News Blog for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. Content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles.Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used. Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home PageFollow @arra
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)
Friday, June 30, 2017
A Deficit Neutral Tax Cut: Part 1
by Newt Gingrich: As the Trump administration and the Congress draft the 2017 tax bill, it is extremely important that they build it around a deficit neutral, not a revenue neutral, model.
This may sound like a word game, but it is not. The difference between focusing the country on a revenue neutral tax and a deficit neutral tax cut is gigantic.
Revenue neutrality means every tax cut must be balanced within the tax code. To cut taxes in one place, you must raise taxes somewhere else. Inevitably, you hurt some people by raising their taxes while helping others by cutting their taxes.
Revenue neutral tax policies also have a very weak impact on job creation. Raising taxes on some people and companies immediately slows economic growth. It takes significant time for the jobs the tax cuts are supposed to produce to materialize, creating more immediate damage, than benefit.
Furthermore, a revenue neutral strategy perpetuates the idea that there is no connection between government spending and taxes.
Historically, the conservative model for taxes is to tie spending directly to taxes by having a deficit neutral bias. You could only cut taxes if you were saving money. When combined with the feedback from economic growth, this creates a virtuous cycle. Each tax cut leads to more economic growth, which generates more revenue, which leads to another tax cut. This was the model of the Reagan-Kemp Revolution in economic policies, which broke America out of the Carter malaise and led to a decade of extraordinary growth in jobs and wealth.
I first became fascinated with this model of being frugal with government in order to be generous with the working taxpayer 32 years ago when Alvin Rabushka published From Adam Smith to the Wealth of America.
Rabushka focused on the 19th century British experience of cutting government spending in order to cut taxes, which ultimately led to economic growth. From 1811 to 1891, the British government shrank from 27.1 percent of the economy to 7.3 percent. In that period, the economy grew enormously, so it could sustain a robust but frugal government within a smaller share of gross domestic product.
Rabushka also studied the same phenomenon in Hong Kong.
I realized then that this frugal-to-be-generous system would allow Republicans to build a large majority for smaller government by making sure people were winning when government spending was controlled.
Those who wanted to focus only on spending cuts, on the other hand, could not sustain their strategy. The pain that resulted from spending cuts in isolation made it impossible for them to build a stable government. Furthermore, spending cuts alone only decreased economic growth and job creation.
In a future series of op-eds and newsletters, I will outline the political advantages of the deficit neutral tax cuts, including the much larger tax cuts this model permits, as well as the incentive it gives to every element of government to save money and boost non-tax revenues.
Using a deficit neutral tax model should enable us to lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, while also creating substantial tax cuts for the middle class.
Finally, I will close out the series by laying out the historic precedents in both politics and the economy for a deficit neutral approach, including the capital gains tax cuts of 1997 (the largest in history), which was deficit neutral but not revenue neutral.
Republicans must apply the deficit neutral model when crafting upcoming tax legislation. It is critical to bringing a new era of prosperity to America – and growing our majorities in the House and Senate in 2018.
---------------------- 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, Deficit Neutral, Tax CutTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Tom Balek, Contributing Author: This week President Trump’s voter fraud commission, headed by Kansas’ secretary of state Kris Kobach, sent a letter to all 50 secretaries of state, asking that they provide voter registration information.
Hallelujah!
Democrats have always denied the existence of vote fraud, even in the face of damning evidence year after year. They continue to make the ugly, racist claim that minority voters are not capable of obtaining identification, and will not be able to vote if ID is required, avoiding the fact that life in the United States is virtually impossible without some kind of identification.
There is only one reason to oppose voter ID: it enables vote fraud. This is an undeniable fact, and repeating the infantile lie about “disenfranchised voters” does not remove the stench.
Now we have a president with the gumption to call out the cheaters. His commission’s plan is a big step in the right direction – it is simple and quickly executable. With the names, birthdates, and partial social security numbers of voters from every state, files can be easily cross-checked to find out who has voted more than once, perhaps in multiple states, or even from the grave. Non-citizens and other ineligible voters will be filtered out.
Democrats are shaken, and immediately a number of their secretaries of state are refusing to comply. California’s SOS, Robert Padilla, made the following statement: “As secretary of state, it is my duty to ensure the integrity of our elections and to protect the voting rights and privacy of our state’s voters. I will not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgement that millions of Californians voted illegally. California’s participation would only legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud made by the president, the vice president, and Mr. Kobach.”Of course what he really fears is that a review of California’s voter data would COMPLETELY legitimize the claims of massive voter fraud! Plus if the millions of illegals were removed from the California voting rolls, they would lose several representatives in Congress.
Let’s not forget that the Democrat’s main piggy bank, George Soros, has pumped millions of dollars into SOS races in every state for decades, in an attempt to load the state offices with Dems. And the Democrat media continues to divert attention from the real vote fraud problem by incessantly harping about Russian meddling in the last election, even while admitting that not one vote was affected.
The voting data project is a start, and a great one. Next the commission must look at the practice of early and absentee voting, which has in recent years been a favorite tool of Democrat vote-fraud brigades. Kudos to Kobach and Trump.
--------------- Tom Balek is a fellow conservative activist, blogger, musician and contributes to the ARRA News Service. Tom resides in South Carolina and seeks to educate those too busy with their work and families to notice how close to the precipice our economy has come. He blogs at Rockin' On the Right Side Tags:Tom Balek, Rockin' On The Right Side, Donald Trump, Takes A Punch, at Vote FraudTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
New Strategy, Yuge Day, Speaking Of Sanctuary Cities, Other Headlines
Gary Bauer
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: A New Strategy? As Republicans struggle over the details of reforming Obamacare, President Trump suggested a new strategy. This morning, Trump tweeted, "If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date."
Of course, left-wing talking heads immediately distorted the president's suggestion, saying it would violate a campaign pledge not to repeal Obamacare without a replacement. They gave viewers the impression that Republicans were going to leave millions of Americans without healthcare as of next week.
But that's not at all what the president suggested. In fact, Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) sent a letter to President Trump suggesting this two-step approach.
Noting that 50 out of 52 members of the GOP Senate majority voted to repeal Obamacare in 2015, Sasse wrote that if no agreement is reached when the Senate returns on July 10th, they should simply vote again on the same repeal bill they supported in 2015 with one exception: "We should include a year-long implementation delay to give comfort to Americans currently on ObamaCare that a replacement plan will be enacted before expiration."
Sasse also asked President Trump to urge Congress to cancel its August recess so that our elected officials could work non-stop to develop a plan by Labor Day.
Sounds like a plan to me!
A YUGE Day - The left-wing media obsessed all day yesterday over one of the president's tweets and whether Mika had a facelift. Big news right?
Now let me tell you about the really important news that did happen yesterday.
President Trump delivered a tremendous address yesterday at the Department of Energy vowing to make America "energy dominant." President Trump said, "We're here today to usher in a new American energy policy -- one that unlocks million and millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in wealth."
The administration imposed sanctions against Chinese banks for their dealings with North Korea's rogue regime.
Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly announced that 66,000 illegal immigrants have been arrested since January. More than 70% of them have criminal records. That means the Trump Administration has taken 48,000 criminal aliens off the streets.
The House of Representatives passed two major pieces of legislation to crack down on illegal immigration. Kate's Law passed 257-to-167
. One Republican voted no, while 24 Democrats voted yes.
The House also passed a bill cracking down on sanctuary cities on a vote of 228-to-195. Seven Republicans voted no, while three Democrats voted yes.
As I noted yesterday, both bills have strong public support. (Here and here.)
Speaking Of Sanctuary Cities. . . Here's an example of just how insane the left has become.
On December 2, 2015, Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno went to a San Francisco police station to recover his stolen car. Authorities quickly discovered that Figueroa-Zarceno was an illegal immigrant with a deportation order from 2005. They called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and he was detained.
Keep in mind, friends, that Kate Steinle was killed in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant just a few months before. Undoubtedly, the police officers were more concerned with public safety, which is their job, than political correctness.
Figueroa-Zarceno sued, claiming that the officers who called ICE violated his "rights" under San Francisco's sanctuary city policy. San Francisco's left-wing politicians agreed. And now taxpayers are going to pay the illegal immigrant (who should have been deported 12 years ago) $190,000.
By the way, according to press reports, Figueroa-Zarceno requires an interpreter. He's been in the country at least 12 years and still does not speak English? As it turns out, that's not unusual.
Meanwhile, the city of San Francisco has refused to pay Kate Steinle's family a dime.
So let's recap. Because of San Francisco's left-wing policies, an illegal immigrant who gets detained hits the jackpot, while the family of an American citizen who was murdered by an illegal immigrant gets nothing.
This cultural disconnect, more than anything else, is what cost Hillary Clinton the election.
Other Headlines -
"Democrats Despair Over Neil Gorsuch: 'We've Got Another Scalia.'"
57% of likely voters support religious freedom for small business owners. 29% would prosecute them for discrimination.
62% of likely voters support Trump's proposed five year welfare ban for new immigrants. Only 26% oppose it.
Trump's tax plan is popular too -- 61% support "significant" middle class tax cuts.
Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly denies grants to Islamist groups supported by the Obama Administration.
------------------- 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, New Strategy, Yuge Day, Left-wing Insanity, Other HeadlinesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Happy Independence Day, Big League, Media bullies, Donald Trump, Making Independence Day, great againTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Daniel Greenfield: Every time you think Congress has hit rock bottom, they manage to exceed your expectations. The House Armed Services Committee’s annual defense policy bill will include a provision requiring a Defense Department report on the effects of climate change on military installations.Why? You're wondering.
Why is the Pentagon going to be wasting time providing ammo and employment to leftists to continue Obama's corruption of the military into a social justice organization instead of focusing on the somewhat more pressing national security threats that we face, ranging from terrorism to nuclear war to China's escalation?
Why are we going to see these same reports and the leftists writing them being touted in a larger push to impose carbon taxes and other Warmunist plans to raise the prices of everything with the profits going to their special interests and agendas?
Because a Dem proposed it and enough Pubs backed it. The amendment — brought up by Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) in the readiness portion of Wednesday’s markup — instructs each military service to come up with a list of the top 10 military installations likely to be affected by climate change over the next 20 years.
Such a provision aims to ensure that the Defense Department “is prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on threat assessments, resources and readiness,” according to the amendment language.
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) was the sole lawmaker to speak out against the amendment, claiming it instructs the Pentagon “to take their eye off the ball.”
“We have heard testimony in front of this committee consistently about the array of imminent threats we face … the Russians, Chinese, ISIS, al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea. … There is simply no way that you can argue that climate change is one of those threats. Not even close,” she said. “There is no evidence that climate change causes war.”
She continued: “North Korea is not developing nuclear tipped ICBMs because the climate’s changing. ISIS and al Qaeda are not attacking the West because of the weather.”You would think that this would be the Republican position... you would think.But several of her Republican colleagues, including Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), disagreed with her take.
“There is a line in the play ‘1776’ about the Declaration of Independence: ‘I’ve never seen, heard nor smelled an issue so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.’ There’s nothing dangerous about talking about it. It’s a report,” Bishop said.I'm glad that Bishop is taking his inspiration for national security policy from musicals.
There's a big difference between "talking about it" and making it a priority to produce reports validating a leftist talking point. How about having the Pentagon produce reports discussing the threat of Islamic immigration to bases.
Suddenly, that will be an issue too dangerous to be talked about. Even though it, unlike the Great Flying Global Warming Monster whom the left worships, is actually a national security threat. Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) backed up Bishop’s line of thinking. “It’s just a report and there are strategic implications that we need to be aware of,” he said.That's politese for "I have no idea hat any of this is about, but let me stay on the safe side and not stick my neck out."Rep. Susan Davis (R-Calif.) called the amendment “a start.”
Climate change “is one of those issues that is sort of in that bucket that we ignore at our own peril,” Davis said.The leftist corruption of the GOP is another of those issues.
This is what happens when there's no organized agenda, no comprehensive messaging, and no understanding of the threats and problems we face.
-------------- Daniel Greenfield is Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service Tags:Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Mag, Republicans, Force Pentagon, To Push Global WarmingTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Brian Noble: In options trading, a straddle is literally a sit-on-the-fence strategy. By purchasing a put and a call at the same strike (price of underlying commodity) for the same time period, an investor isn’t making a conventional directional bet; rather the investor is looking for a big move either up or down. The rub is that the big move must be greater than the sum of the two option premia or the bet goes south. But that is in the nature of the trade.
From a fundamental industry perspective Conflicting News Keeps Oil Prices Down to a more specifically trading focus (Are Oil Markets Becoming Untradeable?) confusion has reigned supreme in the crude oil markets of late. WTI is down about 12 percent for the month of June and is set for its longest run of weekly declines since 2015. In addition, crude has been displaying considerable price volatility on a day-by-day basis, largely to the downside. So would anybody be putting on a straddle in the WTI market today? Let’s assess the situation.
Bullish considerations:
Hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico is upon us early.
If rigs go offline because of a vigorous hurricane season, production will be shut-in and crude prices will rise. The first storm of the season has already made land-fall, and the usual season is August-November, so the storms are early this year.
How good a job can OPEC do in terms of maintaining production cuts, discipline and compliance within OPEC and non-OPEC?
If OPEC succeeds at making the cartel march to its tune, then all will be well. In addition, future even deeper cuts will help support the oil price. What realistically are the chances of that?
Can Saudi Arabia really influence the EIA inventory numbers?
The Saudis say that the current OPEC cuts need time to impact the market. But can they themselves surreptitiously impact the market? Analyst John Kilduff of Again Capital interviewed by CNBC has made the novel suggestion that it is in their hands by changing the flow of exports from the U.S. to other markets with the effect of decreasing inventories artificially. He also thinks that unless OPEC cuts much deeper, the current game of chicken is going to continue among market participants.
Is there a credit crunch looming in the patch?
At current lower crude prices, U.S. shale production could be negatively impacted over the next few months and some production could come off line as producer cash flow dries up and some of the hedges from last year begin to run off. Less drilling activity will put upward pressure on prices.
Where is the U.S. dollar really going?
If U.S. rates are going to the moon, then the U.S. dollar will rise and commodity prices fall. But what if the Fed is done with the current rate cycle? Recent strength in WTI this past week is probably a reflection of a weaker U.S. dollar—is this a sign of things to come?
Bearish considerations: The fundamental macro-economic backdrop to WTI has been bearish.
The CITI U.S. Macro-Economic Index (or Surprise Index) recently plunged to a six year low, meaning that economic data have been exceptionally disappointing. Global economic growth has been anything but robust, including a weak U.S. GDP print of under 2 percent, while even in so-called faster growing Europe, macro-economic conditions are soft.
Despite OPEC’s best efforts, the supply/demand dynamic was not effectively addressed.
Increasing U.S. production and higher domestic rig counts have also undercut OPEC’s attempts to limit supply. At the same time, declining U.S. demand for gasoline has been mirrored by declines in Japan, China and the rest of Asia. All OPEC producers, including the Saudis, have actually increased production in the last two months.
Having said that, increases in U.S. shale production, growth in DUCs and global inventory levels matter.
Limits to Nigerian and Libyan production were simply disregarded by OPEC at its May meeting, while both countries have made a surprisingly robust recovery in terms of production. But the domestic U.S. industry has proved so resilient in terms of using cost-effective technology that inventory levels remain elevated.
Who really believed the OPEC charm offensive?
The 25 May OPEC and non-OPEC member meeting in Vienna was bruited to be make or break. But even with the agreed production cuts and their 9-month extension, the cartel has been unable to keep its act together, as compliance issues are paramount and it is obvious that OPEC members are pursuing their own agendas (OPEC Members Pursue Own Agenda As Glut Persists)
The technical picture was deteriorating.
WTI was unable to break out of its $52-54 upside range. Instead, a pattern of lower highs and lower lows has been apparent since early May. Recently, WTI broke major support at $45, while Brent completed a death cross (Brent Stands at Death’s Door With Bearish Cross Formation: Chart) where the 50-day moving average falls below the 200-day, which last occurred in the latter part of 2014.
Straddle this market or not?
Violent price swings in tech stocks, gold, oil and other asset classes are a result of the preponderance of algorithmic trading plus high levels of leverage prevalent across all markets today. What used to be price discovery is now essentially noise.
Just to reiterate what I said on 6 May 2017 (How Much Further Could Oil Prices Fall?), my one dollar/one euro/one pound (name your currency) bet would still be that oil goes back to the high $20s-low $30s as it did in the winter of 2016 before it goes back above $60.
----------------- Brian Noble authored this article contributed by James Stafford the editor of OilPrice.com, the leading online energy news site, to the ARRA News Service. Tags:James Stafford, Oilprice.com,Brian Noble, Big Move, Oil PricesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Senators Introduce Legislation to Improve Homeless Veterans Programs
ARRA News Service: U.S. Senators John Boozman (R-AR) and Jon Tester (D-MT), senior members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, introduced legislation to strengthen job training for at-risk veterans and fight veteran homelessness. The Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program Improvement Act stipulates that veterans who receive housing assistance under Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH), Native American Housing Assistance, and Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) programs are eligible to receive valuable assistance such as job training under the Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program (HVRP).
Currently, if a veteran qualifies for housing under one of these programs, the Department of Veterans Affairs no longer considers them “homeless,” and does not allow them to participate in HVRP.
“The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program is an important resource to breaking the cycle of veteran homelessness. We need to build on the accomplishments of this proven program and provide our veterans with the training and tools they need for long-term success. I am pleased to have Senator Tester continue to join me in in this fight to provide our veterans with stable housing and job training opportunities,” Boozman said.
“Veterans have sacrificed a great deal on our behalf, and we have an obligation to provide those who are struggling with the assistance and services they need to get back on their feet,” said Tester, Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program is a critical program that does just that, and I am pleased to work across party lines on this important bipartisan legislation to not only extend but also strengthen the program to impact the lives of even more veterans.”
The Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program (HVRP) Clarification and Reauthorization bill would:
Extend veteran reintegration programs for five years.
Extend the homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children reintegration program for five years.
Clarify that veterans participating in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agency’s Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program are also eligible for HVRP.
Clarify that American Indians participating in Native American housing assistance program are also eligible to participate in HVRP.
Clarify that veterans participating in the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program are also eligible for participation in HVRP.
This legislation has the support of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV), Center for American Homeless Veterans and Easterseals.
“The high-quality employment obtained through HVRP allows formerly homeless veterans to re-enter the workforce, support themselves and their families, and stay stably housed long-term,” said Kathryn Monet, CEO of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. “HVRP is the most successful employment program available to homeless veterans, and this bill makes needed changes to the program to allow the system to work more seamlessly. Rapid access to housing should never prevent a recently homeless veteran from accessing job training and other employment services.”
“The Homeless Veterans Prevention Act is an inspired and admirable measure to support American Veterans and their families, who combine to total 75 million people,” said Brian Hampton, President of the Center for American Homeless Veterans. “I applaud the Democrats and Republicans for moving this bill forward. With 24 years of veterans' advocacy, I can unequivocally say, this bill will help an immeasurable number of veterans and families and has the added benefit of along the way, saving the taxpayers a great deal of money." “
Easterseals proudly supports the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Programs Improvement Act. This legislation will ensure that at-risk veterans have access to employment training and community supports to help them find a job and reintegrate into society,” said Maynard Friesz, Easterseals’ Assistant Vice President of Government Relations. “As a Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program employment provider, Easterseals applauds Senators Boozman and Tester for their efforts to improve the program and for their commitment to ending veterans’ homelessness.” Tags:U.S. Senators, John Boozman (R-AR), Jon Tester (D-MT), legislation, Homeless Veterans Programs, veterans, vetsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco, Gimme A Break, Congress, on recess, without repealing, ObamacareTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Sen. Bernie Sanders - June 2017 Porker of the Month
Sen. Berni Sanders (I-VT) June 2017 Porker of the Month
(Washington, D.C.) – Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) named Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) its June 2017 Porker of the Month for his foolish quest to impose a single-payer healthcare system on the United States.
Sen. Sanders has been a proponent of socialized medicine for more than two decades. In a floor speech in the House of Representatives on March 4, 1993, Sen. Sanders announced his support for a single-payer proposal. His advocacy for such a system was the centerpiece of his quixotic 2016 presidential campaign and continues to the present day. He introduced another single-payer bill on March 26, 2017, and told NBC’s Meet the Press on June 25, 2017 that he believes single-payer is “the direction long-term that we should be going.”
Sen. Sanders tweeted on March 27, 2017, “Somehow in Canada, they've managed to provide healthcare to everyone in their country.” He neglects to mention the 2014 Commonwealth Fund report which ranked Canada tenth out of eleven prosperous nations in healthcare quality, as well as last in terms of timeliness of care. Perhaps that is why 52,000 Canadians flee to the United States every year for medical treatment.
Sen. Sanders has also expressed support for the British National Health Service (NHS). However, Sen. Sanders omits the ghastly conclusion of the British Red Cross earlier this year, which dubbed the NHS a “humanitarian crisis,” in need of major reform. As of last year, “3.4 million Brits were stuck on waiting lists — a 36 percent uptick since 2010. Last year, about a million people had to wait more than four months to get treatment. Almost 300,000 waited at least six months.”
CAGW President Tom Schatz said in a statement: “Sen. Sanders’ vision is one where the federal government controls every aspect of a citizens’ healthcare, from a doctor’s salary, to the medicines he or she can prescribe, to decisions about how much care a loved one is allowed to receive at a given point in their life. Sen. Sanders never details the enormous pitfalls inherent in a socialized health care system, which entails robbing citizens of quality care by taking decision-making power away from them and placing their lives in the hands of government bureaucrats. If Sen. Sanders wants to find a starting point for achieving quality healthcare, he need look no further than improving on the American system by increasing private competition, fostering pharmaceutical innovation, and giving patients and doctors the final say on what type of care they need.”
For his never-ending advocacy of socialized medicine, CAGW names Sen. Bernie Sanders its June 2017 Porker of the Month.
----------------- Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers. Tags:Citizens Against Government Waste, CAGW, porker of the month, June 2017, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont, independent, socialist, socialized medicine, federal government control, every aspect, citizens healthcareTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
At issue is not her infamous prevarication in the Benghazi affair. We are used to being lied to about foreign policy, so that was barely a shock.
What is news now? The Trump-Russia story.
Background: Ever since her defeat to Donald Trump, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has provided the very model of how to deflect attention from one’s own defects. She’s blamed FBI Director James Comey, the vast right wing conspiracy, and, of course, Russia.*
Amusingly, the Russia biz still boils down to how Russian hackers, apparently directed from high in the hierarchy of the Eastern warlord state, illegally liberated information from private servers. Those revealed emails showed Mrs. Clinton and her campaign in a negative light. Excuse-makers call this “hacking the election.”**
It turns out, the biggest crimes committed during the campaign, and somewhat regarding Russia, were engaged in by the Obama Administration, perhaps especially by Rice herself. She is accused of illegally surveilling the Trump campaign and those around it by “unmasking” their identities in the course of surveillance reports, which are legally required to be anonymous . . . when catching in the net folks tangential to the target.
The law requires FISA court go-aheads for such identifications. And the Obama administration was roundly reprimanded by a FISA court for not following protocols.
In any case, the idea that only women and African-Americans are hounded by opposition parties and the press does not hold up to scrutiny.
Nixon, anyone?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* Her team has also blamed President Barack Obama ** A private server was hacked, not an election.
------------------ 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, Handy Evasion, Susan Rice, National Security AdvisorTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
If there was any doubt that the Democrats in Congress are the leading fear mongers in our nation's capital, then look for no better example than their vicious and false attacks on the Republican proposals to repeal and replace ObamaCare. The Democrats also believe their supporters and voters are amazingly gullible and easily confused.
They are!
And the Democrats know that most people do not have the time to sort through the smoke and BS they spew, such that eventually they and their supporters believe it must be true, which adds up to a sense that the nation is falling apart, and that the Trump Administration is the worst in history.
The nation is on a historic path to prosperity despite the Democrats' efforts to slow it down, and resist what's good for the people and not the political class.
The Democrats and their liberal media allies' latest brew spew of lies has focused on distorting every aspect of the Republican health care plans. They did it to the House version while most in the media never bothered to set the record straight, and now their fear mongering is focused on the Senate Republicans' plan.
It's worth the time to read Dan Calabrese's point-by-point rebuttal of former President Obama's criticism of the Senate bill. Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumer's criticisms and distortions are along the same lines, except they may state the same lies using different words.
For example, neither of the Republican plans cuts Medicaid! They are just not allowing the out of control expansion that the Democrats would allow. The Democrats like to talk about the "number of Americans" who will be left out of being able to get health care coverage. That "number" is all over the place, and no one seems to be able to show that number is anywhere near correct.
My team and I are constantly following news stories about the Republican health care bills, and the stories never talk about the people who have premiums and deductibles so high that they effectively do not have coverage.
News stories also never talk about the employers who will welcome the Republican proposals, because it will make it more affordable for employers to help employees to have health insurance coverage. Why? Because the Republican proposals would allow people to select the coverage they want, instead of what the Democrats in Congress want to mandate.
News stories never talk about the lies the Democrats told to pass ObamaCare in 2010. Average annual premiums will go down about $2,500, they said. Instead, many premiums went up $5,000 or more. If you like your doctor then you can keep your doctor. Nope! Many doctors could not afford to provide the health care the government mandated for the prices the government wanted to pay.
And the biggest insult of all! "We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it." Yes Nancy, we must all be stupid! Surprise, some of us are not!
I'm past trying to not be politically harsh with my words to describe what the Democrats and their media allies are trying to do to the American people. The fear they are perpetuating is hurting this nation instead of helping it to move forward.
That's our optimism in the midst of a sea of fear!
----------------- Herman Cain is a conservative radio host of CainTV, a 2012 GOP presidential primary candidate with over 40 years of experience in the private sector as an analyst for Coca-Cola, an executive at Pillsbury, a regional Vice President for Burger King, and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Cain served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and a supervisory mathematician for the Dept. of the Navy. Tags: Herman Cain, conservative, radio host, CainTV, Democrats, feeding fear, to the USATo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Dr. Walter E. Williams: My “Rewriting American History” column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail.
Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts.
Let’s look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can’t label Confederate generals as traitors.
Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain, held “New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States.” Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union.
During the ratification debates, Virginia’s delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.
At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: “A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
America’s first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator.
“The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation,” Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for “the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West.” His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, “The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government.”
This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 “free sovereign and Independent States” did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had.
Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty.” The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent.” The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”
Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who’d label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I’m sure Great Britain’s King George III would have agreed.
-------------- Walter Williams is an American economist, social commentator, and author of over 150 publications. He has a Ph.D. and M.A. in Economics from the UCLA and B.A. in economics from California State University. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College. He has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980. Visit his website: walterewilliams.com and view a list of other articles and works. Tags:Walter Williams, commentary, Were Confederate Generals Traitors?, fighting for independence, General Robert E. LeeTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Patrick Buchanan: “The North Korean regime is causing tremendous problems and is something that has to be dealt with, and probably dealt with rapidly.”
So President Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden this week.
But how this is to be done “rapidly” is not so easy to see.
North Korea has just returned to us Otto Warmbier, a student sentenced to 15 years hard labor for stealing a propaganda poster. Otto came home comatose, and died within days.
Trump’s conundrum: How to keep such a regime from acquiring an ICBM with a nuclear warhead, which Kim Jong Un is determined to do.
Having seen us attack Iraq and Libya, which had no nukes, Kim believes that only nuclear weapons that can hit America can deter America. He appears willing to risk war to achieve his goal.
Trump’s options as he meets South Korean President Moon Jae-in?
First, the decapitation of the Kim dynasty. But the U.S. has been unable to accomplish regime change for the 64 years following the Korean War. And killing Kim could ignite a war.
Then there is a U.S. pre-emptive strike on North Korea’s nuclear sites and missile arsenals. But this would surely mean a war in which Americans on the DMZ would be among the first to die, as thousands of North Korean artillery and mortar tubes fired into the suburbs and city of Seoul, which is as close as Dulles Airport is to the White House.
Asked by Congressman Tim Ryan why we don’t launch a war to end this threat, Defense Secretary James Mattis replied that, while we might “win … at great cost,” such a war would “involve the massive shelling of an ally’s capital … one of the most densely packed cities on earth.”
Seoul has a metro-area population of 25 million.
We are thus approaching a point where we accept North Korea having a nuclear weapon that can reach Seattle, or we attack its strategic arsenal and bring on a war in which millions could die.
What about sanctions?
The only nation that could impose sufficient hardships on North Korea to imperil the regime is China. But China refuses to impose the Draconian sanctions that might destabilize the regime, and might bring Korean refugees flooding into China. And Beijing has no desire to see Kim fall and Korea united under a regime aligned with the United States.
What FDR said of one Caribbean dictator, the Chinese are probably saying of Kim Jong Un, “He may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.”
Early in his presidency, Trump gave the franchise for dealing with the North Korean threat to Beijing. But his friend Xi Jinping has either failed Trump or declined to deliver.
As for President Moon, he wants to negotiate, to engage the North economically, to invite its athletes to join South Koreans on joint teams for the Winter Olympics in 2018. Moreover, Moon is said to be willing to cut back on joint military exercises with the U.S. and regards the THAAD missile defense we introduced into South Korea as a negotiable item.
China, whose missile launches can be detected by THAAD radar, wants it removed and has so informed South Korea.
Where does this leave us?
We are committed to go to war to defend the South and have 28,000 troops there. But South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea and is prepared to make concessions to buy peace.
As the nation that would suffer most in any second Korean War, South Korea has the sovereign right to play the hand. But what Seoul considers best for South Korea is not necessarily best for us.
What would be an America First Korean policy?
The U.S. would give Seoul notice that we will, by a date certain, be dissolving our mutual security treaty and restoring our full freedom to decide whether or not to fight in a new Korean War. Given the present risk of war, possibly involving nuclear weapons, it is absurd that we should be obligated to fight what Mattis says would be a “catastrophic” war, because of a treaty negotiated six decades ago by Eisenhower and Dulles.
“The commonest error in politics,” Lord Salisbury reminded us, “is sticking to the carcass of dead policies.”
But we should also tell South Korea that if she desires a nuclear deterrent against an attack by the North, she should build it. Americans should not risk a nuclear war, 8,000 miles away, to defend a South Korea that has 40 times the economy of the North and twice the population.
No vital U.S. interest requires us, in perpetuity, to be willing to go to war to defend South Korea, especially if that war entails the risk of a nuclear attack on U.S. troops or the American homeland.
If the United States did not have a mutual security pact that obligates us to defend South Korea against a nuclear-armed North, would President Trump be seeking to negotiate such a treaty?
The question answers itself.
-------------------- 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, America First, Korea PolicyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: President Trump has vowed that his one trillion dollar infrastructure plan won’t repeat Obama’s “shovel-ready” mistakes. We will see. Some believe his plans will fizzle. But even if he is able to get funding for these needed repairs, he will face a regulatory blockade that will make it hard to get much done quickly.
George Will’s column earlier this month talked about “America’s Endless Infrastructure Mess.” He quotes from Philip Howard who believes we must revamp the way infrastructure approvals are done. We used to get massive public works projects done quickly and efficiently. The nation built the Empire State Building in 410 days, and that was done during the Great Depression. We built the Pentagon in 16 months during wartime.
By contrast it has taken 5 years and 20,000 pages of environmental assessments and permitting to raise the roadway on a New Jersey bridge. Howard explains that there is “virtually no environmental impact (it uses existing foundations and right of way.” It took 14 years of environmental review merely to dredge the Port of Savannah, and this has been an ongoing process for almost 30 years.
Sometimes the environmental concerns being raised actually hurts the environment. Environmentalists litigate against modernizing our country’s electrical grid. Apparently the wasted electricity equals 16 percent of the coal-power generation and that is essentially the same as 200 average-sized coal-burning power plants.
One political scientist put it this way: America has become a “vetocracy” in which intense, well-organized factions block projects through regulation or litigation. President Obama found out the hard way that, “There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.” President Trump will soon find this out unless he can break through the regulatory blockade.
-------------- 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, InfrastructureTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
. . . It Can Start Reporting Truthfully on Immigration
by Eric Ruark: Immediately following acting ICE Director Thomas Homan’s press gaggle yesterday, several news outlets reported that Homan “contradicted” President Trump when it came to crimes committed by illegal aliens. This on the same day the President met with families who had loved ones killed by illegal aliens, to urge the passage of legislation that would strengthen interior enforcement.
The basis for these reports was the following exchange between Director Homan and a reporter (emphases are mine): QUESTON: Sir, aren’t you concerned though about exacerbating fears about undocumented immigrants? You’re making it sound as if undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than people who are just native-born Americans. There was a Cato Institute study put out in March of this year that says all immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans relative to their shares of the population; even illegal immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. What is your sense of the numbers on this? Are undocumented people more likely or less likely to commit crimes?
DIRECTOR HOMAN: I think you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying. What I’m saying is two things. Number one, people that enter this country illegally violate the laws of this country. You can’t want to be a part of this great nation and not respect its laws. So when you violate the laws of this country -- and the taxpayers in this country spend billions of dollars a year on border security, immigration court, detention. And they go through a process. They get a decision from the immigration judge -- most times will appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, then to a circuit court. When that due process is over, that final order from a federal judge needs to mean something or this whole system has no integrity.
I don't know what other federal agency in this country is told to ignore a federal judge’s order from a bench. We are simply doing our job. Did I say aliens commit more crimes than U.S. citizens? I didn't say that. I’m saying, number one, they’re in the country illegally. They’re in the country -- they already committed one crime by entering the country illegally. But when they commit a crime against a citizen of this country, they draw our attention.Director Homan explicitly said the reporter was misrepresenting his position. Homan then went on to explain he had said nothing about the crime rate among the illegal alien population, nor had he claimed that illegal aliens “commit more crimes than people who are just native-born Americans.” His point was that any individual who enters the United States illegally has committed a crime and must be held accountable to the law. Almost every American not a member of the D.C. press crops finds nothing controversial about Director Homan's position, most especially since he is charged with the task of enforcing U.S. immigration law.
Jim Acosta, White House correspondent for CNN, most known for not getting called on at White House press briefings, was one of the first out of the gate. On Twitter, he announced: Horman [sic] concedes undocumented immigrants do not commit more crimes than native born Americans.Later headlines pronounced:Immigrants are not ‘Criminals, Drug Dealer and Rapists’ Ice Director Says, Contradicting Trump (Newsweek, Jason Le Miere)
The director of ICE just declined to support a central argument of Trump’s candidacy (The Washington Post, Philip Bump)Immigrants Don’t Commit More Crime Than US-Born Citizens, The Top Immigration Enforcer Just Said (Buzzfeed, Adolfo Flores)
Fact Check: No Evidence Undocumented Immigrants Commit More Crimes (NBC News, Jane C. Timm)
ICE director appears to break with one of Trump’s key beliefs on immigrants and crime (Business Insider, Michelle Mark)The debate raging over what constitutes “fake news” is often fatuous. What precipitated that debate, however, the current sorry state of American journalism, is of the utmost importance to anyone concerned with maintaining a free society in America.
Much of the reporting on Homan’s comments was complete misrepresentation, undoubtedly deliberate on the part of some reporters in an effort to divert attention away from Americans who have suffered tragedy due to the failure to enforce immigration law. Some of the reporting was complete fabrication (see Newsweek, Buzzfeed above).
A large reason there is such a gulf between what happens and what journalists report is that many journalists see themselves as “protectors of the truth,” as illustrated by NBC News host Chuck Todd. The truth is their truth, stemming from an ideology that does not permit any contradictions or contrasting points of view to get a fair hearing.
While some Americans may turn to media figures for affirmation of beliefs already deeply held, I wager most Americans don’t turn to Chuck Todd, or any other media figure for “the truth.” Instead, they want reporters to accurately report facts, such as what the director of ICE actually said about immigration law enforcement.
Instead, what we see from too many reporters is the insertion of their own deeply held beliefs in place of facts on the ground. When a reporter refers to an illegal alien as an “undocumented immigrant” this is an attempt to deny the criminal act of illegal immigration. It is absurd to suggest, as the reporter did to Director Homan, that individuals living and working in the United States illegally, which very often concurs with the commission of multiple felonies, are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens.
The reporter who questioned Homan on comparative crime rates cited a report by the Cato Institute, a report regularly touted by those who pretend illegal aliens haven't broken any laws but are merely caught in a semantic trap constructed by those of us who, according to Cato, also argue for ridiculous propositions such as borders, national sovereignty, and the rule of law.
Last week, I highlighted the many problems with the Cato report. In brief, Cato pulled a bait and switch. It set out to “prove” that immigrants commit less crime than the native-born, while failing to note that there is already a consensus that the crime rate for immigrants, i.e., legal permanent residents, is relatively low. It then conflates legal immigrants with illegal aliens, and substitutes incarceration rates for crime rates. The former is ancillary to the latter, not equivalent.
There is also no reliable data on the legal status of the foreign-born incarcerated in the United States. In order to circumvent this impediment, the Cato authors simply invented a methodology that gave them the results they wanted, and they gave certain reporters what they wanted –- a report from a D.C. think tank that proves “the truth” regardless of the facts.
NumbersUSA believes U.S. immigration policy should broadly benefit the American people and their posterity, and that the current immigration system fails in this regard. We have confidence that the evidence overwhelmingly supports our position, and that public opinion is firmly on our side. We welcome the greater availability of immigration-related data, and greater public access to that data.
There are those who strongly disagree with NumbersUSA positions and policy prescriptions. Some of those who disagree with us are sincere and engage in honest debate. Many others do not, I would offer because they know neither the facts nor the American people are on their side. They do have most of the media in their camp, and they count on this fact to help impose their agenda on an averse electorate.
The U.S. immigration system, almost everyone agrees, is broken. The divide between the American people and, for lack of a better word, the elite, over how to fix it is one of the most pressing issues we now face. Yes, much of the squabbling about what is “fake news” is just silliness perpetrated by unserious people.
The proliferation of dishonest reporting on immigration is gravely serious, and is a threat to our civil society.
---------------- Eric Ruark writes for NumbersUSA. Tags:Eric Ruark, NumbersUSA, media, public trust, reporting truthfully, immigrationTo 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 Creating A True ‘Health-Care Crisis,’ Potentially Leaving Thousands Trapped’
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY):“Under Obamacare, choices have diminished, even disappeared, in states across the country. …next year dozens more counties could have zero choice at all — potentially leaving thousands trapped, forced by law to purchase Obamacare insurance but left without the means to do so.”(Sen. McConnell, Floor Remarks, 6/29/2017)
NEVADA:‘A Health-Care Crisis For Rural Nevada’
‘That Leaves About 8,000 People In 13 Counties And
Carson City Without Access To Obamacare Health Plans’
“Anthem Inc. said it would stop selling Affordable Care Act marketplace plans in most of Nevada next year. The move together with the departure of a smaller insurer leaves 14 of the state’s counties poised to have no insurer on its exchange. The state insurance marketplace, the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange, said that insurers had filed to offer plans only in Clark, Washoe and Nye counties, leaving the remaining, largely rural region without any exchange options for 2018. Around 8,000 people living in the 14 potentially bare counties currently have exchange coverage. Anthem had offered marketplace plans throughout the state this year.” (“Anthem Pulling Back on Offering ACA Plans in Nevada,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/28/2017)
“In addition to Anthem, a smaller insurer, Prominence Health Plan, a unit of hospital company Universal Health Services Inc., will leave the Nevada exchange next year; Prominence had been selling marketplace plans in seven counties, including four of those that are now poised to lack exchange insurers.” (“Anthem Pulling Back on Offering ACA Plans in Nevada,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/28/2017)
“Anthem Inc.’s decision to quit offering Obamacare plans in much of Nevada will leave large parts of the state without options on the health law’s exchanges. … That leaves about 8,000 people in 13 counties and Carson City without access to Obamacare health plans and the government subsidies that often come with them, according to the state’s Silver State Health Insurance Exchange. ‘I consider this a health-care crisis for rural Nevada,’ Heather Korbulic, executive director for the exchange, said in a statement.”(“Anthem’s Exit Creates Obamacare ‘Crisis’ for Rural Nevadans,” Bloomberg, 6/29/2017)
MISSOURI:‘Tens Of Thousands’ Across ‘A Swath Of Northwestern Missouri’ Currently Have ‘No Available Marketplace Plans For Next Year’
SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO):“Obamacare is collapsing and Missouri families are paying the price. We now have tens of thousands of Missourians in the Kansas City area that have lost their plans and have no insurer option on the Obamacare exchanges next year. It is another devastating blow to families that are already struggling with higher costs and less access to quality health care under the law.” (Sen. Blunt, Press Release, 5/24/2017)
“This year, 97 out of Missouri’s 114 counties and the City of St. Louis have only one insurer offering plans on the exchanges…. As things stand today, that leaves 25 counties with no insurer option and 77 counties with only one insurer option next year.” (Sen. Blunt, Press Release, 5/24/2017)
“Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City plans to pull out of the Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchanges, a move that likely leaves a swath of northwestern Missouri with no available marketplace plans for next year. The nonprofit is the sole marketplace insurer in 25 counties in Missouri, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.” (“Insurer Exit Leaves 25 Missouri Counties With No ACA Plans for 2018,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/25/2017)
OHIO: 10,500 ‘Residents In 18 Counties Without An Insurance Option’ Next Year
SEN. ROB PORTMAN (R-OH): “For the past few years we’ve seen premiums and deductibles skyrocket because of the ObamaCare law, as we’ve seen a declining number of viable health care choices for families and small businesses. Now, with the pullout of Anthem in Ohio, there are atleast 20 counties without a single insurer offering health coverage on the ObamaCare exchange. And many other counties will have only one insurer, with no competition to get costs down for families.” (Sen. Portman, Press Release, 6/6/2017)
“One of Ohio's largest health care providers is leaving the state's health care exchange, leaving residents in 18 counties without an insurance option…. Anthem will pull out as of Jan. 1, 2018, so it won't be a choice for people buying individual insurance later this year. Currently, 44,000 Ohioans have Anthem coverage they purchased on the exchange.” (“Major Insurer Anthem To Withdraw From Ohio Health Care Exchange,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 6/06/2017)
WASHINGTON:Grays Harbor & Klickitat Counties Were At High Risk Of Having ‘No Company Offering Plans In The Individual Market’ Next Year Until Just Days Ago
“Two health insurance companies will quit offering individual plans in Washington state next year… Grays Harbor and Klickitat counties will have no company offering plans in the individual market, [state Insurance Commissioner Mike] Kreidler said. Between the two counties, some 3,300 people currently have individual plans.”(“Two Health Insurance Companies Pull Out Of Washington Individual Market,” The Spokesman-Review, 6/8/2017)
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!
To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
