Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘House Republicans’

How 31 Republicans Just Betrayed The Country To Reward Illegal Immigration, Worsen Inflation, And Pay Off Democrats’ Donors

Reported By Rachel BovardNOVEMBER 8, 2021

At nearly midnight on Friday, 13 House Republicans gave Speaker Nancy Pelosi the votes she needed to pass the so-called “bipartisan infrastructure bill” — colloquially known in DC as the BIF. In doing so, these House Republicans, among them two members of the House GOP leadership team, all but guaranteed House passage of Joe Biden’s hotly partisan, $2 trillion reconciliation bill, which represents the largest cradle-to-grave expansion of federal power since the New Deal.

Over at National Review, Philip Klein called the move by these 13 Republicans “political malpractice,” and a “betrayal.” He’s right, particularly on the first point. 

Republicans who supported the bill predictably justified their vote as one for “roads and bridges,” pointing to the benefits that the bill’s largest provisions — like the $47 billion in climate funding and the $66 billion for the failing Amtrak system, provided without any reform — will ostensibly bring to their districts. 

As Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told The Hill, “I thought it was good for our district, I thought it was good for our country.” Meanwhile, left-of-center commentator Andrew Sullivan huffed about the “fanatical tribalism” being applied to a bill about infrastructure.

That the BIF was a bill solely focused on infrastructure may have been true at the bill’s conception. But for months, a single and unavoidable political reality has been obvious: the substance of the bill hardly mattered. Rather, the infrastructure bill was but a chit, a chess piece, in forcing through passage of the larger, hotly partisan reconciliation legislation. Their fates were linked; one would not pass without the other. 

This was a choice made very clearly, and very openly, by congressional Democrats. In June, Pelosi stated“There ain’t gonna be no bipartisan bill, unless we have a reconciliation bill,” a sentiment she reiterated in October when she confirmed “the bipartisan infrastructure bill will pass once we have agreement on the reconciliation bill.” 

House Progressives made the linkage of the two bills central to their strategy of leveraging concessions in the reconciliation legislation, refusing to provide votes for the BIF until their reconciliation demands were met (six of them ended up refusing to support passage the BIF, paving the way for House Republicans to be the deciding votes).

Even President Joe Biden tied the fate of the infrastructure legislation to the reconciliation bill. He did so explicitly in June, then said he didn’t really mean it after Senate Republicans expressed outrage (but then 18 of them voted to pass the bill in August, anyway), and then linked them again in October when he told House Democrats that infrastructure “ain’t going to happen until we reach an agreement on the next piece of legislation,” reconciliation the infrastructure bill.

So to claim that a vote for the infrastructure legislation was merely a vote for “roads and bridges,” devoid of any other major political context, is just willfully ignorant of the obvious and openly stated politics at work. A vote for the infrastructure bill was very clearly a vote for the reconciliation legislation. The inability to understand this reality raises not only questions of basic political acumen, but of the ability of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s leadership team to hold their conference together on consequential votes.

It’s worth unpacking a few of the provisions in the reconciliation bill that this group of Republicans will help make possible. Among them:

  • A 10-year amnesty for illegal immigrants, which includes work permits and driver’s licenses and cannot be undone by future administrations for a decade.
  • Provides millions of dollars in funding for the IRS to enforce the Biden administration’s plan to review every bank account with $10,000 or more. 
  • Expands and shores up provisions of Obamacare.
  • Eliminates the statutory cap on employment visas, effectively allowing Big Tech companies and other mega-corporations to prioritize hiring foreign workers over American workers.
  • Facilitates enforcement of Biden’s vaccine mandate by increasing OSHA penalties on businesses up to $700,000 per violation and provides billions in funding for the Department of Labor to increase enforcement.
  • Mandates taxpayer coverage of abortion, leaving the long-agreed upon Hyde amendment out of the bill.
  • Provides half a trillion dollars in climate spending, including clean energy tax credits to subsidize solar, electric vehicles, and clean energy production, as well as federal spending on clean energy technology and manufacturing, all while limiting domestic energy production, thereby increasing dependence on Russia and China.
  • Provides roughly $400 billion for expanded government childcare and universal pre-K, which pumps millions into failed Head Start programs, excludes support for families who prefer at-home child-care arrangements, and by requiring that preschool teachers have a college degree, will reduce the availability of child-care options.
  • A host of new taxes, and a giant tax cut for the rich: by including a repeal on the cap for the state and local tax deduction, Democrats will provide a $30 billion net direct tax cut for the top 5 percent of earners, largely in blue states where the state and local taxes are much higher.

The “Build Back Better” reconciliation legislation is a bill that transforms the role of the state in every aspect of an individual’s life, while expanding key Democratic priorities like amnesty, abortion, cheap foreign labor, a dysfunctional health care system, and invasions of financial privacy. And consideration of the bill in the House wasn’t made possible by the Democrats in the majority, but by House Republicans.  

There are those, like Sullivan, who will still bemoan that political polarization has taken over even relatively popular policies like infrastructure. But politicizing the infrastructure bill was the clear and unambiguous choice that Democrats made when they linked the two bills. To expect most Republicans to be as tin-eared and politically naive (or, like Rep. Adam Kinzinger, as openly tied to Democratic priorities) as the group of 13 is ridiculous. It’s asking them to act against their own self-interest. 

Democrats drafted a partisan reconciliation bill with no Republican input, full of provisions they knew Republicans wouldn’t support, and then hijacked an otherwise bipartisan bill to ensure passage of its much more expansive and partisan cousin. This was a specific choice Democrats made, and Republicans are not responsible for it — nor should they be expected to vote for a bill that is the stated gateway to related legislation with which they profoundly disagree.

Regardless, the infrastructure bill now goes to the president’s desk. Eighteen Republican senators helped pass it in August, and so did 13 House Republicans (for a total of 31), knowing full well they were also voting on the amnesty-filled, abortion-funding, financially-snooping, cheap-labor loving reconciliation bill, gave it the required boost. Betrayal, as Klein noted, is not too strong a term.

Rachel Bovard is The Federalist’s senior tech columnist and the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute.

Judge rules in favor of House Republicans in Obamacare lawsuit

waving flagReported By Tom Howell Jr. – The Washington Times – Thursday, May 12, 2016

URL of the original posting site:

President Obama has been hoping to shore up his health legacy — roughly 20 million have gained coverage under his reforms — instead of fending off repeated legal challenges to reforms. (Associated Press) more >

A federal judge dealt President Obama and his health care law a major blow Thursday, ruling in favor of House Republicans who said the administration broke the law and trod on Congress’ fundamental powers by paying Obamacare insurers without permission from Capitol Hill.Complete Message

An appeal is certain, but should U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer’s ruling be upheld, it could spark the economic “death spiral” Republicans have predicted and Democrats feared would doom the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

But the ruling has implications far beyond Obamacare, signaling that federal courts may begin to play a more active role in reeling in executive powers that many legal experts say have grown far beyond what the country’s founders intended.

Judge Collyer, presiding in Washington, said the administration violated the Constitution when it made “cost-sharing” payments to Obamacare insurers, over the objections of Congress, which had zeroed out the funding.

“Authorization and appropriation by Congress are nonnegotiable prerequisites to government spending,” she wrote.

Judge Collyer said it was illegal for the administration to continue making the payments. But she stayed her own decision to give Mr. Obama a chance to appeal her ruling.

The White House was stunned by the ruling and railed against the House for bringing the fight to the courts in the first place.

“This suit represents the first time in our nation’s history that Congress has been permitted to sue the executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.Leftist Propagandist

The cost-sharing program was written into Obamacare to make it more attractive for poor people without insurance to buy plans on the new health exchanges. In addition to tax subsidies, those with incomes just above the poverty line were supposed to have some of their costs paid directly by the government to insurers. The Affordable Care Act authorized the payments, but Congress and the Obama administration have feuded over whether Capitol Hill needed to take the next step and appropriate the billions of dollars each year. Initially the administration seemed to think it did need an appropriation and requested the money in its budget. But after Congress refused, Mr. Obama changed tune and said he felt he could spend the money even without a new OK.

In court the administration argued that it wouldn’t have made sense for Congress to approve the program but not come up with the money. Judge Collyer rejected that, saying Congress authorizes programs all the time but never finds the money to carry them out. She spanked the secretaries of the Treasury and Health and Human Services departments for trying to spend the money anyway.

“Such an appropriation cannot be inferred,” she wrote. “None of the secretaries’ extra-textual arguments — whether based on economics, ‘unintended’ results, or legislative history — is persuasive.”

Millions of Obamacare customers with incomes between 100 percent and 250 percent of poverty rely on the payments, and health plans are required to reduce their out-of-pocket costs whether they’re reimbursed or not, so they’d likely increase rates to balance their ledgers.

House Republicans’ decision to sue Mr. Obama in 2014 was unusual, though then-Speaker John A. Boehner said he had no choice after the executive branch doled out cost-sharing payments and twice delayed the part of Obamacare that requires large employers to provide health coverage to employees. Judge Collyer shocked Democrats in September by saying House Republicans had legal standing to pursue their central claim: that the administration injured Congress as an institution by usurping its power.

House lawmakers said Thursday’s ruling on the merits offered further vindication.

“The court ruled that the administration overreached by spending taxpayer money without approval from the people’s representatives. Here the executive branch is being held accountable to ‘We the People,’ and that’s why this decision is very good news,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, said.

Analysts have said the constitutional and political considerations behind the case may outweigh the economic ones. Without the reimbursements, insurers may hike the price of their benchmark Obamacare plans. But those higher costs could end up being covered by the federal government anyway through the tax subsidies paid directly to Obamacare customers to help them buy insurance on the exchanges.

“Federal payments to insurers for cost-sharing subsidies would end, but would essentially be replaced by larger federal premium subsidy payments to insurers,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in a September study.

For now, the ruling offers a timely jolt to congressional Republicans who want to repeal and replace Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement in 2017, and who say its existence is proof the president has stepped out of bounds in using his powers.

“Here’s what the court just said on Obamacare: America still has three branches of government, and the president cannot rewrite the law — even if it is his namesake,” Sen. Ben Sasse, Nebraska Republican, said.

For his part, Mr. Obama has been hoping to shore up his health legacy — roughly 20 million have gained coverage under his reforms — instead of fending off repeated legal challenges to reforms. Mr. Obama had urged his opponents to move beyond legal challenges to Obamacare last year, when the Supreme Court turned back a second major challenge that would have gutted his reforms. Now he will have to fend off one more challenge.

“It’s unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to refight a political fight that they keep losing,” Mr. Earnest. “They’ve been losing this fight for six years. And they’ll lose it again.”Leftist Propagandist

Dave Boyer contributed to this report.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

House committee pressing DHS for answers over missing guns, badges

waving flagPublished February 24, 2016,

House Republicans are pressing the Department of Homeland Security for answers following a report that hundreds of badges, cell phones and guns belonging to DHS employees were lost or stolen. House oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, in a Feb. 19 letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, called it “particularly troubling … that the Department cannot account for its entire inventory of firearms.” 

The letter, co-signed by Subcommittee on National Security Chairman Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., cited the report and asked for documents on the lost or stolen items by next week. Inventory reports obtained by the news site Complete Colorado and shared with showed that over 1,300 badges, 165 firearms and 589 cell phones were lost or stolen over the span of 31 months between 2012 and 2015. The DHS did not dispute the inventory report data.

In their letter, Chaffetz and DeSantis pointed to a 2010 inspector general report that found the DHS “did not adequately safeguard and control its firearms,” and reported 289 firearms lost between 2006 and 2008.

“The more recent news regarding the loss of an additional 165 firearms over a 31-month period shows that the Department is consistently unable to safeguard sensitive property,” the letter said.Oh good

The letter requests documents showing the inventory of lost and stolen property between fiscal 2012 and 2015, as well as the cost and procedures implemented for reporting lost or stolen property.

In an earlier statement to, a DHS spokesman said they strive to be “good stewards of government resources” and have improved oversight and reduced the number of lost or stolen items over the past few years.

“If a credential holder loses or has their credentials stolen, the holder must report the incident to their supervisor and credential issuance office immediately,” spokesman Justin Greenberg said. “Once the incident has been reported, this information is entered into appropriate DHS and law enforcement databases, which disables use of the lost or stolen item.”Picture1’s Adam Shaw contributed to this report.

stupid Die Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Federal Judge Hands Republicans ‘Historic,’ Unexpected Win Over Obama

waving flagPosted by Jack Davis September 10, 2015

URL of the original posting site:

Image Credit: Flickr/Erik Drost

Constitution 1; Obama 0.

That was the score Wednesday as a federal judge gave House Republicans the go-ahead to proceed with their lawsuit to block President Obama’s budget-busting healthcare law. “This suit remains a plain dispute over a constitutional command, of which the Judiciary has long been the ultimate interpreter,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who said that House Republicans have legal standing to sue.

The Constitution, Collyer wrote, “could not be more clear: ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’ Neither the president nor his officers can authorize appropriations; the assent of the House of Representatives is required before any public monies are spent.”

Complete Message

Republicans had argued the Obama administration violated the Constitution by spending money on Obamacare without Congressional approval. House Democrats had called the Republicans’ suit “a political stunt.” The suit focuses on the $175 billion Obama wants to spend as part of a cost-sharing program with health insurance companies.

“The United States House of Representatives now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the power of the purse,” said Jonathan Turley, the attorney for House Republicans.

“The president’s unilateral change to Obamacare was unprecedented and outside the powers granted to his office under our Constitution,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement. “I am grateful to the court for ruling that this historic overreach can be challenged by the coequal branch of government with the sole power to create or change the law. The House will continue our effort to ensure the separation of powers in our democratic system remains clear, as the Framers intended.”B2A_FvyCMAE14px

Arguments on the merits of the suit are scheduled to be heard in the fall, although the White House said Wednesday it will appeal Collyer’s decision.

The Lower you go Indenification of Obama 95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obstructionists: Republicans Pass Border Bill, Democrats Declare it ‘Dead on Arrival’ in Senate

August 1, 2014 By


Unhappy Harry ReidLate Friday evening, House Republicans came together to pass a border bill that allows $694 million for border security and for the care of a recent surge of illegal immigrants that have made their way into the U.S.
The vote fell largely along party lines with a 223-189 vote. Four Republicans, Reps. Paul Broun (Ga.), Stephen Fincher (Tenn.), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Walter Jones (N.C.), voted against the legislation while one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), voted for it.
On Thursday, the prospects looked grim as the House GOP remained divided between moderates and conservatives. However, Friday negotiations yielded a deal that allows for the $649 million allocation, but calls for a later vote that, if approved, would prohibit President Obama from expanding his deferred action program that grants two-year work permits for illegals who arrived in the U.S. prior to 2007.

This is precisely the sticking point for Democrats.

Despite President Obama repeatedly declaring that he is willing to work with Republicans on the issue of immigration reform, he has remained opposed to the legislation that passed late Friday in the Republican-controlled House.

Further, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared the House’s border bill “dead on arrival” in the Democrat-controlled Senate.cootie

Though Democrats have repeatedly charged that Republicans are obstructionists, the Democrats have displayed an eagerness to work with Republicans on matters of immigration; however, while Republicans have offered a bill that would address the border crisis in a meaningful way, it is the Senate Democrats claiming that the effort is dead on arrival.
Now, the House GOP has earned bragging rights, having done their job and even delaying the August recess to hammer-out a last minute deal.
“The House is here working,” said House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). “I encourage the Senate to come back and do their job.”
Imperial President Obama“It’s dealing with the issue that the American people care about more than any other, and that is stopping the invasion of illegal foreign nationals into our country,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. “And we got to yes.” 
Though the deal is likely to die in the Senate, the GOP-led effort allows Republicans to shake-off the “obstructionist” label and point to Democrats as the hold-outs on the funding for which they have been clamoring.
President Obama, however, expressed an eagerness to deal with the crisis unilaterally and stated on Friday,

“I’m going to have to make some tough choices to meet the challenge, with or without Congress.”

He also added: “I’m going to have to act alone, because we don’t have enough resources.”mars

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: