The First Step to Obamacare Reform

by Newt Gingrich: The Obamacare repeal bill Republicans presented this week is an important, first step toward achieving a next generation health care system in America.

For Republicans to meet their commitment to repeal Obamacare – and to do so in a way that is real, lasting, and substantive – the writers of the American Health Care Act had to closely follow the Senate’s narrow budget reconciliation rules, which strictly limit legislation passed under budget reconciliation.

The Congressional Budget Act – which is the overarching legislation that sets reconciliation rules for both houses of Congress – says reconciliation can only be used on legislation that alters federal spending, revenues or the national debt. Obamacare certainly fits that bill, but rules in the Senate further limit reconciliation bills through a rule named after the late Democratic West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd.

Under the Byrd Rule, at any point during the reconciliation process, any senator can block any bill provision that doesn’t change the budget, spending or debt in specifically measurable ways. Other limitations under the Byrd rule include prohibitions against provisions that don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the committees that recommend them, or provisions that in any way change Social Security programs such as disability.

If House lawmakers include provisions that the Senate Parliamentarian finds to be extraneous or unrelated to budgetary matters, Senate Democrats can block them and slow down the Republicans’ momentum. This is the bottleneck through which every provision of the American Health Care Act has to fit.

That’s why the American Healthcare Act is just the first of many steps to come.

Still, even with these limitations, this legislation is better for consumers than our current law. This bill will allow Congress and President Trump to eliminate Obamacare taxes and its mandate that forces people to buy health insurance; strengthen and expand Health Care Savings Accounts to give families more control over their health care spending; reform Medicaid so states can use per-capita block grants to best serve their residents; provide tax credits to people who don’t get insurance through other avenues; and take health care decision-making power away from Washington and return it to patients and doctors.

Meanwhile, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price will implement dramatic regulatory reforms in the health care sector that will empower states to make health care decisions that are best for their residents while lowering costs.

These regulatory changes must be followed by a series of targeted health care reform bills, which should be much more visionary, more powerful, and have a positive impact on the entire health care system.

The health care system is enormously complex. It addresses many completely unique challenges – each with its own special set of intricacies – and health care accounts for one-fifth of our nation’s economy. More importantly, our health care system’s success means life or death for millions of Americans. So, a rolling series of focused bills is far better for the American people than one gigantic bill that no one reads or understands. Passing future targeted bills will be more difficult if we let President Trump lose this first major fight – we cannot allow that to happen.

The 21st Century Cures Act is an excellent model to follow. The Cures bill was targeted, specific and just under 1,000 pages long. By comparison, Obamacare drastically changed many aspects of our health care system, was 2,700 pages long and produced more than 20,000 pages of related regulations, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The American Health Care Act is the start of a remarkable reinvention of American health care. By 2018, President Trump and the Congress will have made serious progress and we’ll have a dramatically better system for all Americans.
----------------------
Newt Gingrich is a former Georgia Congressman and Speaker of the U.S. House. He co-authored and was the chief architect of the "Contract with America" and a major leader in the Republican victory in the 1994 congressional elections. He is noted speaker and writer. The above commentary was shared via Gingrich Productions.

---

Tags: Newt Gingrich, commentary, First Step, Obamacare Reform To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Republican Obamacare Plan Signals That Liberalism Has Already Won

by Philip Klein: In releasing their healthcare plan on Monday, House Republican leaders sent a signal loud and clear: liberalism has already won.

Barring radical changes, Republicans will not be passing a bill that ushers in a new era of market-based healthcare. In reality, the GOP will either be passing legislation that rests on the same philosophical premise as Obamacare, or will pass nothing at all, and thus keep Obamacare itself in place.

Going into the healthcare debate in 2009, there was a clear clash of healthcare visions. Those on the left, whose ideal would be a single-payer system, at a minimum wanted to expand the role of government and use a combination of subsidies and regulations to move the United States in the direction of national healthcare.

Those on the right envisioned a different system that migrated away from a world in which most people obtained coverage through government and their employers, into one in which individuals controlled their healthcare dollars, could take their plans with them from job to job, and choice and competition drove down cost and improved

With Democrats in power Obamacare passed in 2010, triggering seven years of political resistance among Republicans. When President Trump was elected, there were a lot of news articles about how it meant the end of the Obama legacy. But the real test is whether, at the end of the day, Obama moved the ball forward for liberalism even after Trump's efforts to undo his policies. On healthcare, if this bill is any indication, the answer is clear that Obama moved the ball.

I've already shared my skepticism that the bill, which doesn't actually start repealing the major spending provisions of Obamacare until the 2020 presidential election, would actually end up repealing much in practice. But for the sake of argument, let's just assume the plan gets implemented exactly as written.

Supporters of the bill could argue that it does make changes to Obamacare – repealing taxes, reducing spending and scaling back some mandates and regulations. There are even a few areas in which one could argue the bill moves health policy in a more conservative direction relative to the pre-Obamacare status quo. It provides for expanded health savings accounts and, though it would spend more money than otherwise would have been the case before Obamacare, it would overhaul Medicaid into a program in which states are given a per capita grant and provided the flexibility to run their own programs.

But at the same time, the GOP bill preserves much of the regulatory structure of Obamacare; leaves the bias in favor of employer healthcare largely intact, replaces Obamacare's subsidies with a different subsidy scheme, and still supports higher spending for Medicaid relative to what was the case before Obamacare.

Ultimately, it doesn't do much to foster the development of a free market system. Under GOPcare, individuals would not be able to take insurance with them from job to job, because tax credits would not be available to people who have an offer of job-based insurance. They would not be able to purchase whatever plan they want, because the federal government will still be dictating what has to be in insurance policies, making insurance more expensive then it needs to be. If this bill passes, everybody would have to get their insurance either through government, their employer via tax subsidy, or be left to purchase government-designed health policies using federal subsidies.
--------------
Philip Klein (@philipaklein) is managing editor of the Washington Examiner. He has formerly served as commentary editor of the Washington Examiner.

---

Tags: Philip Klein, Washington Examiner, Republican Obamacare, signals, liberalism, has won To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Fighting For Your Values, Back To Court, CUFI Summit, Purim

Gary Bauer

by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author:  Fighting For Your Values -  I had a great meeting yesterday at the White House with other pro-life leaders and Vice President Mike Pence. I know you don't need reminding, but some politicians have mixed records on the sanctity of life. Not so with Vice President Pence.

He has been a stalwart champion of life in Congress, as governor of Indiana and now as vice president of the United States. Many of the leaders at yesterday's meeting commended President Trump and Vice President Pence for providing articulate and bold statements in defense of life during last year's debates.

Yesterday's meeting focused on the American Health Care Act, the House Republican leadership's Obamacare replacement bill. Vice President Pence made it clear that neither he nor the president want anything in this bill that promotes or subsidizes abortion.

The battle will be complicated. Rest assured, my friends, the problem is not in the White House, but on Capitol Hill, and particularly in the Senate.

Many thanks again to all of you who financially support our work. The deliberations I was part of yesterday are another example of what your funds are empowering!

Today, I am attending several strategy sessions with conservative, pro-family and legal experts to ensure that Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed for Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court.

The pro-abortion/progressive wing of the Democrat Party has warned Democrat senators that the vote on Gorsuch is non-negotiable. Democrat senators who support him will face primary challenges.

If every Democrat caves to that pressure, then just a couple of weak-kneed Republican senators could threaten Gorsuch's confirmation.

Back To Court - In the past 48 hours, six states have announced that they are rushing back to the federal courts to block President Trump's latest executive order safeguarding our homeland security. Hawaii was the first to declare its opposition. Washington and Minnesota are also suing, joined by Massachusetts, New York and Oregon.

In its legal filing, the state of Hawaii claims that the president's newest executive order is "a discriminatory ban that goes against the fundamental teachings of our Constitution and our immigration laws." Hawaii's attorneys could not be more wrong.

Let's review some basic facts.

• As a result of repeated terrorist attacks and threats in the United States and around the world, the Obama Administration and Congress identified several nations as "countries of particular concern." These nations were so identified because they were hotbeds of radical Islamic extremism. Some of them are essentially failed states with no government we can trust to help us vet immigrants and refugees.
• We know from court records that we do have a problem with immigrants and refugees from certain nations engaging in terrorism.
• Donald Trump made improved vetting or "extreme vetting" a major issue in last year's presidential campaign. He won in part because the American people overwhelmingly agree with him on this issue.

Now that Donald Trump is president of the United States, he is taking steps to implement the policies he campaigned on. Moreover, the president has tremendous authority on matters of immigration and national security.

There is no universal right to immigrate to the United States. We do not yet have an official open borders policy, as much as the left might wish that were the case. The left, however, does have an interesting ally -- Iran's former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In a recent letter to President Trump, Ahmadinejad declared that "the contemporary U.S. belongs to all nations." The former Iranian leader sounds like an open borders progressive!

Putting politically correct sentimentality aside, it is not bigotry or discrimination to impose limits on nations or people who may be at war with us or who are likely to harm us. That is common sense. The Constitution is not a suicide pact that requires us to ignore reality.

CUFI Washington Summit - Join me in our nation's capital on July 17th and 18th for the Christians United for Israel Washington Summit.

This year's Summit features an outstanding lineup of speakers, including:

Pastor John Hagee
Col. Allen West
Ambassador John Bolton
Malcolm Hoenlein
Erick Stakelbeck
And many others.There will be a Night to Honor Israel celebration, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to address the Summit via satellite.

Register now to lock in reduced rates!

I look forward to seeing you there!

Purim - This weekend, Jews throughout the world will celebrate Purim. It is the story of Queen Esther, who broke protocol and saved the Jewish people in Persia from a plot to annihilate them.

Just as it did so many centuries ago, Israel is once again facing an existential threat from modern day Persia (Iran), whose leader routinely promises a second Holocaust and the annihilation of Israel. Meanwhile, repeated bomb threats against Jewish community centers and schools, the vandalism of Jewish graves and anti-Israel BDS activism on college campuses sadly demonstrate that anti-Semitism continues to plague modern society.

So long as God gives me breath, I promise to fight this ancient evil and to stand with Israel, the apple of God's eye.

To all of our Jewish friends and supporters, Chag Purim Sameach!
----------------
Gary Bauer is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families

---

Tags: Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, Fighting For Your Values, Back To Court, CUFI Summit, Purim To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

The ABA ‘Gold Standard’

Judge Neil Gorsuch

Top Dems: ‘The ABA Evaluation Has Been The Gold Standard By Which Judicial Candidates Are Judged’
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman: “The ABA’s ringing endorsement is no surprise given Judge Gorsuch's sterling credentials and his distinguished decade-long record on the Tenth Circuit. Former Chairman Leahy and Minority Leader Schumer have called the ABA’s assessment the ‘gold standard’ in evaluating federal judicial nominations. In light of Judge Gorsuch's impeccable record, it's hard to imagine any other result from the ABA's consideration.” (Sen. Grassley, Press Release, 3/9/17)

• SENS. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY) & PAT LEAHY (D-VT): The ABA's evaluation is “the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.” (The Washington Post, 03/18/01)

ABA: ‘Unanimous Vote That Judge Gorsuch Is “Well Qualified” For The Position Of Associate Justice Of The Supreme Court’
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION: “The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has completed its evaluation of the professional qualifications of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, whom the President has nominated to the United States Supreme Court. … After an exhaustive evaluation process, the Committee has determined by unanimous vote that Judge Gorsuch is ‘Well Qualified’ for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.” (American Bar Association, Letter To Sens. Grassley & Feinstein, 3/9/17)

• “The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated Supreme Court nominee Neil M. Gorsuch as ‘Well Qualified.’ The rating was done by an independent, non-partisan committee and was based on integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament and not philosophy, political affiliation or ideology. The review consisted of hundreds of interviews conducted around the country with persons who have personal knowledge of the nominee’s qualifications. In addition, teams of distinguished law school professors examined the nominee’s legal writings (opinions, blogs, briefs, articles, etc.) for quality, clarity, knowledge of the law and analytical ability. A national team of leading practicing lawyers with Supreme Court experience also examined the nominee’s legal writings.” (“ABA Committee on Federal Judiciary Rates Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch ‘Well Qualified,’” American Bar Association, 3/9/17)

LIBERALS: ‘I Value No Other Recommendation More Highly,’ ‘Prized And Important’
TIM RUSSERT, NBC News: “Senator Schumer, back in 2001 you wrote a letter to President Bush and you said this: ‘The ABA evaluation has been the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged...’ Gold standard.” SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “Yes. … The bar association is the gold standard…” (NBC’s “Meet The Press, 1/8/06)

• SCHUMER: “…we have heard a lot about the ABA rating, which is something that is prized and important.” (U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Hearing, Pg.652, 1/9-13/2006)

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), Former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman: “There have been debates in this Committee in the past about the relevance and importance of the ABA recommendation.  I think it is important, what you do...” (U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Hearing, Pg.453,  9/12-15/2005)

• BIDEN: “I look at no other recommendation more closely; I value no other recommendation more highly; and I think in my 22 years of working with you, you have found that out.” (U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Hearings, Pg.406, 7/12-15/1994)

---

Tags: ABA, Gold Standard, endorses, Judge Neil Gorsuch, Nominee, Supreme Court To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Exclusive: Air Force Says Words Like ‘Boy’ & ‘Girl’ Could Be Offensive

by Todd Starnes: The Air Force fears that words like boy, girl, colonial and blacklist might offend people, according to an email sent to Airmen at Joint Base San Antonio.

An outraged Airman sent me a copy of the email – as evidence the military is still infected with Obama-era political correctness.

The email included an attachment that listed a number of words and phrases that might be construed as offensive.

Now, to be fair there were some legitimately offensive and racially charged words and phrases on the list. But also included on the list were the words boy and girl.

The email was written by a senior Air Force leader and was sent to an untold number of personnel at Lackland Air Force Base.

Airmen were advised to study a list of words and phrases that “may be construed offensive.”

Here’s a partial list of the dubious words and phrases deemed troublesome by the Air Force:1. Boy

2. Girl

3. You People

4. Colonial

5. Blacklist

6. Blackmail

7. Blackball

8. Sounds Greek to me

9. Blondes have more fun

10. Too many chiefs, not enough Indians“Please be cognizant that such conduct is 100 percent zero tolerance in or outside of the work climate,” the email read. “Let’s capitalize on our richly diverse climate, and help others seek assistance if they are struggling with compliance.”

Based on my interpretation of the email, it’s pretty clear that Airmen have been advised not to use those words in any sort of context – on or off base.

So I reached out the public affairs office at Lackland to find out why they had a problem with the words boy and girl. Was it true that the Air Force had banned those words?

“The Air Force has no list of prohibited terms,” a public affairs spokesperson told me. “It was sent out by an individual simply reminding Airmen to be respectful to others.”

Apparently, the words “100 percent zero tolerance” don’t have the same meaning in Air Force vernacular.

This is a case of the Air Force getting caught red-handed trying to advance a politically correct agenda. And now that I’ve got a copy of the evidence, they are attempting to whitewash the situation.

It’s time for Defense Secretary James Mattis to root out political correctness in the Armed Forces. We must never again allow the greatest fighting force on the planet to be used as a social engineering petri dish.

The Airmen I know are brave men and women who are devoted to their calling to protect our great nation. I sincerely doubt they give two hoots about political correctness.

That being said, there could be one or two folks in the military who contracted microaggressions that were triggered by someone uttering the words “boy” or “girl.”

Perhaps those individuals might consider seeking treatment for their affliction inside a designated safe space at a nearby public university – instead of Joint Base San Antonio.
------------------
Todd Starnes (@toddstarnes) is A Christian Conservative, the host of Fox News & Commentary and heard daily on 250+ radio stations and on his iTune podcasts.

---

Tags: Todd Starnes, Air Force, Says Words, Like ‘Boy’ & ‘Girl’, Could Be Offensive To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

February 1969: Remembering the "Name of the Game" in 2017

by Jordan Henry: Let me paint a picture for you. America is suffering under the weight of eight years of failed liberal policies. Government has expanded and the people are ready for change. A liberal Democrat president is replaced by a candidate running as a strong conservative Republican. If you were to guess what time I’m talking about, you might guess February 2017, and you would be right. However, you could say the same about February 1969, when the Phyllis Schlafly Report headlined with “Patronage Is the Name of the Game.” Phyllis knew electing the right people is only the first step to real change. The next step is to surround the right person with a strong and competent team of staffers and advisors who turn the presidency from a one-man crusade to an unstoppable war machine for the conservative cause.

Unfortunately, the Democrats understood that fact too. That is why they attacked Nixon’s ability to fill positions in the executive branch when he was first elected in 1969. Their strategy was to confound the efforts of Republicans at every turn by making them work in opposition to the very people tasked with carrying out their policies. Immediately after the election, Democrats began to shout about the supposedly unethical practice of replacing executive branch employees from a previous administration with new ones. That practice is commonly known as “patronage.” They said that President Nixon could not make sweeping employment changes because appointing his “friends” to political positions would not be fair to “more qualified” people who were not his “friends.”

However, the Democrats failed to mention that choosing conservative replacements would make them “more qualified” for the positions. The replacements would believe in the conservative agenda Nixon campaigned on. The many bureaus of the executive branch all serve a singular purpose: to enforce the law under the discretion of the president. If a bureaucrat does not agree with the president’s agenda, they should not want to keep the job anyway. While Democrats were quick to call foul on Nixon for using patronage, they weren’t so eager to do so when Democrats like Johnson, Kennedy, or Truman were doing the same thing. As Phyllis pointed out: “The Democrats have never permitted Civil Service to impede their political objectives.” Clearly, Democrats never consider patronage to be a moral issue until a Republican gets in office.

The same thing can be said of the Trump administration today. Democrats have cleverly realized that the best way to attack President Trump is to impede his ability to surround himself with conservative people who want to help him achieve his conservative policy goals. When President Trump appointed Jeff Sessions to the post of Attorney General, the Democrats would not rest until he recused himself. Jeff Sessions was one of Phyllis Schlafly’s favorite people because he is a man of strong principles, easily one of the most honorable men in Washington, DC. For Democrats to attack his character shows that this is really about attacking President Trump via his like-minded confidants.

Phyllis Schlafly warned President Nixon in the February 1969 PS Report that he should not discount the importance of the staff he surrounds himself with. As she recounted in the 50th anniversary edition of A Choice, Not An Echo, Nixon “froze out the conservatives who had nominated and elected him” when he “appointed Henry Kissinger, Nelson Rockefeller’s protégé, to be national security advisor.” As a result, Kissinger convinced Nixon to continue the failed foreign policy of Robert McNamara. President Trump should not make the mistake Nixon made. He should fight against the Democrats in the Senate and elsewhere who would hold him up from putting good people in place who want to help him make America great again. As Phyllis Schlafly did in 1969, we should remember the importance of patronage. It truly is the “name of the game.”
---------------------
Jordan T. Henry is Research Director at The Phyllis Schlafly Center.

---

Tags: Jordan T. Henry, The Phyllis Schlafly Center, Remembering, "Name of the Game To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Trump Immigration Executive Orders Are Already Working . . .

. . . Illegal border crossings drop an astounding 40% in one month.

by Joseph Klein: A statement issued by Homeland Security Secretary Jack Kelly, concerning data compiled by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, noted that there has been a marked decrease in illegal border crossings at the U.S.-Mexican border this year between January and February, “as measured by apprehensions and the prevention of inadmissible persons at our southern border.” In January there were 31,578 apprehensions, while in February there were 18,762. This 40 percent drop is in contrast to previous year comparisons of January and February, during which there had been a 10-20 percent increase in apprehensions of illegal immigrants.

The trend is in the right direction, even without the border wall already in place that President Trump promised during the campaign. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data cited by Homeland Security Secretary Kelly, “in the period from Oct 1, 2016 to the Presidential inauguration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported 157,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants – a 35 percent increase over the previous fiscal year, with family units increasing by more than 100 percent. However, since President Trump took office on January 20, we have seen a dramatic drop in numbers.”

Some of the decline may be due to seasonal factors. However, more robust enforcement in the wake of President Trump’s issuance of two executive orders intended to boost such enforcement of the nation’s existing immigration laws are clearly having a deterrent effect. Since the Trump administration’s implementation of these executive orders, according to Secretary Kelly, we are seeing apprehensions and the turning away of inadmissible persons at our southern border “trending toward the lowest monthly total in at least the last five years.”

What makes the robust enforcement regime introduced by President Trump’s executive orders even more effective is the termination of the practice commonly known as "catch and release," whereby illegal immigrants have been routinely released in the United States shortly after their apprehension for violations of immigration law. Thus, illegal immigrant traffic is slowing due to the deterrent effect of more rigorous enforcement, while those caught having entered the country illegally are not allowed to simply roam free pending their immigration hearings.

“As directed in my memoranda implementing the President’s executive orders, we remain committed to carrying out fair, impartial and humane enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws,” said Secretary Kelly in his statement. “We will remain vigilant to respond to any changes in these trends, as numbers of illegal crossings typically increase between March and May. However, the early results show that enforcement matters, deterrence matters, and that comprehensive immigration enforcement can make an impact.”

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos clearly does not like what he is seeing with regards to current U.S. immigration policy. He wants open borders.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News confronted Ramos during an interview Wednesday night with a statement Ramos made in February: “I’m a proud Latino immigrant here in the United States. You know exactly what is going on here in the US. There are many people who do not want us to be here and who want to create a wall in order to separate us. But you know what, this is also our country. Let me repeat this, our country, not theirs, it’s our country.”

Carlson then asked Ramos, “Who’s the us, and who’s the they? Whose country is it?” Ramos equivocated, but said that by 2044 “the white population will become a minority, it will be a minority/majority country, that is precisely what I’m saying. Latinos, Asians, African-Americans, whites, it is our country Tucker.” Carlson reminded Ramos that “you are white, obviously, you are whiter than I am. You’ve got blue eyes,” and then questioned what Ramos meant “by white or Latino.” Ramos ended up by declaring that one’s country of origin in Latin America makes one a Latino, regardless of ethnicity.

Thus, by Ramos’s own logic (or, more accurately, illogic), any Latino from South America, Central America or Mexico wanting to enter the United States should be allowed to do so without restriction because it is their country too.

This same open borders premise underlies objections to President Trump’s new executive order temporarily suspending the admission of refugees worldwide for 120 days. The new order also suspends the entry for 90 days of people from six designated terrorist-prone countries whom do not have green cards or previously issued visas to enter the United States. The new order replaces the previous executive order that was held up in the courts. It is due to take effect on March 16th.

In addition to narrowing the scope of people temporarily subject to the entry suspension, Iraq was removed from the original order’s list of affected countries. Any suggestion of preference for religious minorities has also been removed.

Democrats willing to gamble with American lives wasted no time in pouncing on the new order. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer bemoaned, “A watered down ban is still a ban. Despite the administration’s changes, this dangerous executive order makes us less safe, not more, it is meanspirited, and un-American.” A temporary pause on entry from countries even the Obama administration identified as terrorist-prone will make us less safe? What alternative universe does Senator Schumer inhabit?

Schumer’s counterpart in the House, Nancy Pelosi, tweeted, “This is the same ban, with the same purpose, driven by the same discrimination that weakens our fight against terror.” Keeping out would-be terrorists weakens our fight against terror? Evidently, just like with her Obamacare bill, she did not take the time to actually read the new order and compare it to the original version before impulsively tweeting her unfounded objections.

The state of Hawaii is already challenging in court the executive order. So is the state of Washington, which had successfully sued to halt the implementation of the original order. Washington’s governor has also signed an executive order of his own restricting state agencies from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

President Trump’s "executive order inflicts a grave injury on Muslims in Hawaii,” Hawaii's complaint says. One of the plaintiffs, a member of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, is upset that his Syrian mother-in-law will not be able to visit him while the travel suspension remains in effect. In other words, this plaintiff insists he has the right to demand that his Syrian non-blood relative be given a visa immediately to visit him in the United States. Apparently the state of Hawaii agrees that allowing such a visit to take place right away is more important than allowing the president of the United States, acting under explicit federal statutory authority, to temporarily suspend entry from Syria if he determines it necessary to protect the American people. Why doesn’t the plaintiff travel to meet his mother-in-law overseas instead, if he simply cannot wait? The state of Hawaii can even pay for his travel, which would be a lot cheaper than wasting taxpayers’ money on a lawsuit.

"Hawaii is special in that it has always been non-discriminatory in both its history and constitution," Attorney General Douglas Chin explained. "Twenty percent of the people are foreign-born, 100,000 are non-citizens and 20 percent of the labor force is foreign-born."

Lofty principles such as non-discrimination are fine, but their restatement in this context is completely out of place. Apparently, the opponents of President Trump’s executive order believe that foreigners from any country seeking to enter the United States for any reason, no matter what the circumstances in their home country affecting U.S. national security, should have a constitutional right favoring their entry that overrides national security considerations. Not to admit them is somehow discriminatory.

Meanwhile. proponents of an open border between Mexico and the United States think nothing of the safety and economic impact of uncontrolled immigration on American citizens.

As Tucker Carlson asked Jorge Ramos, “Whose country is it?”
--------------
Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam. His article was in FrontPage.Mag, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

---

Tags: President Trump, Immigration Executive Orders, Are Already Working, Joseph Klein, FrontPage Mag To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

The Fix Is In . . .

Ryancare Repeal and replace phase one is simply to keep Obamacare alive till they can figure out how to fix or replace it.

Editorial Cartoon by AF "Tony" Branco

---

Tags: The Fix Is In, Ryancare, Repeal and replace, phase one,keep Obamacare alive, figure out how, fix it, replace it, AF Branco, Editorial Cartoon To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

‘Obamacare Is Failing’

We were Warned for Years!

‘Deductibles Are Going To Get Even Higher,’ ‘Markets Could Collapse,’ Insurers ‘Exiting States’
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “It’s clear to just about everyone that Obamacare is failing.  Costs are soaring.  Choices are diminishing.  Insurance markets are teetering.  It would be easy to just sit back and watch this partisan law collapse under its own weight. Pass the buck to the next guy. That seems to be the Democrats’ strategy. But Republicans think the middle class deserves better…. [I]n so many different ways, we’ve seen the evidence for years now that Obamacare simply isn’t working.  This isn’t a law that can be fixed.  This isn’t a law that can be saved.  It has to be repealed and replaced. We promised the American people we would. We’re keeping our promise.” (Sen. McConnell, Press Release, 3/07/2017)

Obamacare: Premiums And Deductibles Increase, While Choices Vanish
CONNECTICUT: “Deductibles are going to get even higher for some Connecticut residents covered under Obamacare after the Access Health CT board voted Tuesday for a rate increase. Deductibles will increase 25 percent to $5,000 for customers with standard silver plans … A total of 8.5 percent of customers will see their deductibles increase to $4,700, 15.5 percent will rise to $750 …” (“Some Obamacare Customers See Sharp Climb For Deductibles,” Hartford Courant, 2/28/2017)

NEW YORK: “In New York, [Oscar Insurance Corp’s] largest market, the startup has moved to cut costs by working with a smaller set of hospitals and doctors, called a narrow network, a strategy already used in other regions. It also stopped selling in two areas, and boosted premiums significantly.” (“Losses Mount for Obamacare Startup Oscar as Repeal Looms,” Bloomberg News, 2/28/2017)

NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, AND NEW JERSEY:</ “Oscar offers insurance in the ACA’s individual market in the New York City area, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Antonio, and exited the Dallas-Fort Worth area and New Jersey this year. Oscar has raised its premiums about 20 percent in New York, 24 percent in San Antonio and 12 percent in the Los Angeles area.” (“Losses Mount for Obamacare Startup Oscar as Repeal Looms,” Bloomberg News, 2/28/2017)

Obamacare Has Failed To Control Costs
“Spending on prescription drugs for health plans created under the Affordable Care Act increased last year at a rate more than three times that of other commercial plans and most government-run plans managed by Express Scripts Holding Co. Express Scripts, the largest manager of prescription drug plans for U.S. employers, on Tuesday said year-over-year spending per person for individual insurance plans sold on the Obamacare exchanges where it manages the pharmacy benefit rose 14 percent in 2016, driven by higher drug prices and utilization. Express Scripts said per-capita spending for other commercial plans it manages, mostly for employers, rose just 3.8 percent last year … Drug spending for plans the company manages under Medicare … increased 4.1 percent last year while the rise for Medicaid … was 5.5 percent.” (“Obamacare Plans’ Drug Spending Rose Faster Than Other Plans In 2016: Express Scripts,” Reuters, 2/28/2017)

“Oscar Insurance Corp., the startup trying to reinvent medical insurance with its Obamacare-focused plans, lost more than $200 million on the products in 2016 as it heads into a year that may see the undoing of the health law. The company offered plans in four states in 2016 and lost about $204.9 million on premium revenue of $425.9 million, according to filings. The loss widened from $121.7 million in 2015.” (“Losses Mount for Obamacare Startup Oscar as Repeal Looms,” Bloomberg News, 2/28/2017)

• “UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Aetna Inc. and others exited most of their Obamacare business ahead of 2017 to stem losses, which McKinsey & Co. estimates at $8.9 billion industrywide last year.” (“Losses Mount for Obamacare Startup Oscar as Repeal Looms,” Bloomberg News, 2/28/2017)

FLASHBACK: ‘The Past Year Has Been A Rocky One For’ Obamacare
“The past year has been a rocky one for the landmark health reform law. Faced with sicker than expected enrollees, insurers pulled back from the market and hiked premiums.” (“Humana Pulls Out Of Obamacare For 2018,” CNNMoney, 2/14/2017)

• “There have been widespread concerns over the last year that the markets could collapse as insurers raised premiums sharply in the face of more costly than expected patients.” (“Amid Obamacare Uncertainty, Insurance Giant Humana Plans To Leave Marketplaces In 2018,” Los Angeles Times, 2/14/2017)

“Aetna chief executive Mark Bertolini said Wednesday that the Affordable Care Act's exchanges … are in a ‘death spiral.’” (“Aetna Chief Executive Says Obamacare Is In A ‘Death Spiral,’” The Washington Post, 2/15/2017)

• “Bertolini said his company has not decided whether to continue selling insurance in the exchanges in 2018, but it already has exited most of the markets where it previously sold plans, remaining in only four states this year. He said that Aetna is the only insurer left in Nebraska's public exchange.” (“Aetna Chief Executive Says Obamacare Is In A ‘Death Spiral,’” The Washington Post, 2/15/2017)

Just Last Month Another Major Insurer Abandoned The Obamacare Exchanges
“Health insurance company Humana announced Tuesday that it would leave the ObamaCare market in 2018.(“Humana To Drop Out Of Obamacare At End Of 2017,” The Hill, 2/14/2017)

• “The company said in a press release it has tried for the past several years to keep selling policies where it could offer ‘a viable product.’ It said it increased premiums, exited markets and tightened provider networks in hopes of stabilizing its individual market business. But an initial analysis of its 2017 consumer base found that it remained riskier than Humana could tolerate. So the company is exiting all 11 states where it sells individual policies, both on the Obamacare exchange and outside of it.” (“Humana Pulls Out Of Obamacare For 2018,” CNNMoney, 2/14/2017)
• “Humana had already sharply reduced its footprint in the Obamacare exchanges over the past year following financial losses. It sold plans in 156 counties across 11 states in 2017, down sharply from 1,351 counties throughout 19 states the previous year.” (“Humana Becomes First Major Insurer To Quit Obamacare Exchanges,” Politico, 2/14/2017)

“[T]he company is a leading source of coverage in some regions, including Tennessee, which has one of the shakiest markets. The pullout will leave no insurer in 16 Tennessee counties in 2018, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, which is tracking marketplace participation.” (“Amid Obamacare Uncertainty, Insurance Giant Humana Plans To Leave Marketplaces In 2018,” Los Angeles Times, 2/14/2017)

• “Humana is also one of only two insurers in dozens of counties in states like Mississippi and Georgia.” (“Humana To Drop Out Of Obamacare At End Of 2017,” The Hill, 2/14/2017)

Last Year, Two Major Insurers Pulled Back From The Obamacare Exchanges
“Aetna Inc. will withdraw from 11 of the 15 states where it currently offers plans< through the Affordable Care Act exchanges, becoming the latest of the major national health insurers to pull back sharply from the law’s signature marketplaces after steep financial losses.” (“Aetna To Drop Some Affordable Care Act Markets,” Wall Street Journal, 8/15/16)

• “Aetna will reduce the number of counties where it sells exchange plans next year to 242 from 778, a dramatic turn that came a few weeks after the insurer said it expected steep losses for the year and would reconsider its participation in the market…” (“Aetna To Drop Some Affordable Care Act Markets,” Wall Street Journal, 8/15/16)
• “Aetna is pulling out of all but four states where it currently sells plans on the Obamacare exchanges for 2017.” (“Aetna Pulling Out Of All But Four State Exchange Markets For 2017,” Politico, 8/15/16)

“UnitedHealth Group said in April it would liquidate all its Affordable Care Act coverage.”< (“Aetna’s Obamacare Shock,” Wall Street Journal, 8/2/16)

• “UnitedHealthcare, the biggest health insurer in the United States, said Tuesday that it plans to exit most of the Affordable Care Act state exchanges where it currently operates by 2017. The health insurer had already indicated that it was dropping coverage of the plans, more commonly known as Obamacare, in Arkansas, Georgia and Michigan. But during a conference call with analysts Tuesday, CEO Stephen Hemsley noted that ‘next year we will remain in only a handful of states.’” (“Unitedhealthcare To Exit Most Obamacare Exchanges,” CNN Money, 4/19/16)

“Anthem Inc. said it is now projecting losses on its Affordable Care Act plans this year, a turnaround for a major insurer that had maintained a relatively optimistic tone> about that business…. Anthem Chief Executive Joseph R. Swedish said that the insurer will re-examine its full-on commitment to selling plans on the health law’s exchanges. Anthem will take a “prudent” approach to its future offerings, he said. Anthem has been a major player in the ACA marketplaces, with 923,000 exchange enrollees, and it offers the plans throughout the 14 states where it is a Blue Cross Blue Shield insurer.” (“Anthem Projecting Losses On Affordable Care Act Plans This Year,” Wall Street Journal, 7/27/16)

---

Tags: Obamacare Is Failing, media reports To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

The Weight of Politics

by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: Folks sure go crazy over diets. And that’s without the insanity of politics à la mode.

Consider the new Trump Diet — actually, several of them.

Actress Lena Dunham pledged to move to Canada if Donald Trump won last November. Instead, she stayed to offer a new weight loss scheme. “Everyone’s been asking like, ‘What have you been doing?’” she told Howard Stern. “And I’m like, ‘Try soul-crushing pain and devastation and hopelessness and you, too, will lose weight.’”

So, there is hope!

Conversely, comedian Judd Apatow complains, “It’s very hard to lose weight in the Trump era.” The acclaimed Hollywood producer, director and writer adds, “Most of us are just scared and eating ice cream.”

Not Barbara Streisand. Oh, yes, she tweeted: “Donald Trump is making me gain weight.” But she made it clear that “after the morning news, I eat pancakes smothered in maple syrup!” At least, her new song, “People, People Who Need Pancakes,” is moving up the scales — er, charts.

With mixed results for shedding pounds in the U.S., let’s graze elsewhere.

Certainly, no diet regime has been as successful, nor as rigorously tested, as the Maduro Diet — made famous in Venezuela by President Nicolás Maduro. The entire socialist nation is on it, and a new survey discovered that three of four Venezuelans lost “at least 19 pounds” during 2016.

Think socialism doesn’t produce results? Fat chance.

Still, such a steady diet of politics is hard to stomach. Instead, maybe we better concentrate on exercising . . .

. . . our freedom.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
------------------
Paul Jacobs is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is also President of the Liberty Initiative Fund (LIFe) as well as Citizens in Charge Foundation. Jacobs is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Paul Jacob, Common Sense, weight of politics, diet of politics To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

5 Reasons the GOP’s Obamacare Plan Is Not Real Repeal

"The time for full repeal is here.
No More Excuses." ~ Genevieve Wood

by Genevieve Wood: Republicans have promised time and again to repeal Obamacare—not fix it, not try to make it better—they promised to repeal it.

Here are five reasons the American Health Care Act put forward by GOP leadership does not fulfill that promise.

1) The bill does not fully repeal Obamacare. If you have a faulty foundation, nothing you build on top of it is stable or sustainable. Tweaking a little here and there is not going to get the job done. Obamacare should be completely repealed before any replacement or reforms are introduced.

Republicans already have the model for this in their 2015 repeal bill. Every single GOP senator voted for that legislation. There was just one problem at the time: Barack Obama was president. Now, under a President Donald Trump, there’s no impediment to finishing the job.

2) There is no real expectation that this bill will lower costs and make it more affordable for all Americans. It fails to correct the features of Obamacare, namely insurance regulations, that drove up health insurance costs and premiums in the first place.

And that means that the 25 million Americans who get their insurance on the private market or through small-employer plans will see little to no relief. Obama promised that you would be able to keep you doctor. Seven years later, we know that’s not true. Republicans said they would fix this by repealing Obamacare. Now, the very people who have suffered under Obamacare are at risk again of being on the losing end of the deal—again.

3) The bill does not repeal Medicaid expansion. In fact, it encourages states to sign up even more people over the next three years. The costs of this policy are not sustainable without driving states and taxpayers further into debt. But equally wrong is that this bill does not address the problem of states increasingly steering Medicaid dollars originally intended for the truly needy and disabled to able-bodied adults.

4) The tax treatment of health care should be at the center of true reform, but this bill fails to tackle that issue head on or to ask and answer the hard questions.

Should tax credits be used to finance the purchase of health insurance on the individual market?

If so, who gets these tax credits and who will pay for them?

That’s a debate we can have after Obamacare is fully repealed and we are starting from square one. But we are not starting from square one and the current bill runs the risk of expanding our already massive health care entitlement programs.

5) Unlike previous attempts to repeal Obamacare, there is serious concern that the current bill does not adequately prevent the use of taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortions.

Obamacare is a faulty foundation and Congress should not attempt to build anything on top of it.

For the past four elections—2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016—voters sent a message and consistently elected Republicans to Congress because they promised to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Unfortunately, it appears this Congress is trying to treat the symptoms of a failing program as opposed to going after the cause of the disease.

The time for full repeal is here. No more excuses.
--------------------
Genevieve Wood (@genevievewood) advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal.

---

Tags: Genevieve Wood, Heritage Foundation, The Daily Signal, 5 Reasons, GOP, Obamacare Plan, Not Real Repeal To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Is a Korean Missile Crisis Ahead?

by Patrick Buchanan: To back up Defense Secretary “Mad Dog” Mattis’ warning last month, that the U.S. “remains steadfast in its commitment” to its allies, President Donald Trump is sending B-1 and B-52 bombers to Korea.

Some 300,000 South Korean and 15,000 U.S. troops have begun their annual Foal Eagle joint war exercises that run through April.

“The two sides are like two accelerating trains coming toward each other with neither side willing to give way,” says Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, “Are (they) really ready for a head-on collision?”

So it would seem.

It is Kim Jong Un, 33-year-old grandson of that Stalinist state’s founding father, who launched the first Korean War, who brought on this confrontation.

In February, Kim’s half-brother was assassinated in Malaysia in a VX nerve agent attack and five of Kim’s security officials were executed with anti-aircraft guns. Monday, Kim launched four missiles toward U.S. bases, with three landing in the Sea of Japan.

U.S. response: Begin immediate deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile shield in Korea.

This set off alarms in China. For while THAAD cannot shoot down Scuds on the DMZ, its radar can detect missile launches inside China, thereby, says Beijing, imperiling her deterrent.

For accepting THAAD, China has imposed sanctions on Seoul, and promised the U.S. a commensurate strategic response.

Minister Wang’s proposal for resolving the crisis: The U.S. and Seoul cancel the exercises and North Korea suspends the nuclear and missile tests.

How did we reach this crisis point?

In his 2002 “axis of evil” address, George W. Bush declared, “The United States … will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”

He then launched a war on Iraq, which had no such weapons. But North Korea, hearing Bush’s threat, built and tested five atom bombs and scores of missiles, a few of intercontinental range.

Pyongyang has tested new presidents before.

In April 1969, North Korea shot down a U.S. EC-121 over the Sea of Japan, killing its entire crew. President Nixon, a war in Vietnam on his hands, let it pass, which he regretted ever after.

But this crisis raises larger questions about U.S. foreign policy.

Why, a quarter of a century after the Cold War, do we still have 28,000 troops in Korea? Not only does South Korea have twice the population of the North, but an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons far superior to any in the North.

Why should Americans on the DMZ be among the first to die in a second Korean War? Should the North attack the South, could we not honor our treaty obligations with air and naval power offshore?

Gen. James Mattis’ warning last month was unambiguous:

“Any attack on the United States or our allies will be defeated and any use of nuclear weapons would be met with a response that would be effective and overwhelming.”

JFK’s phrase in the Cuban crisis, “full retaliatory response,” comes to mind.

Hence the next move is up to Kim.

New tests by North Korea of missiles or atom bombs for an ICBM could bring U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities and missile sites, igniting an attack on the South.

For China, this crisis, whether it leads to war, a U.S. buildup in the South, or a U.S. withdrawal from Korea, is problematic.

Beijing cannot sit by and let her North Korean ally be bombed, nor can it allow U.S. and South Korean forces to defeat the North, bring down the regime, and unite the peninsula, with U.S. and South Korean soldiers sitting on the Yalu, as they did in 1950 before Mao ordered his Chinese army into Korea.

However, should U.S. forces withdraw from the South, Seoul might build her own nuclear arsenal, followed by Japan. For Tokyo could not live with two Koreas possessing nukes, while she had none.

This could leave China contained by nuclear neighbors: to the north, Russia, to the south, India, to the east, South Korea and Japan. And America offshore.

What this crisis reveals is that China has as great an interest in restraining North Korea as do we.

While the United States cannot back down, it is difficult to reconcile a second Korean war with our America first policy. Which is why some of us have argued for decades that the United States should moves its forces out of South Korea and off the Asian continent.

Events in Asia — Chinese claims to reefs and rocks in the South and East China Seas and North Korea’s menacing her neighbors — are pushing us toward a version of the Nixon Doctrine declared in Guam in 1969 that is consistent with America first:

While we will provide the arms for friends and allies to fight in their own defense in any future wars, henceforth, they will provide the troops.
--------------------
Patrick Buchanan is currently a conservative columnist, political analyst, chairman of The American Cause foundation and an editor of The American Conservative. He has been a senior advisor to three Presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He blogs at the Patrick J. Buchanan.

---

Tags: Patrick Buchanan, conservative, commentary,North Korea,  Korean Missile Crisis To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Cultural Captives

by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author : Christian young people are not spiritually thriving. That is the conclusion by Stephen Cable in his book, Cultural Captives: The Beliefs and Behavior of American Young Adults. Stephen Cable serves as Senior Vice-President of Probe Ministries.

His book not only analyzes the survey Probe Ministries did with the Barna Group of emerging adults but also analyzes all of the other major surveys (National Study of Youth and Religion, Baylor Religion Survey, and General Social Survey). He discovered that even though commentators sometimes cite these other surveys to prove that young people are doing well, all of the surveys are actually quite consistent. When you dig deeper into the data, you find they all paint a bleak picture.

The percentage of people generally who check “none of the above” for religious preference is increasing. That is especially true of young people. In fact, the percentage of emerging adults who do not claim any affiliation with Christianity rose from 20% in 1990 to over 43% of the population today.

Stephen Cable found that only 14 percent of born-again, emerging adults combine a biblical worldview with biblical practices, such as reading the Bible or attending church. He also found that less than 2 percent of born-again, emerging adults apply a biblical worldview to life choices. In other words, only this small percentage has biblical beliefs on topics ranging from abortion to sex outside marriage to science and faith.

This is a major reason why Probe Ministries has developed an integrated strategy known as Periscope aimed at reversing these trends. The learning experience involves an entire church congregation over a seven-week period and includes sermons, videos, original music, and additional material for individuals and small groups.

Stephen Cable’s book is a wake up call to the church. We need to reverse these ominous trends and do it quickly before the trends become even worse.
-----------
Kerby Anderson is a radio talk show host heard on numerous stations via the Point of View Network endorsed by Dr. Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service

---

Tags: Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, Probe Ministries, Barna Group, Stephen Cable,Cultural Captives To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Stop Obama’s War on Retirement Plans!

by Phil Kerpen, Contributing Author: A leftover Obama regulation could have HUGE consequences for your retirement plan…

. . . and we are up against the clock if we want to stop it.

Obama’s so-called “fiduciary rule” clocks in at over 1,000 pages, and it will drastically raise the cost of retirement plans and investment advice.

As one policy analyst put it, “the fiduciary rule is like Obamacare for your IRA and 401(k), if you like your brokers and investments, you might not be able to keep them.”

The Obama administration clearly thought senior citizens aren’t smart enough to make financial decisions with an adviser of their own choice.

After presiding over the national debt skyrocketing to nearly $20 TRILLION, Obama had NO RIGHT to tell us how to be fiscally responsible!

American Commitment members like you have already made a big difference in this fight. The 30,000 letters that you sent to Congress played a huge role in getting a repeal bill passed in the House and Senate last year.

Unfortunately – Obama vetoed the bill, and the Senate’s attempt to override it was unsuccessful. And now the time has expired for the special procedure that was used to avoid a Democratic filibuster.

So only the Trump Administration can kill the rule. And they must. It’s time to stop Obama’s War on Retirement Plans before it costs consumers an eye-popping $31.5 billion.

Tell the Department of Labor to STOP Obama’s War on Retirement Plans IMMEDIATELY!

After you send your official comment letter, please forward this email to your friends to help me sound the alarm on this disastrous regulation. American Commitment members like you have been leading the battle against this rule from day one; I hope you will continue to fight with me.
------------------
Phil Kerpen is president of American Commitment. Follow him at (@kerpen) and on Facebook. He is a contributing author at the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Phil Kerpen, American Commitment, Stop Obama’s War, on Retirement Plans, IRAs, Action item, send free message, to DOL To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford: Health Care Act Comes Up Short

U.S Rep. Rick Crawford, AR-1-R

by Frank E. Lockwood, Arkansas Online: U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford opposes new legislation aimed at repealing and replacing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, saying it doesn't go far enough to reverse the health care law.

The Republican from Jonesboro was the first member of the Arkansas congressional delegation to reject the bill, which has the backing of House Speaker Paul Ryan and President Donald Trump.

"I can't support the American Health Care Act proposed by Republican leadership because it doesn't fully repeal Obamacare, which is primarily why my constituents sent me to Washington," Crawford said in a written statement released Tuesday evening. "Arkansans need health care reform that eliminates failed policy and starts from scratch, giving conservatives a real opportunity to create an environment for the free market to address the problems in our healthcare industry."

The lawmaker said he feared that the bill's refundable tax credit would "essentially create a new entitlement program." He also expressed concerns that it would push the nation further into debt.

"[T]he Congressional Budget Office has yet to score the legislation, leaving us to wonder if this bill will increase the deficit and deepen our nation's fiscal problems," he said.

"I am eager to support a bill that truly reforms healthcare for my constituents and the American people, but I can't support this bill in its current form," he added.

Crawford's announcement came less than 24 hours after the legislation was unveiled. His Arkansas colleagues -- all Republicans -- haven't yet stated how they'll vote.  . . . [Read article for opinions/positions by other members of the Arkansas Delegation]
-----------------
Article shared under the Fair Use Doctrine. Congressman Crawford is the  ARRA News Service editor's U.S. Representative.

---

Tags: Rick Crawford, Health Care act, comes up short, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Tom Cotton: Congress Moving Too Quickly On Health Care Reform

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-AR

by David Sherfinski - The Washington Times: Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, said Wednesday it might be a good idea to pump the brakes a bit on the push to overhaul Obamacare and that the Senate isn’t just going to rubber-stamp whatever the House passes.

“I think we’re moving a little bit too quickly on health care reform,” Mr. Cotton said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“This is a big issue. This is not like the latest spending bill that gets released on a Monday night, [passed] on Wednesday and everybody goes home for Christmas, and we live with it for nine months,” he said.

“We’re going to live with health care reform that we pass forever, or until it’s changed in the far distant future,” he said.

“So I don’t think we need to introduce legislation on Monday and have one chance to amend it on Wednesday,” he said. “I would much sooner get health care reform right than get it fast.

“The Senate certainly will not just be jammed with whatever the House sends over here,” he said.

Proponents of the House GOP plan unveiled Monday say it’s just one step in a multipart process of unwinding the law. Some critics have said it might be a good idea to get projections on how much the plan will cost and how many Americans will be insured before plowing ahead.
---------------
Shared under Fair Use Doctrine and permission previously granted t0 the Editor, ARRA News Service by The Washington Times to share their articles. Sen Tom Cotton represent Arkansas and the editor.

---

Tags: U.S. Senator, Tom Cotton, Arkansas, Congress, moving to quickly, health care reform, The Washington Times To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!