House Democrats Asked To Vote Against Stopgap Spending Bill

Update: In what could be a serious problem for Ryan and the rest of the GOP leadership, Democratic leaders in the House have asked their members to vote against the Republican continuing resolution bill as it stands.

 

.@WhipHoyer says House Democrats are being asked to vote against the stopgap-defense-disaster spending package.

“We are asking our members to vote no. If Republicans want Democrats’ votes, they need to work with us on a serious compromise.”

— Jennifer Shutt (@JenniferShutt) December 19, 2017

 

* * *

House Republicans have decided to attach provisions reauthorizing a popular child health-insurance program and allocating an unprecedented $81 billion in disaster-aid spending to a continuing resolution that would keep the federal government funded until Jan. 19, Politico reported Tuesday, citing anonymous Congressional aids.

House Speaker Paul Ryan disclosed the new strategy in a GOP conference meeting Wednesday morning.

 

NEWS— Ryan tells House Republicans he will attach the $81 billion supplemental disaster spending bill to the stopgap bill to keep the government open.

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) December 19, 2017

 

Funding for the federal government is set to run out on Friday at midnight, and Republican leaders have been preoccupied with tax reform and unable to focus on averting a shutdown and the myriad other legislative priorities that demand action before Congress enters recess.

By combining all the measures into one bill, Ryan will likely attract the support of Democrats in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, California and other states affected by this year’s natural disasters, who probably wouldn’t risk being seen opposing badly needed funding for their home states.

However, as the Hill explained earlier, even with CHIP and disaster aid attached to the House bill, averting a shutdown is far from assured. Indeed, Ryan is standing by a measure in the bill that would authorize spending for the Pentagon through September. That provision is incredibily unpopular with Democrats, whose votes Senate Republicans will need to overcome a filibuster.

Eight Democratic votes are needed in the senate to overcome a fillibuster. However, when it comes to locking in a year’s worth of defense spending, Ryan is facing a dilemma. Eliminating the provision could alienate conservative Republicans who might band together to oppose the bill. But cutting the defense-spending provision would likely attract Democratic votes.

Forty-four Democrats signed onto a letter vowing to oppose a combination CR–defense omnibus bill because of concerns about prioritizing defense spending over domestic programs.

Another issue likely to become a problem in the senate is reauthorizing the Obamacare subsidies that Trump cancelled back in October - a decision that has prompted participating insurers to warn of more premium hikes.

Susan Collins, a moderate Republican who was one of the last senators to throw her support behind tax reform, could be an obstacle for the spending bill. Once the CR reaches the senate, Republicans might try to attach the ObamaCare fixes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised Collins in exchange for her vote on tax reform. However, conservatives like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz could try and block the bill from passing if these measures are added. Indeed, observers will be watching to see if McConnell breaks his promise to Collins, who could continue to create serious headaches for the leadership given their thin majority.
 

GOP Releases All 479 Pages Of The Tax Reform Bill - "Vote-A-Rama" Begins

The Senate tax bill is headed for a potentially unlimited series of decisions on possible amendments - known as “vote-a-rama” - as the full text of the revised bill has just been released.

As Bloomberg reports, it’s unclear how long that process might take, though we do note that unlike Obamacare, Senators will at least get to see what"s in the bill before they vote on it.

Democrats could spend hours offering numerous amendments meant to highlight any flaws they believe the bill contains.

Full Text:

In Win For White House, Rand Paul Says He Will Vote "Yes" On Tax Reform

In a surprising reversal that President Donald Trump will undoubtedly tout as a major victory, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has publicly confirmed that he will be voting ‘Yes’ on the GOP tax plan when the senate votes on it later this week.

Paul says he will vote ‘yes’ even though the tax overhaul “isn’t perfect” and he’d like to see a larger cut. In an opinion piece published on Fox News’s website, Paul explained the reasoning behind his change of heart in greater detail.

Ultimately, Paul said, he is voting ‘yes’ because the US tax code, which has 97 different federal taxes, must be simplified. Congress can always authorize more cuts at a later date. In fact, Paul says if the public will is strong enough, Congress could authorize a new tax cut every year.

Currently, there are at least 97 different federal taxes. The tax code that instructs people how they must hand over their hard-earned money to government spans some 74,000-plus pages.

 

This is absurd, and so is the fact that government will collect over $3 trillion from taxpayers next year but still is not satisfied.

 

One of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans, in general, favor less government and more tax cuts. That’s why I’m pleased to see us moving forward on a plan for tax cuts, and why I hope to vote to pass such a cut in the coming weeks.

Paul said he supports the Senate proposal to end Obamacare’s individual mandate penalizing people who don’t have health insurance, and that he would like to see preservation of some state and local tax deductions.

He also applauded his fellow senators for abandoning the concept of revenue neutrality, saying he’d like to see the tax cuts eliminate even more than the $1.5 trillion in revenues expected over the next 10 years, according to an analysis by the CBO. Paul said he’d be comfortable with a reduction in revenue of up to $2.5 trillion.

I spoke out all year against the GOP leaders’ initial plan to make their tax reform “revenue neutral” — meaning not really a cut. I’m pleased to see my point of view has prevailed, and the current tax plan calls for a $1.5 trillion cut over the next ten years. I would have liked to see more — in fact, I offered an amendment to move it up to $2.5 trillion — but I’ve stated many times that as long as it is a real cut, I’ll vote for it, even if it isn’t as large as I would prefer.

 

I’m also pleased to note that, in part by my urging, the Senate tax-plan writers have included repeal of the ObamaCare individual mandate in the tax plan. The mandate is clearly a tax, a fact that was established by the Supreme Court when it upheld ObamaCare. So including it in the tax bill only makes sense. In addition, with CBO scoring it as a $350 billion savings, repealing the mandate helped pave the way for increased middle-class tax cuts, like an expanded child tax credit.

Winning Paul"s vote has been a top priority of President Trump, who has often expressed admiration for the Kentucky senator even though Paul has, until this point, been one of the most obstinate opponents of the Trump agenda.

However, his support doesn’t guarantee passage for the tax plan: At least five other senators have either said they’re not voting for the bill, or that they’re on the fence. However, Fox News is reporting that a deal is in the works to add more deductions to the bill to help win over Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who said two weeks ago that he would vote "no" on the bill. However, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker and John McCain remain on the fence. And while Montana"s Steve Daines has raised hackles about the bill because, he says, it favors corporations over small businesses, he recently touted a "productive" conversation with Trump, and appears to be leaning toward a yes.

We now await Trump’s congratulatory response to Paul’s decision. It should be coming any minute now.

GOP leadership says they will bring the bill to a vote on Thursday. But of course, if they fail to rally support from Republican holdouts, that could change.

Philly Admits Soda Tax Is Crushing Local Small Businesses, Expanding "Food Deserts"

 Just one week after Chicago shockingly repealed their soda ban following a revolt from local business owners (see: Soda Tax Fizzles In Chicago As Cook County Officials Cast Decisive 15-1 Repeal Vote), it seems that Philadelphia"s flirtations with forming a more perfect "nanny state" via the elimination of sugary drinks could be on a collision course with a similar fate.

As WHYY points out today, a survey conducted by Philadelphia"s Controller Alan Butkovitz — a longtime opponent of the soda tax — found that nine out of 10 businesses reported revenue loss since the city’s sweetened beverage tax took effect earlier this year. Of those reporting revenue loss, 60% of them blamed the soda tax for their woes.

City Controller Alan Butkovitz today released the results of the Philadelphia Beverage Tax survey that found more than 60 percent of businesses indicated a revenue loss as a direct result of the new tax.

 

Of the 650 businesses that reported a decline in year-to-year revenue, more than 400 attributed “most” or “all” of the decline to the implementation of the Beverage Tax.  The majority of these businesses reported revenue losses of more than 10 percent.

 

“The overwhelming majority of businesses that carry products subject to the Philadelphia Beverage Tax feel a significant impact as a result of the tax,” said Controller Butkovitz.  “The tax has had detrimental effects.”

 

Butkovitz’s team, with help from various business groups, reached out to “more than 1,600” businesses that sell or sold taxed beverages. Response was purely voluntary, and 741 businesses filled out questionnaires.

 

“This is not going to be the comprehensive answer to everything, but I think it does create a serious warning and an attestation of what has been stated by a number of the businesses,” he said during a Monday news conference. “Because I think the administration has minimized and ridiculed the idea that businesses are fighting for survival.”

To our great "shock", many Philadelphia grocers reported that customers were simply driving to the suburbs to do their weekly shopping which means that local retailers lost not only their soda sales but everything else as well.

And, as usual, the Office of the Controller noted that this latest misinformed regulatory overstep by Philly"s liberal elites is most detrimental to the very same people it was intended to help, namely low-income, inner-city families who can"t afford to travel to the suburbs for groceries and who are about to get crushed with higher prices following a wave of business failures.

According to Controller Butkovitz, the areas with the most businesses reporting revenue losses included West Philadelphia along the Market Street and 52nd Street corridors (19139), Hunting Park in North Philadelphia (19140), and areas around Juniata and Frankford (19124).  Many businesses in these neighborhoods reported losses of more than 10 percent.

 

“Consequently, these zipcodes have neighborhoods with some of the highest poverty rates in the city,” said Controller Butkovitz.  “These businesses cannot afford a one percent loss in business – let alone more than 10 percent.

 

“These are also neighborhoods subject to food deserts in Philadelphia. If these stores cannot continue to operate, it will be even more difficult to buy affordable or good-quality fresh food.”

 

Grocery stores reported the most revenue losses followed by convenience stores and restaurants.  Forty percent of businesses indicated they would have to make significant changes to keep their doors open.

 

"The tax seems to be impacting behavior and orientation toward the future,” said Controller Butkovitz.  “Many business owners seem apprehensive about the viability of their enterprises in the near and medium term."

Of course, facts have never really had much impact on political discourse in the past so absent an uprising from local business owners, similar to what we saw recently in Chicago, we wouldn"t suggest holding your breadth while waiting for a repeal.

 

Grab A Beer Philadelphia, The Soda Is Too Damn Expensive

Via SovereignMan.com,

What happened:

Turns out when soda cost the same as beer, people choose to drink beer. That is what is happening in Philadelphia.

The city’s 1.5 cent per ounce tax on soda has made beer a cheaper option. But that isn’t the only effect of the ill conceived plan to raise revenue.

The tax didn’t raise the money expected, according t o a study by the Tax Foundation.

Stores have already seen huge declines in soda sales, meaning people are either going outside the city to buy, buying beer instead, or not drinking soda.

Now if the residents did cut down on soda, some might see this as a win, despite the low tax revenue. But from the outset, the Mayor was quite clear that the aim of the tax was to raise money, not to influence health.

The city claimed the tax revenue would fund pre-kindergarten programs. But less than half of the meager revenue is actually being put into the school system.

What this means:

Looks like “for the children” was just another excuse for government greed.

Governments refuse to believe in economics. They think they can just continue to pile the taxes on. But once the costs get too high, people change their behavior.

Sometimes that means going somewhere else to buy your soda. Sometimes that means making different choices, like beer instead of soda.

But hardly ever do governments get what they predict. The mayor even originally wanted the tax to be 3 cents per ounce. Some stores are reporting a 50% drop in soda sales, so you can imagine what would have happened at double the tax rate. Yet all the greedy politicians imagine is dollar signs.

The beer companies are really the only ones who made out on the deal.

Might make a conspiracy theorist wonder...

Bernie Sanders To Introduce Single-Payer Healthcare Bill In September

For a couple of years now we"ve highlighted various data points suggesting that Obamacare was, and continues to be, in an inescapable death spiral that will end in a spectacular collapse of healthcare exchanges around the country.  While there are a number of reasons that Obamacare was doomed from the start, it basically all boils down to the original failed logic that millions of young, healthy Americans would gladly pay out the nose for a product they didn"t want and knew they would never use all to fulfill a civic obligation to subsidize the healthcare costs of their older and/or less fortunate neighbors. 

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your perspective, most Americans simply aren"t wired that way.

In fact, as we pointed last week, a study from Mark Farrah and Associates found that the "off-exchange market" (i.e. people who make too much money to quality for subsidies and whose premiums are required to subsidize everyone else who does qualify) contracted by 2.1mm in 2016, or a 29% drop.  With those kind of declines, it"s only a matter of time until there are no more rich fools in the pool willing to continue subsidizing a broken system.

Also, MFA published the same report in 2016, facilitating a year-over-year comparison. The on-exchange market fell from 12,681,874 to 12,216,003 individuals, a reduction of 465,871 or 4 percent. However, the off-exchange market fell from 7,520,939 to 5,361,451, a reduction of 2,159,488 or 29 percent. In other words, enrollment is steady among those who receive subsidies but declining dramatically among those who do not.

Much has been made of the question of whether the individual markets are in a “death spiral.” Given that the on-exchange market enrollment is relatively stable, there is clearly not a death spiral in the subsidized market. However, with a reduction in the unsubsidized market of 29 percent in just one year, that pattern certainly looks like one we would expect in a market spiraling down.

That said, for some folks, including Bernie Sanders, the problem with Obamacare isn"t that it"s too socialist for Americans but rather not quite socialist enough.  As such, we learn today that he Vermont Senator will introduce a bill calling for a single-payer healthcare system as soon as he gets back to Washington DC from his month-long vacation.  Per The Hill:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plans to introduce his "Medicare for all" single-payer healthcare bill after Congress returns in September.

Speaking to constituents in Vermont Monday, Sanders admitted that the bill is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress or be signed by President Trump.

"If we pass this thing, it"s not going to be tomorrow, it would be the most significant step forward legislatively since I suspect the creation of Social Security in the 1930s. It"s a big deal," he said, according to The Associated Press.

Sanders has long argued in favor of a government-run universal healthcare system, commonly referred to as single-payer. It was included in his platform during his 2016 run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Of course, what Bernie"s "Medicare for all" plan really equates to is another massive tax hike for Americans...you know, because the federal government has demonstrated time and again what efficient allocators of capital they are.

All of which just proves that if you don"t like your Obamacare, too bad because Bernie"s going to take your money anyway.

Two Charts Prove Obamacare Is Not "Stabilizing" In 2018

As the Obamacare repeal and replace effort raged on in Congress over the past six months, several Democrats and even some of the original Obamacare architects stepped forward to argue that the crippling premium increases from 2014 through 2017 were just a 1x market adjustment and that everything would miraculously "stabilize" in 2018.

Well, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, that prediction isn"t playing out exactly as expected.  Taking a look at 21 of the bigger healthcare markets in the United States, Kaiser found that premiums submitted so far for 2018 are increasing at an average rate of 17% YoY and ranging up to 49% in Wilmington. 

Now, we understand that the term "stabilizing" is somewhat subjective but we"re not sure that rates spiking at 10.5x prevailing inflation rates, on average, would reasonably fit anyone"s definition.

 

Meanwhile the 4-year rate increases from 2014 to 2018 are even more staggering...

 

And while Democrats continue to boast about overall Obamacare enrollments, the "off-exchange market" (i.e. people who make too much money to quality for subsidies and whose premiums are required to subsidize everyone else who does qualify) contracted by 2.1mm in 2016, or a 29% drop.  With those kind of declines, it"s only a matter of time until there are no more "rich" fools in the pool willing to continue subsidizing a broken system. More from the National Review:

Also, MFA published the same report in 2016, facilitating a year-over-year comparison. The on-exchange market fell from 12,681,874 to 12,216,003 individuals, a reduction of 465,871 or 4 percent. However, the off-exchange market fell from 7,520,939 to 5,361,451, a reduction of 2,159,488 or 29 percent. In other words, enrollment is steady among those who receive subsidies but declining dramatically among those who do not.

 

Much has been made of the question of whether the individual markets are in a “death spiral.” Given that the on-exchange market enrollment is relatively stable, there is clearly not a death spiral in the subsidized market. However, with a reduction in the unsubsidized market of 29 percent in just one year, that pattern certainly looks like one we would expect in a market spiraling down.

Of course, it"s all Trump"s fault now...

From Coke To Coors: Philly Soda Tax Leading To Alcoholism As Beer Now Cheaper Than Soda

Perhaps The Burning Platform summarized the idiocy of Philadelphia"s soda tax better than anyone to date:

In a shocking development, the Philadelphia soda tax is a big fucking fail. Who could have predicted that. Democrat government drones and their brain dead minions are so desperate for money to fund their gold plated union pensions and bloated salaries, they lie, cheat and tax the poor into oblivion. Result: lost jobs, further impoverished poor people, no help for children, more closed businesses, and a further hole in the city budget. But at least the city union workers can keep their gold plated pensions – for now. Maff is hard for liberals, but it always wins in the end.

But, as The Washington Free Beacon points out, the unfortunate side effects of Philly"s disastrous soda tax may not be limited just to the economic consequences enumerated above.  As a study by the Tax Foundation recently found, there are social consequences as well with people now choosing to substitute beer for soda in light of the fact that, well, beer is just cheaper.

Philadelphia"s tax on sugary drinks has made soda more expensive than beer in the city.

The Tax Foundation released a new study on the excise tax last week, finding that the 1.5-cent per ounce tax has fallen short of revenue projections, cost jobs, and has forced some Philadelphians to drive outside the city to buy groceries.

The study finds that the tax is 24 times higher than the Pennsylvania tax rate on beer.

"Purchases of beer are also now less expensive than nonalcoholic beverages subject to the tax in the city," according to the study, written by Courtney Shupert and Scott Drenkard. "Empirical evidence from a 2012 journal article suggests that soda taxes can push consumers to alcohol, meaning it is likely the case that consumers are switching to alcoholic beverages as a result of the tax. The paper, aptly titled From Coke to Coors, further shows that switching from soda to beer increases total caloric intake, even as soda taxes are generally aimed at caloric reduction."

While not terribly surprising, the study found that while Philly"s soda tax was sold to taxpayers as a way to raise money for local schools, less than half of the proceeds are actually being used for that purpose. 

The Tax Foundation points out that unlike most cities, Philadelphia passed the tax specifically to raise revenue, not to fight obesity. The city even includes diet sodas in its tax, as a way to raise money for pre-kindergarten programs.

However, less than half of the $39.4 million collected since the tax went into effect on Jan. 1 has gone to education funding.

"[T]he tax was originally promoted as a vehicle to raise funds for prekindergarten education, but in practice it awards just 49 percent of the soda tax revenues to local pre-K programs," Shupert and Drenkard write. "Another 20 percent of the soda tax revenues fund government employee benefits or city programs, while the rest of the money will go towards parks, libraries, and community schools."

Meanwhile, lower soda sales have already started to claim the jobs of grocery and soda distribution workers.

Collections from the soda tax are also well below original projections of $92 million per year, due to tax avoidance.

"Soda sales in Philadelphia have also declined since the tax went into effect at the beginning of 2017, threatening the long-run sustainability of the tax," Shupert and Drenkard write. "According to some local distributors and retailers, sales have declined by nearly 50 percent. This is likely primarily due to higher prices, which discourage purchasing beverages in the city."

Earlier this year PepsiCo announced it was laying off up to 100 workers because of the tax, which the company blames for costing a 43 percent drop in business.

Philadelphians are also no longer able to buy 12-packs or 2-liters of Pepsi products in grocery stores due to the tax, the Tax Foundation said.

Way to think it through...

The Globalist Agenda Is Being Met: "To Collapse The United States Internally And Attack It Externally"

Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFplan.com,

“An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king.”

Mel Gibson as Benjamin Martin, in “The Patriot”

The rights of the American people have been, and are being trampled into the dust, as the pseudo-representatives glut themselves from the trough of lobbyists and oligarchs alike.  It could be proven, but won’t be proven: the investigating “authority” is not accountable to the people and there is no oversight.  The FBI, and any investigations under special counsel?  Look at Fast and Furious and how the Attorney General’s office covered that one up.  What is needed to prove it?  Something that doesn’t exist.  Here is what is needed:

A team of spotless individuals with a leader of unquestionable character and service…with complete authority and impunity: unable to be hindered by any federal, state, or local police and army of “authorities.”  This Special Investigative Team would have the power to investigate fully any and all ties to Congressmen, Senators, and Supreme Court judges…to find evidence of bribery, kickbacks, and influence peddling…and then arrest them and bring them to trial.

Everyone can jump up and down, desiring to boil in oil anyone making such a suggestion; however, without some kind of accountability, these elected officials are running rampant and trampling the rights of the citizens.  Who is going to stop it?  The courts?  The courts are the biggest pack of crooks of all.  Yes, “Your Honor,” and “The Honorable,” ad infinitum.

I guarantee that a Special Investigator with impunity would have found plenty of coral snakes under Chief (in)Justice John Roberts’ front porch…if Obama and Holder had been made to step aside and an investigation had been done.  This should have been done after he cast his deciding vote on Obamacare.  Going back a few years, Obamacare would have never made it to the floor of the Senate if Olympia Snow (R, ME) had not allowed it to come up for a vote.  Who paid her off?

In order to follow the money, you have to be allowed to follow it: or you’ll just end up arrested or dead.

The special unit of investigators I suggested?  They need to be armed to the teeth, and they need giant, shiny badges that every human in the Western Hemisphere will recognize.  And why not?  It worked for Elliot Ness and his team.  This won’t be done, of course, for one reason:

The method would work and the crooked politicos would be caught.

In a system replete with corruption, we can’t have a group of investigators who are not corrupt and “untouchable,” because that would threaten the existing social, political, economic, and religious order.  We have a Supreme Court that selectively interprets legislation, effectively bypassing checks and balances under the Constitution and establishing themselves as lawmakers, or “law-breakers,” whichever you prefer.  But they are “jaw-breakers,” and in essence breaking the people’s jaws to prevent argument as they stick the rings in their noses and then recess for three months to hide.  There is no accountability fostered upon them, no recourse for their “Supreme Decisions” that affect 315 million people.

The “Tyranny of the Majority” in action once more.

McCain.  McCain is the epitome of the reason that term limits should be placed upon representatives.  McCain is the prime example of why a Special Investigative Unit is needed.  Really?  Champion McCain, just coming off of the deck from brain surgery in the 13^th round, to score a knockout against the American people?  Who lined his pockets?  Who?  Was it the insurance companies, or was it Soros?  Where do we find the individuals who will not be bought to investigate this matter?

We will never be allowed to have such special personnel to investigate a matter such as McCain’s “vote”: this is because the people are not in charge.  We are ruled, not governed.

McCain was the one who orchestrated the ousting of the duly elected President of Ukraine, Yanukoyvich, who was elected under Ukrainian Constitutional law.  Is that in itself not a violation of the Logan Act?  Oh, but since McCain and company were acting on behalf of the American people as their elected officials, it’s all well and good, then.

McCain is part of the bigger picture, and look at the titanic struggle that has already transpired for clarification: the struggle between the establishment to impose an individual mandate, and the public to resist it.  The vote?  It is scripted at this point.

McConnell and Ryan all “ooh’s” and “aah’s” with the Don Adams/Agent 86 line: “Missed it by that much!”

Wrong.  They didn’t miss a beat.  All of the Congress (in this latest vote…the word “vote,” what a joke) with a final tally of 49-51…making it appear to be a close one.  They only did it that way to not unseat half of Congress (Republican or not), and the Republicans who voted to repeal could point at it, “They voted to repeal”…when the failed vote was a done deal long before it came to the floor.   McCain did his job for the Establishment, and he’ll be on his way out of the Senate to retire soon enough…. and voila!  The individual mandate remains.

The individual mandate is the prize they have fought for more than 100 years.  They will not relinquish that stranglehold from the throat of the American people.  The steppingstone to a single-payer system, the individual mandate assures that you will be accountable to the State whether you are a housewife or a homeless beggar.

Of course, Congress, the Administration, the Courts, and the rest of the Politburo are exempt from the individual mandate, now, aren’t they?

The President has no effectiveness.  I wrote a piece earlier this year, entitled The President Needs to Purge and Start Fresh: White House Staff Has Been Infiltrated and Infested.  Here is an excerpt from that piece:

“…the President is beset by forces in Washington and in the White House who are determined to derail his “cleansing” efforts and continue with their own actions.  Those forces are spearheaded by the RINO (Republicans In Name Only) “5^th Columnists” either working directly for and with the Democratic Party or independently of them but for the interests of the Globalist Network.”

I also wrote another article entitled Trump Off and Running But He Can’t Do It Alone: Six Things Americans Must Do To Make Real Change Happen.  Please read this:

“Around November [2017] the Congressmen and Senators will begin to campaign.  They will be a year out, and in order to keep their seats in the midterm election in November of 2018, there will have to be a good track record for the next year, with visible results within 6 to 8 months.  There is also no excuse, now.  The Republican Party holds the House and the Senate.  There is nothing from a legislative perspective that the President cannot accomplish, at least for the next year and nine months.  Of course, this will take solidarity within the Republican Party, and the Republicans have not had a very good track record in this department…”

I also wrote about this , after the President was elected, but before his inauguration, with this article entitled Trump Can’t Stop It: The People Who Have Been Orchestrating the Collapse Have Not Halted Their Agendas.  This excerpt explains the entire point of this current piece, as well:

“The globalists need the illusion of a two-party system to enable a “reprieve” in the minds of the people with the rise of a Bush or a Trump…but the reprieve is merely an illusion.  If these Marxist traitors forced their agenda on the people all at once, there would have been a revolution at its inception.  They alternate: destroy the society and the culture to the max under a Democrat administration, and then “scale back” a bit under a Republican administration while still nipping away at the edges with an “Act” here or a “piece of legislation” there.

It may take them a little longer, but Trump will not be able to undo the current course toward the collapse of the United States and the relinquishing of national sovereignty in favor of global governance.”

McCain just became the key player in the “it just takes one man” mantra…with the refusal to repeal Obamacare and negate the individual mandate.  In the meantime, the Cloward and Piven, Alinsky, and Van Jones methods employed to collapse American society are paralleled by the threats of war, either orchestrated by the U.S. or otherwise.  Bush Jr. was flagging in popularity and then decided to invade Iraq.  It gave him the election and another 4 years.  History repeats itself.

War is right around the corner, and the globalist agenda is being met: to collapse the United States internally and attack it externally.  I stand by my prior statements regarding the latter:

The next world war will be initiated by an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapon detonated over the continental U.S., followed by a nuclear exchange and an attack by conventional forces.

In the meanwhile, traitors such as McCain continue to collapse the system within and advance the agendas of their paymasters.  Can anyone honestly take one look at McConnell and say that he did not know of McCain’s vote prior to it being cast?  They are not representatives…they have misrepresented themselves and do not reflect the will of the American people.  Because of this, the U.S. has been on its deathbed for more than 8 years.  We all hoped that with a new President things would turn around, but that doesn’t appear to be very likely at this point in time.

Dying Middle Class: The Number Of Americans That Can't Afford Their Own Homes Has More Than Doubled

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Have you lost your spot in the middle class yet?  For years I have been documenting all of the numbers that show that the middle class in America has been steadily shrinking, and we just got another one.  According to a report that was produced by researchers at Harvard University, the number of Americans that spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing has more than doubled.  In 2001, nearly 16 million Americans couldn’t afford the homes that they were currently living in, but by 2015 that figure had jumped to 38 million.

When I write about “economic collapse”, I am writing about a process that has been unfolding for decades in this country.  Back in the early 1970s, well over 60 percent of all Americans were considered to be “middle class”, but now that number has fallen below 50 percent.  Never before in our history has the middle class been a minority of the population, but that is where we are at now, and the middle class continues to get even smaller with each passing day.

So these new numbers saddened me, but they didn’t exactly surprise me.  The following comes from NBC News…

Over 38 million American households can’t afford their housing, an increase of 146 percent in the past 16 years, according to a recent Harvard housing report.

Under federal guidelines, households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “cost burdened” and will have difficulty affording basic necessities like food, clothing, transportation and medical care.

But the number of Americans struggling with their housing costs has risen from almost 16 million in 2001 to 38 million in 2015, according to the Census data crunched in the report. That’s more than double.

Sometimes people try to convince me that the economy is doing “well”, but when I ask them how they are doing personally the news is almost always dreary.  I know so many people that are working for close to minimum wage that used to be solidly in the middle class.

One of the biggest reasons why the middle class is shrinking is because paychecks are staying about the same while the cost of living continues to rise steadily.  Of course one of the biggest factors in the rise of the cost of living is health insurance.

There are many people out there that have seen their health insurance premiums double since Obamacare went into effect.  And one health insurance company actually tried to do this to me and my family too, and so at that time I immediately switched carriers.

But even though virtually every single Republican in Congress campaigned on repealing Obamacare, it doesn’t look like it is going to happen.  In fact, on Sunday Senator John McCain told Face the Nation that the effort to repeal Obamacare is “probably going to be dead”…

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Sunday the Republican bill to repeal and replace Obamacare is “probably going to be dead.”

“My view is that it’s probably going to be dead,” he said on CBS’s Face the Nation.

Support for the bill has been eroding over the July 4th recess, and McCain said he believes Republicans should work with Democrats to craft health care legislation.

As a voter, this greatly frustrates me.  The Republicans got a bill to repeal Obamacare through the House and through the Senate and on to Barack Obama’s desk in early 2016.  So why can’t they get that exact same bill to Donald Trump’s desk now?

We worked really hard to give the Republicans control of the White House, the Senate and the House, and now they are stabbing us in the back once again.

This is just one example of why I intend to be a “wrecking ball” if I get the chance to go to Washington.

We have got to lower health care costs on the middle class.  There is no other option.  Millions of families all over the country are being absolutely suffocated by rising health insurance premiums.  Sometimes I get so frustrated with these RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) that I want to scream.

So many families are living on the edge right now.  Various surveys have discovered that somewhere around two-thirds of the entire nation is living paycheck to paycheck at least part of the time, and one study found that 69 percent of all Americans do not have an adequate emergency fund.

But when you are living on the edge, there is always a danger that you could go over.

Every month, more Americans fall out of the middle class and into poverty.  Even during this so-called “economic recovery”, we are seeing alarming spikes in poverty all over the nation.  For example, the number of homeless people living on the street in New York City has increased by 39 percent over the past year…

Street homelessness in New York increased by 39 percent in 2017, according to the latest annual survey by the Department of Homeless Services.

There were 3,892 homeless and unsheltered people on the night of February 6, 2017, up from 2,794 people at the same time last year, said the report, which is conducted on one night of the year. This is the highest increase since 2005, when Michael Bloomberg was mayor.

And bankruptcies continue to rise as well.  Consumer bankruptcies were up once again last month, and commercial bankruptcies continue their very disturbing climb…

Commercial Chapter 11 bankruptcies – an effort to restructure the business, rather than liquidating it – jumped 16% year-over-year in June to 581 filings across the US. Total commercial bankruptcies of all types, by large corporations to tiny sole proprietorships, rose 2% year-over-year to 3,385 filings, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute. This was up 39% from June 2015 and up 18% from June 2014.

Since the end of the last recession, the middle class has continued to get smaller and smaller in this country, and now it appears that another economic downturn is upon us.

Are we just going to stand aside and do nothing as the middle class in America dies?

The Democrats don’t seem to care.

The Republicans don’t seem to care.

If we continue to do the same things that we have been doing, we are going to continue to get the same results.

In other words, unless we start doing things differently the middle class in America is going to continue to be systematically eviscerated.

Wake up America.  The middle class is dying and if we want to save it we have to take action now.

Seattle Mayor Wants To Tax Diet Soda To Fight "White Privileged Institutionalized Racism"

Back in February, Seattle"s Mayor Ed Murray called for a 2 cent per ounce tax on sugary soft drinks in order to "improve Seattle"s educational opportunities for students of color."  Per Lynx Media, the tax was expected to raise some $16 million per year.

Of course, when someone on his staff pointed out that a tax on sugary drinks would disproportionately impact the minorities that he was apparently trying to help, Murray knew that something drastic had to happen.  So that"s when he decided to launch a new attack against the most recognizable symbol of "white privileged institutionalized racism" on the planet:  DIET SODA!

Per the Seattle Times:

The changes were recommendations that emerged when staff from the mayor’s office and the office of Councilmember Tim Burgess studied disparate impacts the tax could have on people with low incomes and on people of color, according to Murray.

That work involved conversations with community advocates, public-health professionals and business owners, according to the mayor. After Murray’s initial announcement, some suggested the exclusion of beverages with artificial sweeteners would be unfair because affluent white people tend to consume more diet drinks.

And while we suspect that many of our readers who frequently enjoy diet sodas didn"t realize they were racist, trust Ed Murray when he says that you most certainly are...and he"s going to tax you for it.

And now that Democrats have found a way to directly tax "white privilege," we suspect we"re going to see a whole lot more diet soda taxes. 

Of course, Murray"s staffers may also want to remind him of how well Philadelphia"s soda tax has worked out for their mayor.  When Philadelphia became the first US city to pass a soda tax last summer, city officials were eagerly looking forward to the surplus-tax funded windfall to plug gaping budget deficits (and, since this is Philadelphia, the occasional embezzlement scheme). Then, shortly after the tax went into effect on January 1st we showed the tax applied in practice: a receipt for a 10 pack of flavored water carried a 51% beverage tax. And since  PA has a sales tax of 6% and Philly already charges another 2%, the total sales tax was 8%. In other words, a purchase which until last year came to $6.47 had overnight become $9.75.

What happened next? Precisely what most expected would happen: full blown sticker shock, and a collapse in purchases. According to Philly.com reports, just a couple of months into the city’s sweetened-beverage tax, supermarkets and distributors were reporting a 30% to 50% drop in beverage sales and - adding insult to injury - are now planning for layoffs.

Then, a month ago, PepsiCo slashed jobs, blaming the soda tax...

With sales slumping because of the new Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax, Pepsi said that it will lay off 80 to 100 workers at three distribution plants that serve the city.

The company, which employs 423 people in the city, sent out notices and said the layoffs would be spread over the next few months. The layoffs come in response to the  beverage tax, which has cut sales by 40 percent in the city, PepsiCo Inc. spokesman Dave DeCecco said.

“Unfortunately, after careful consideration of the economic realities created by the recently enacted beverage tax, we have been forced to give notice that we intend to eliminate 80 to 100 positions, including frontline and supervisory roles,” DeCecco said.

Outside of the North Philadelphia plant Wednesday, Ed Langdon, a 40-year employee  who shuttles products between warehouses, said the cuts are the most drastic he"s seen in his time at Pepsi. Langdon said the writing was on the wall: Some colleagues who are paid on commission were seeing drastic cuts in weekly pay. "The trucks are going out and they"re coming back with the soda on it," he said. "No one"s buying it. It"s just not happening."

And just a week ago, as Phily.com reported, Coke did the same...

Philadelphia’s new sweetened-beverage tax has led to the loss of 40 Coca-Cola jobs and a 32 percent drop in sales, the company said Friday.

Fran McGorry, president and general manager of Philly Coke, the local Coca-Cola bottler, said in a news release that the job losses are due to commission-based employees leaving the company, not layoffs.

“We are not able to replace those positions right now,” he said. “In total, we have fewer people working in the city while more people are now working outside Philadelphia due to increased demand there. We have also made the decision not to hire seasonal employees for the summer months due to the negative impact the tax is having on our business.”

Of course, if nothing else, Murray"s stupidity at least serves to debunk the notion that "soda taxes" arise from some compassionate attempt on the part of Democrats to eradicate obesity.  And, at a minimum, we can only hope that this embarrassing mishap just might prove to at least a few liberals that these taxes, like Obamacare, are nothing more than just a another money grab from an oppressive government, wrapped in clever packaging to dupe the American public. 

ACA Architect Gruber Blames Trump For Obamacare's Epic Collapse

You knew it was coming, and now the day has finally arrived that the esteemed professor of MIT, and one of the original architects of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, is touring the media circuit blaming the epic collapse of Obamacare on President Trump.  Here is an exchange from last night with Chris Wallace on Fox News:

Gruber:  "Look, and whose fault is this?  Before President Trump was elected there were no counties in America that did not have an insurer.  Since President Trump"s been elected, a massive degree of uncertainty..."

Wallace:  "Wait, you"re going to blame the problems with Obamacare on President Trump?"

Gruber:  "We had a situation under Obamacare where there was a one-time premium increase last year that made up for the fact that insurers massively under-priced in the first two years.   

The problem was fixed.  Insurer profits were trending positively.  Insurers were saying positive things about their ability to stay in the exchanges and succeed.

Then you have a President who comes in, undercuts open enrollment, doesn"t honor the obligations this law makes to insurers, and, as a result, premiums are going up and insurers are exiting."

Forward to the 7:50 mark for the relevant exchange:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

And, since Gruber insists that "all" the "insurers were saying positive things" about Obamacare in 2016, we thought we"d take a look back for ourselves.  Ironically, this quote from Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini in August 2016, in which he announced that "structural challenges facing public exchanges" had forced him to the decision to withdraw from Obamacare completely in 2017 seemed slightly less than "positive" to us.

“While we are pleased with our overall results, in light of updated 2016 projections for our individual products and the significant structural challenges facing the public exchanges, we intend to withdraw all of our 2017 public exchange expansion plans, and are undertaking a complete evaluation of future participation in our current 15-state footprint,” said Aetna Chief Executive Mark T. Bertolini. Aetna had previously made regulatory filings indicating it was considering growing into five new state marketplaces in 2017.

“Nobody is getting adequately reimbursed.”

But, perhaps we just don"t understand the quote correctly. 

Of course, Gruber is the same academic who was caught on film repeatedly telling students and other professors that Obamacare only passed courtesy of the "stupidity of American voters."

Freedom Caucus Says It Would Approve TrumpCare With These Three Changes

After a brief twitter war between Trump and the House Freedom Caucus last week over the failed healthcare legislation, new rumblings seem to suggest that all hope is not yet lost for a repeal of Obamacare.  As The Hill notes this morning, Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows says that his group would be willing to support TrumpCare to the extent it made changes on the following 3 issues:

• Essential Health Benefits - Mandate what services insurers must cover;


• Community Rating - Says insurers can"t charge sick people more for insurance;


• Guaranteed Issue - Says insurers must cover people with pre-existing conditions.

The intent of the changes, of course, would be to lower premiums for young, healthy insurance buyers who have basically been shut out of the market after Obamacare essentially imposed egregious penalties on them to help cover the costs of older, sicker patients.

Referencing the three changes above, Meadows said that "the majority of the Freedom Caucus would be favorably inclined to vote for that."

And while it"s still unknown when/if a new iteration of TrumpCare will come back to the House for a vote, there seems to be growing pressure from the Trump administration to push through last-minute amendments to the latest bill before Congress leaves for its two-week recess. 

The House Rules Committee is reportedly organizing a meeting late Thursday to weigh a new change to the bill that would create a fund for “high risk” patients.

This amendment is intended to show that momentum for the new GOP healthcare bill is building, a House leadership aide told Bloomberg.
The news outlet reports that the move to quickly push a new amendment, leaving senators with a limited time to decide whether they support the change, is unusual.

While the bill may not go to the House for votes immediately, Bloomberg reports, the developments show the White House is still pushing for a repeal of ObamaCare in the wake of last month"s failure to get GOP repeal and replace plan to a vote.

Of course, these latest develops follow a very public feud between Trump and various members of the House Freedom caucus that erupted last week...

@realDonaldTrump Freedom Caucus stood with u when others ran. Remember who your real friends are. We"re trying to help u succeed.

— Raúl R. Labrador (@Raul_Labrador) March 30, 2017

It didn"t take long for the swamp to drain @realDonaldTrump. No shame, Mr. President. Almost everyone succumbs to the D.C. Establishment. https://t.co/9bDo8yzH7I

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) March 30, 2017

.@realDonaldTrump it"s a swamp not a hot tub. We both came here to drain it. #SwampCare polls 17%. Sad! https://t.co/4kjygV2tdS

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 30, 2017

....and our note from just yesterday that Knoxville, TN could be "ground zero" for the imminent explosion of Obamacare after Humana, the last remaining insurer in the region, pulled out of the exchanges leaving 40,000 residents with no healthcare options (see "Knoxville, TN Could Be Ground Zero For The Obamacare Explosion").

For the 40,000 people living in and around Knoxville, TN, Humana was the only insurance company providing healthcare coverage for the 2017 plan year.  That said, even with their monopoly in the market, Humana still couldn"t figure out a way to make money on the Obamacare exchanges in the 16 Tennessee counties where it was the sole insurer.  As such, the company has decided to cancel its coverage in 2018 potentially leaving Knoxville"s 40,000 residents with no healthcare options at all.

Per the map below from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, while most of Tennessee is covered by Blue Cross and Cigna, the 16 counties surrounding Knoxville in the eastern portion of the state will have to find a new insurer to fill in for Humana by July 1st or residents there simply won"t have access to healthcare for the 2018 plan year. 

In the end, as we"ve noted before, the Obamacare exchanges around the country are stuck in a negative feedback loop where healthy people are refusing to sign up, which leads to losses for insurers, which leads to higher rates, which, of course, leads to even fewer healthy people signing up.

Obamacare 'Explosion' Could Come On May 22nd, Here's Why

After a stunning healthcare defeat last week, delivered at the hands of his own party no less, Trump took to twitter to predict the imminent "explosion" of Obamacare.

ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 25, 2017

The Democrats will make a deal with me on healthcare as soon as ObamaCare folds - not long. Do not worry, we are in very good shape!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2017

As it turns out, that "explosion" could come faster than anyone really expects as legislators and health insurers have to make several critical decisions about the 2018 plan year over the next 2 months which could seal Obamacare"s fate.

As the Atlanta Journal Constitution points out today, the Trump administration has until May 22nd to decide whether they will continue to pursue the Obama administration"s appeal to provide subsidies to insurers who participate in the federal exchanges. 

Of course, any decision to remove those subsidies would likely result in yet another massive round of premium hikes and further withdrawals from the already crippled exchanges where an astounding number of counties across the country have already been cut to just 1 health insurance provider.  And, as we"ve pointed out before, higher rates = lower participation = deterioration of risk pool = higher rates....and the cycle just repeats until it eventually collapses.

As background, in 2014, House Republicans sued the Obama administration over the constitutionality of the cost-sharing reduction payments (a.k.a. "taxpayer funded healthcare subsidies"), which had not been appropriated by Congress.  Republicans won the initial lawsuit but the Obama administration subsequently appealed and now Trump"s administration can decide whether to pursue the appeal or not.

One key to insurers selling plans in the marketplace are reimbursements they receive called cost-sharing reductions. These aren"t the same as the tax credits that people receive to help pay their premiums; it is financial assistance to help low-income people pay their out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles. The Congressional Budget Office projected those payments would add up to $7 billion this year and $10 billion in 2018.

But for insurers, there"s a question over how long that money will be delivered, due to an ongoing political and legal dispute about whether the cost-sharing money should be distributed at all.

In 2014, House Republicans sued the Obama administration over the constitutionality of the cost-sharing reduction payments, which had not been appropriated by Congress. The lawmakers won the lawsuit, and the Obama administration appealed it. Late last year, with a new administration on the other end of the suit, the House sought to pause the proceedings — with a deadline for a status update in late May.

The Trump administration and House lawmakers have to report to the judge this spring. If the Trump administration drops the appeal, it would mean the subsidies would stop being paid — a huge blow to the marketplaces and millions of people. If lawmakers wanted the payments to continue, they would have to find a way to fund them. One opportunity for that is coming up fast, the continuing resolution that must be passed by April 28. If the Trump administration continues the lawsuit, it will be in the odd position of fighting its own party.

The CBO estimates the payments would total roughly $10 billion in 2018.

As we"ve noted before, several large insurers, including UnitedHealth Group and Aetna, have already made the decision to exit Obamacare due to financial losses.  Now, Molina Healthcare is also pondering whether it would be able to continue to participate in the absence of federal subsidies.

Big insurers like UnitedHealth Group and Aetna have mostly left the individual market over the years, citing financial reasons. Several counties across the country only have one insurer offering ObamaCare plans.

Now Molina Healthcare is signaling it may downsize its presence in the market, or pull out altogether, if Congress or the administration doesn’t act to stabilize it. Molina has 1 million exchange enrollees in nine states this year.

“We need some clarity on what’s going to happen with cost-sharing reductions and understand how they’re going to apply the mandate,” said Molina CEO Dr. Mario Molina.

Asked if Molina would leave ObamaCare if the payments are stopped, the CEO said: “It would certainly play into our decision. We’ll look at this on a market-by-market basis. We could leave some. We could leave all.”

Mario Molina, chief executive of Molina Healthcare, predicted that if the cost-sharing reductions are not funded, it could result in premium increases on the order of 10 to 12 percent.

While all this uncertainty swirls, health insurers must decide — soon — whether to make rate filings to sell insurance in 2018. The deadline varies by state, but for those that have marketplaces run by the federal government, it is June 21. Filing doesn"t mean that insurers will participate; they"ll have months more to negotiate and could still drop out. But it"s the first step toward offering plans in 2018 and should provide a signal about what the marketplaces are likely to look like.

Meanwhile, it seems pretty likely that Obamacare couldn"t survive another collapse in coverage like we saw in 2017 (charts per the New York Times):

2016 healthcare insurance carriers by county:

2017 healthcare insurance carriers by county:

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

Philadelphia Soda Tax Forces Local University To Hike Student Costs By $400,000

Students at Temple University in Philadelphia, or perhaps their parents, are getting a great lesson today on the real life economic consequences of liberal political policies run amok.  Courtesy of Philly"s new 1.5 cent per ounce "soda tax", Temple has been forced to hike it"s 2017-2018 boarding costs by $400,000, or roughly 4.8%.  Per Philly.com, Temple"s CFO said they will roll back the planned $400,000 meal plan hike if the soda tax is repealed.

Board rates will rise an additional 4.8 percent for 2017-18 solely because of the 1.5-cent-per-ounce sweetened-beverage tax, which went into effect this year, the university said. The tax was enacted to help fund parks, recreation centers, and early childhood education. Heated debate over it continues, with PepsiCo having announced planned layoffs and retailers reporting steep losses.

The total impact of the new tax is estimated to be $400,000 per semester, said Ken Kaiser, Temple"s chief financial officer. The university will roll back the board increase if the tax is repealed, he said.

"This is another example of the damaging impact this tax is having on Philadelphia families," said Anthony Campisi, a spokesman for Ax the Philly Bev Tax Coalition, made up of a number of Philadelphia businesses and residents, many of them involved in the soda industry. "It’s ironic that a tax the mayor sold on the basis of expanding educational access is now going to be making higher ed less affordable for students."

Of course, Philadelphia"s Mayor, who has come under fairly constant attack for the controversial tax, said that Temple is simply using his legislation as a scapegoat to "pay for their ever-growing administrative salaries and new, expensive buildings and amenities."

"The beverage tax is becoming a popular scapegoat for unpopular decisions," said spokeswoman Lauren Hitt. "Universities across the country have been raising meal-plan fees because families are increasingly chafing at tuition increases, and universities still want to pay for their ever-growing administrative salaries and new, expensive buildings and amenities."

"Temple"s own administration staff has grown by 40 percent in recent years; they are planning to build a multimillion-dollar stadium; their new 24-story dorm includes flat screen TVs; and, sure enough, they have a history of raising their meal-plan fees to cover those costs - by 2.5 percent in 2015 and 4.3 percent in 2014."

As we pointed out a couple of weeks ago, when Philadelphia became the first US city to pass a soda tax last summer, city officials were eagerly looking forward to the surplus-tax funded windfall to plug gaping budget deficits (and, since this is Philadelphia, the occasional embezzlement scheme). Then, after the tax went into effect on January 1st we showed the tax applied in practice: a receipt for a 10 pack of flavored water carried a 51% beverage tax. And since  PA has a sales tax of 6% and Philly already charges another 2%, the total sales tax was 8%. In other words, a purchase which until last year came to $6.47 had overnight become $9.75.

Then came the layoffs as soda sales slumped as much as 40% forcing Pepsi to lay off 80 to 100 workers at three distribution plants that serve Philly. And since Pepsi only employed 423 people in the city, it meant that as much as 20% of its employees were suddenly out of a job due to a disastrous ordnance that was meant to provide additional municipal funding and instead will now lead to an increase in unemployment, coupled with a general decline in consumption, not to mention tax revenues for the city of Philadelphia.

A spokesman for Pepsi said "The layoffs come in response to the  beverage tax, which has cut sales by 40 percent in the city...Unfortunately, after careful consideration of the economic realities created by the recently enacted beverage tax, we have been forced to give notice that we intend to eliminate 80 to 100 positions, including frontline and supervisory roles."

But not to worry, we"re sure Philly students can just take out more student loans to cover these increased costs...we certainly wouldn"t want them to have to divert any portion of their student loans that they"ve already set aside for Cancun.

Ryancare's Fatal Logical Flaw

The Congressional Budget office yesterday reported that 24 million people would lose health insurance coverage under the Ryancare bill. Mainstream Republicans were not pleased to hear that.

But let’s look at this figure a bit more closely. When we do, it becomes apparent that the Republicans have created their own problem. They are trying to keep Obama’s definition of healthcare policies while repealing Obamacare. That is not only an exercise in illogic. It is an exercise in futility.

The problem here is obvious.

Ryancare keeps a one-size-fits-all definition of health insurance, a policy that includes all but the kitchen sink, for example, mandating pregnancy benefits for single men and retired couples. If you keep government in the business of mandating every detail of the health insurance policy, that is what you get: a swollen policy that nobody wants and almost nobody can afford.

Eliminating the mandate to buy is important.

But eliminating the mandate restricting what you can buy is at least as important.

If consumers could choose the policy they wanted and felt they could afford, 24 million would not lose their coverage. We might even see an increase in coverage. More importantly, with consumers in charge, providers might start competing for their business, which is the only way to increase supply, improve supply, and by doing so bring costs down.

Newt Gingrich, who is a very smart fellow, also writes an op-ed today saying that Ryancare is the best the GOP can do because the Democrats will vote against and (in the Senate) filibuster anything better. As a result, any changes must be done under the budgetary “Reconciliation” process, which means that it must Impact the federal budget and also cannot increase the deficit.

This limits options. For example, one cannot permit insurance companies to offer policies nationally through this process.

For Gingrich to take this position is puzzling to say the least. As you may recall, he is the one who crafted the “contract with America” which Republicans used to reclaim control of the House in 1994 after so many decades in the minority. Does he actually think that Republicans will try to explain “Reconciliation” limitations to the voters in 2018 as part of thirty second ads? I think not.

What they ought to do instead is to craft a real Obamacare Repeal and Replace bill, fill it full of logical improvements such as allowing insurance companies to offer policies nationally, then stand back and let the Democrats vote it down and filibuster it. Having got the Democrats on record, they could then go back to bills based on Reconciliation, having put their best ideas forward. That would be easy for voters to understand.

What Are Republicans Hiding In Obamacare Replacement Plan?

Via S.M.Gibson of TheAntiMedia.org,

Remember when Nancy Pelosi famously declared, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it?” She was, of course, referring to the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare, and was justly skewered by “conservatives” at the time for the outlandish statement. Fast forward seven years, and now it’s the Republicans doing the exact same thing.

The GOP has chosen to conceal the text of what may become the replacement for Obamacare. Not only can you – someone the bill will most definitely affect – not read it. Members of the U.S. Senate are not even allowed to see what is contained in the legislation.

Senator Rand Paul, who is advocating for a complete repeal of the ACA, has made repeated attempts to view what he refers to as “Obamacare Lite,” but has still been unable to get his hands on a copy of the bill. The Kentucky senator has even gone so far as to wheel a copy machine to where he was told the bill was being housed. Paul, a Republican, was denied access.

The secrecy should be enough to alarm citizens across the U.S. and cause the public to demand to see what kind of health care reform may be about to be shoved down their throats. But what Senator Paul believes the bill contains is the most distressing part of this story.

“When we heard it was secret, we wanted to see it even more because if something is secret, you do worry that people are hiding things,” Paul said speaking to CNN.

He continued:

“What we think is being hidden from conservatives is that there’s a lot of Obamacare lite in their bill. There’s a new entitlement program that will increase at about 5 percent a year forever. There is also a Cadillac tax, or something similar to the Cadillac tax that was in ObamaCare. And there’s also an individual mandate, believe it or not. Instead of paying the mandate to the government, they’re going to tell you that you have to pay the mandate by law to an insurance company.”

So basically, If you like being fined by the government for not purchasing a service, you’re going to be able to keep your fine — except instead of paying a penalty to the government, you’ll pay a private corporation.

Sounds like more of the same from Washington, but worse.

#WheresTheBill

Today my staff and @randpaulcopier continued the search for the secret House Leadership Obamacare Lite bill pic.twitter.com/G32duw04Pl

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 3, 2017

There were some obvious places to look. Perhaps near the statues of some great Republicans from the past. pic.twitter.com/vXLOQwaQZi

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 3, 2017

Nope. Not there. Maybe this one. pic.twitter.com/aA9C9iSNUu

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 3, 2017

This is harder than it should be. But wait. I think someone left us a hint! pic.twitter.com/dxx27kjxPM

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 3, 2017

Nope. Not there either. It was another bait and switch pic.twitter.com/9HJq4bwVuh

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 3, 2017

They went outside and thought maybe this guy was helping House leaders hide it. But nope. pic.twitter.com/A06RoOG0pC

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 3, 2017

Maybe it’s over there with the Justices for safe keeping? pic.twitter.com/CXEWPW9BPo

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 3, 2017

Aetna CEO Says Obamacare In "Death Spiral" And "It's Getting Worse"

Back in the summer of 2016, as Obamacare rates were being set for the 2017 plan year, we repeatedly argued that the entire system was on the "verge of collapse" as premiums were soaring, risk pools were deteriorating and insurers were pulling out of exchanges all around the country leaving many Americans with just a single "option" for health insurance (see "Obamacare On "Verge Of Collapse" As Premiums Set To Soar Again In 2017").

And while Democrats may be all too willing to quickly dismiss our analysis, they may want to listen to the warnings of the CEO of one of the country"s largest health insurers who says that Obamacare is in a "death spiral."  In speaking with the Wall Street Journal, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini said, among other things, that the "risk pools are deteriorating in the ACA" to a point that it would inevitably result in more withdrawals this year.   Per The Hill:

"It"s not going to get any better; it"s getting worse."

"That logic shows just how much the risk pools are deteriorating in the ACA," Bertolini said.

He added: "I think you will see a lot more withdrawals this year. ... There isn"t enough money in the ACA as structured, even with the fees and taxes, to support the population that needs to be served."

"It is in a death spiral," he said, but did not say whether Aetna would participate in the exchanges in 2018.

And, while his commentary was mostly doom and gloom, if there was one silver lining from Bertolini"s interview, it was his acknowledgement that at least "mathematics education in the United States is working" since consumers seem to be able to run the simple math required to figure out that paying ~$12,000 per year in premiums for a family of 4, plus $6,000 in deductibles, all for a service they never use, is a bad deal.

"You know that mathematics education in the United States is working when someone says, let me see, i"m going to pay this much premium, i"ve got a $6,000 deductible, and when I go to the doctor i"m going to pay cash...so premium, plus deductible, plus paying cash...why do I do this?  I"ll just pay the penalty and move on."

"And so that risk keeps leaving and risk inside the pool keeps getting worse...the rates continue to chase it...and the participants start to leave, either at the bottom of the risk pool or the plans themselves."

Of course, Bertolini"s comments today followed yesterday"s announcement from Humana that, due to an "unbalanced risk pool" (i.e. not enough healthy, young people paying massive premiums to balance out the risk of older, sicker customers), they would be pulling out of all Obamacare exchanges nationwide in 2018.  Per Humana"s press release:

Regarding the company’s individual commercial medical coverage (Individual Commercial), substantially all of which is offered on-exchange through the federal Marketplaces, Humana has worked over the past several years to address market and programmatic challenges in order to keep coverage options available wherever it could offer a viable product. This has included pursuing business changes, such as modifying networks, restructuring product offerings, reducing the company’s geographic footprint and increasing premiums.

All of these actions were taken with the expectation that the company’s Individual Commercial business would stabilize to the point where the company could continue to participate in the program. However, based on its initial analysis of data associated with the company’s healthcare exchange membership following the 2017 open enrollment period, Humana is seeing further signs of an unbalanced risk pool. Therefore, the company has decided that it cannot continue to offer this coverage for 2018. Through the remainder of 2017, Humana remains committed to serving its current members across 11 states where it offers Individual Commercial products. And, as it has done in the past, Humana will work closely with its state partners as it navigates this process.

Meanwhile, Trump seized on the announcement saying that as "Obamacare continues to fail" his administration would "repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans."

Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans. https://t.co/glWEQ0lNR4

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2017

Frankly, we"re shocked at all of this!  Turns out that whole "adverse selection bias" was a real thing...who could have known?