of the New Hampshire Republican Party Leadership Summit


.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.

Day 2 Speakers: Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Rand Paul, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Kelly Ayotte, and Governor Bobby Jindal.

.

RINO Jeb Bush Bussed In Supporters To CPAC 2015 (Video)

Jeb Bush Bussed In Supporters To CPAC 2015 – Gateway Pundit

Jeb Bush had a rough day at CPAC 2015.

The crowd booed him during his Q-and-A with Sean Hannity and several conservatives walked out during the session.

.

Conservatives streamed out of CPAC 2015 when Jeb Bush hit the stage.

.
It’s a good thing he bussed in supporters to cheer for him.

Slate reported, via Fire Andrea Mitchell:

It sounds like Jeb Bush’s supporters are taking CPAC pretty seriously this year. Emails provided to Slate show that backers of the former Florida governor are busing supporters from downtown Washington D.C. to CPAC in National Harbor, Maryland, and organizing to get them day passes into the event.

One of the emails that went out this morning was from Fritz Brogan, a former advance man for then-President George W. Bush who (per the Washington Post) co-hosted a fundraiser for Jeb’s Right to Rise PAC earlier this month. A Bush insider confirmed to Slate that Bush’s Right to Rise PAC is helping organize the transportation.

“We strongly recommend arriving as early as possible to get a seat,” wrote Brogan in an email sent to undisclosed recipients. “Our ‘Early Rise’ team will be there at 7:30am onward helping reserve seats- if you want to join the early team, let me know.”

.

.

U.S. Has Allowed Two Immigrants To Enter Country For Every Job Created Since Year 2000

Two Immigrants For Every New Job Since 2000 – Daily Caller

The United States has accepted two new immigrants for each additional job created since 2000, according to federal data.

.

.
The data shows that 18 million legal and illegal immigrants settled in the United States from 2000 to 2015, while only 9.3 million additional jobs were created, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors a reduced level of immigration.

After subtracting deaths, departures and retirements among the immigrants, the working-age population of immigrants has grown 12 million since 2000, according to data at the Bureau of Labor Standards, said Steve Camarota, the author of the CIS study.

That’s equal to three years of American births.

The population of Americans aged 16 to 65 also grew by 16 million from 2000 to 2014, Camarota told The Daily Caller.

That overall population of working-age immigrants and native-born Americans increased by 28 million, which is three times the number of jobs added since 2000.

The huge growth in the labor supply, and the slow growth of employment, debunks predictions by Democrats and business groups that immigrant labor spurs the economy enough to ensure that even Americans gain from the inflow.

Instead, the post-2000 flood of migrants and young Americans workers has swamped the slow-growing labor market, and is helping to drive down salaries and to boost values on Wall Street. “Median household income, on average, has fallen 9 percent since the turn of the century,” The New York Times reported in January, matching conventional economic predictions about supply and demand in the labor market.

The extra immigrants are mostly poor, drive up taxpayers’ costs for welfare spending and are crowding into classrooms and spiking state and local education budgets.

The public is increasingly hostile to extra immigration, even as respondents tell pollsters that they value the American tradition of immigration and also that they respect immigrants. The contrast between public statements and private voting was demonstrated in the Democratic stronghold of Oregon, where Americans voted in November by two-to-one to deny drivers licenses to illegals. A January 2015 Gallup poll showed that only seven percent of Americans want a higher rate of immigration, despite minimal media coverage about the scale of immigration.

One reason for the low support for additional immigration is public opposition to companies that hire migrants at lower pay than Americans. In part, migrants take lower wages because their pay will be effectively increased by the government’s subsequent award of citizenship to them. That’s a hugely valuable deferred payment to migrants, to their future children and to their parents, who can later gain residency and sign up for Medicare’s various aid programs.

American citizens, however, can’t get citizenship as deferred wages. Instead, they must ask employers to pay their full wages – except for welfare payments – which puts them at a disadvantage in the labor market.

The percentage of working-age, native-born Americans who are in the labor market has fallen from 76.0 percent in 2000, down to 71.5 percent in 2014, according to the CIS report. The trend has pushed 13 million additional Americans out of the workforce since 2000.

In November 2014, one in every five U.S. jobs was held by a foreign-born worker, up from one-in-six jobs in January 2010, according to federal data highlighted by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The resulting poverty and social conflict in the United States has spiked demand for big government aid programs since 2000. That demand helped Sen. Barack Obama claim the presidency in 2008 and 2012.

Obama and his allied Democrats have accelerated the process.

During Obama’s tenure, the normal immigrant inflow of 1 million per year has been boosted by the unprecedented distribution of roughly 7.4 million work-permits to illegals, refugees, tourists and other categories of foreigners.

That supply of 7.4 million workers is in addition to the roughly four million working-age immigrants among the 6 million legal immigrants who have arrived since 2009.

The combination of the 4 million and the 7.4 million has added roughly 11.4 million new foreign workers to the labor market since Obama was inaugurated in January 2009.

During the same period, roughly 26 million young Americans joined the workforce in search of the jobs needed to pay off college debts, to buy houses and to start families.

That means roughly one working-age immigrant has entered the labor market for every two or three young Americans who turn 18 during Obama’s six-year tenure.

.

.

*VIDEO* Mark Levin Discusses The Boehner Legacy


.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

.