RUTHFULLY YOURS

Incoming elected administrations, especially the Obama transition team of 2008 in the case of Russia and Iran, seek contacts with foreign diplomats before formally entering office.https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/28/late-great-russian-collusion-myth/

Most presidential campaigns are staffed by at least a few free-lancing opportunists who see their candidate as a nexus for profiteering. There is no need for a reminder of the lucrative careers of Bill Clinton from 2009-2012, or of Hillary Clinton’s brother, or of the nature of some of John Podesta’s investments. And foreign governments, our own included as in the case of the Obama Administration’s entrance into the Israeli elections, are frequently accused of trying to sway or indeed interfere with another nation’s campaign cycles.

Yet what is strange about the charges of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is that those landscapes were concocted into something supposedly criminal and uniquely applicable to Donald Trump’s election and presidency. Indeed, one of the strangest events in recent political history was the post-election false news narrative that Trump and the “Russians” had colluded during the campaign to rob Hillary Clinton of a sure victory.

The discredited concoction lingers to this day, despite the fact that former FBI Director James Comey on three occasions told Trump that he was not the subject of any investigation about collusion with the Russians.

Both the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan (both foes of Trump) at various times admitted that there was no intelligence, to their knowledge, that implicated Trump as a colluder with Vladimir Putin to gain advantage over Clinton. Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson seconded that consensus by conceding there was no evidence of any Trump campaign effort to persuade the Russian to alter the elections. In a more general sense, Barack Obama (who had intelligence reports of Russian election-cycle hacking) three weeks before the election, and the assumed certain victory of Hillary Clinton, had dismissed entirely the idea that any party could taint a U.S. election. Obama went on to accuse Trump of whining for even suggesting that the impending election might be questioned by impropriety.

Even news producers at CNN, the chief engine that drove the collusion fairy tale, were caught on camera admitting that the entire story was mostly “bulls—t”. And one producer added, “And so I think the president is probably right to say, ‘Look, you are witch hunting me.’” Recently, three staffers, including a reporter and an executive editor, resigned from CNN in disgrace for peddling more fake news accounts of collusion between Trump and the Russians.

Who Really Blew the Election?

Here’s my problem: I’m a Bill of Rights guy in what’s become a Second Bill of Rights country. That’s why I can’t work up much of a pulse over the intramural healthcare debate among Senate Republicans.https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/27/progressive-washingtons-obamacare-train-wreck/

The Democrats, the party of Obamacare and the dream of socialized medicine, has for Trump-deranged reasons become the Party of No on the matter of addressing the catastrophe they have wrought. So, the Senate debate, like the GOP-controlled House debate before it, is a family fight. The family is splitting up, though. The dynamic that led to Donald Trump’s election tells us why. The party no longer stands for what it has long purported to stand for: freedom, self-determination, and limited government. Nothing better illustrates this than its Janus-faced approach to Obamacare.

Republicans, of course, have campaigned full-throatedly on the imperative to “repeal and replace” Obamacare for seven years. They’ve never been serious about it for a moment.

To be trendily trite, I’m old enough to remember when “repeal and replace” was deceptive because it understated the party establishment’s commitment to the GOP’s conservative base. In the beginning, Republicans boldly beat their chests and bellowed that they’d repeal Obamacare root-and-branch. “Repeal and replace” was actually the first moving of the goalpost, the first implicit admission that, in principle, they were all for a government-managed health-insurance system. If you really want to move to the free market, you repeal statism. When you’re talking “and replace,” you’re just haggling over the price.

In a few short years, “repeal and replace” has gone from a subtle understatement of what Republicans conned voters into believing they’d do, to a gross overstatement of what they’re willing to try. No one who has been paying attention can be surprised by this regression.

Obamacare has always been sleight-of-hand, on both sides. From the beginning, Democrats lied about its feasibility: “Like your doctor, keep your doctor,” “like your plan, keep your plan,” plunging premiums, lower costs, etc. All the while, they knew it was unworkable. That was not a flaw, it was the design. The plan was to orchestrate a collapse of the private insurance market, blame the private insurers rather than the death-spiral regulations, and gradually inure people to the need for a complete government takeover—the panacea of “single payer.”

Equally patent is that, at most, Republicans wanted to slow the train down, not stop it. Many of them, after all, have been on it from the get-go. “Repeal!” and, then, “repeal and replace” made for great fundraising and electoral wedge issues. But when it got down to brass tacks, it was always “Maybe the Supreme Court will strike it down,” or “Maybe we can sue Obama over these waivers,” or “Maybe it will collapse of its own weight.”

Republicans have controlled the House, where all spending originates, since 2010, and the Senate since 2014. Not a dime for Obamacare could have been spent had they not approved it. Never did they use the power of the purse as the Framers intended: Congress’s decisive check against ruinous policy.

Every year, the federal government pays $125 billion in tax dollars for federal pensions. In spite of this being such a large amount of money, there is a remarkable lack of transparency surrounding these funds.

Taxpayers deserve to know the details of the lucrative pensions of career bureaucrats and members of Congress. Basic questions deserve answers: How many years were worked, how much money was paid-in and by whom, how quickly did they break-even on their own contributions, and just how much did the taxpayers finance?

Releasing data on federal pensions will require an act of Congress, and we are leading the way. The Taxpayer Funded Pension Disclosure Act will empower citizens with the data and technologies to hold their government accountable like never before.

Today, pension data is not merely opaque; it is literally hidden in an undergroundcomplex in Pennsylvania. Federal employees hand-calculate federal pensions in a process that has not changed since the Cold War era. How many mistakes has the government made in that cavernous complex? No one knows because we’re all in the dark.

The case for greater federal pension transparency can easily be made by looking at the fraud that has already been exposed by non-profit organizations like Open The Books at the state level. In the 32 states that have pension transparency – including California, Illinois, New York and Oregon – citizens have exposed significant amounts of waste and mismanagement.

Auditors at Open the Books uncovered a pair of union bosses in Illinois who taught as substitutes for one day in public schools and then retired, in order to collect a pension that will amount to $1 million dollars over their lifetime.

At the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, data shows that a police lieutenant with a final salary of $129,000 received a starting pension of $172,000. An assistant airport operations manager retired with a final salary of $89,000, but soon began collecting a $103,000 pension. An electrician quit with a base salary of $76,000 and collected a pension of $79,000.

With relatively little transparency, we’ve found numerous examples of waste and abuse across the country. Consider what we’d find if we could see more at the federal level.

For instance, former IRS chief Lois Lerner used her authority to infringe the rights of American citizens and consistently obstructed congressional investigations. Wouldn’t it be nice to see her pension information? Her pension is estimated to equal nearly $2 million in lifetime payout.

According to the Office of Personnel Management, in 2012, 21,000 retired federal employees were collecting pensions exceeding $100,000. Since then, the number has likely doubled or tripled. Moody’s estimates federal employee pensions have a $3.5 trillion-dollar unfunded liability, with taxpayers on the hook to guarantee it all. All of this information should be posted online in real time.

Feeling the prospective sting of accountability that socialist grifters rarely experience in their natural lives, Sen. Bernie Sanders is lashing out at those accusing his wife of an alleged financial fraud that caused Burlington College to collapse last year.

Media reports also indicate prosecutors could be investigating the Independent U.S. senator from Vermont for allegedly attempting to muscle the bank into approving the loan.

The leftist power couple lawyered up, reportedly hiring big-name defense attorneys. Rich Cassidy of Burlington, Vt., is representing Bernie, while Beltway insider Larry Robbins, who advised Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is acting for Jane.

Sanders, who used to be mayor of Burlington, said it was “fairly pathetic” that his family was being attacked and seemed to hint that the allegations of fraud and undue influence materialized out of thin air. He described his wife as “about the most honest person I know.”

As the small college’s president from 2004 to 2011, Jane O’Meara Sanders apparently bankrupted the nontraditional institution of higher learning founded in 1972 through reckless spending – just as her husband promised to do to America if elected president of the United States. When it went under, the college sent out a press release blaming the “crushing weight of debt” Mrs. Sanders incurred for its demise.

The FBI is reportedly investigating Jane Sanders for allegedly misrepresenting donations to the college in a $10 million loan application to People’s United Bank in 2010. The money was to acquire 33 acres of land from a cash-strapped church to expand the college. The property was on the shores of Lake Champlain.

As a media outlet reported last year,

The purchase was huge—especially for a school whose annual budget didn’t crack $4 million. Jane Sanders plan was to bet big. To finance the deal, Burlington issued tax-free bonds, took a $3.5 million loan from the diocese, and received a $500,000 bridge loan from Tony Pomerleau, a wealthy local real-estate developer and close friend of the Sanderses.

Enrollment at the college and donations to it did go up but not enough to service the added levels of debt. After sowing the seeds of the school’s destruction, Mrs. Sanders grabbed her golden parachute and moved on.

With the Senate health-care bill delayed for now, the conservative and more centrist GOP wings need to bridge a philosophical gap to succeed. The outcome of this debate will define what the Republican Party stands for—and whether the problems of America’s entitlement state can ever be solved.

The biggest policy divide concerns the future of Medicaid, and here the problem is the moderates who are acting like liberals. Despite their campaign rhetoric, some Senators now want to ratify ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion as an unrepealable and unreformable welfare program.
***

Most of the Affordable Care Act’s insurance coverage gains have come from opening Medicaid eligibility beyond its original goal of helping the poor and disabled to include prime-age, able-bodied adults. The federal-state program has become the world’s single largest insurer by enrollment, covering more people than Medicare or the British National Health Service. Total spending grew 18% in 2015 and 17% in 2016 in the 29 states that expanded, and the nearby chart shows the growth of overall federal Medicaid spending under current law and without reform.

The Senate bill attempts to arrest this unsustainable surge by moving to per capita spending caps from an open-ended entitlement. When states spend more now, they generate an automatic payment from the feds. The goal is to contain costs and give Governors the incentive and flexibility to manage their programs.

Meanwhile, four long years from now, the bill would start to phase-down the state payment formula for old and new Medicaid beneficiaries to equal rates. Governors ought to prioritize the most urgent needs.

This would be the largest entitlement reform ever while still protecting the most vulnerable. The bill is carefully designed to avoid overreach and would save taxpayers $772 billion compared with what Medicaid would otherwise spend under current law, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This does not “cut” spending; it merely slows the rate of increase.

This has nonetheless made some Senators nervous, like West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito and Ohio’s Rob Portman. The growth rate for the block grants would be set at the rate of medical inflation for most beneficiaries at the start and then fall to the consumer price index in 2026, which is more ambitious than the House bill. Some Senators would like to see more generous growth rates, while others favor waiting six or seven years, rather than four, to start the phase-down of the expansion.

President Obama has been busy since leaving office. In February he was photographed kite surfing with billionaire Richard Branson in the British Virgin Islands. March brought a visit to Hawaii, followed by four weeks in French Polynesia and yachting with David Geffen, Oprah, Tom Hanks and Bruce Springsteen.

May included biking and golfing at a pal’s luxury hotel in Tuscany, before speeches in Berlin and Scotland, the latter providing the chance to play 12 holes at St. Andrews. Now the Obamas are in Indonesia for a nostalgic return to what was briefly his childhood home. But before jetting off on Friday, the former president, that champion of the poor and dispossessed, waded into the health-care debate with a lengthy Facebook post.

It was a trite, tone-deaf, partisan and condescending attack on the Senate Republicans’ health-care proposal. The comments show that the former president, still prickly and defensive, doesn’t understand how flawed ObamaCare really is.

Mr. Obama sold the Affordable Care Act with well-formulated falsehoods. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” he said repeatedly, and “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” The law would “cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” It would “bend the cost curve” for health care, he said, without adding “one dime to the deficit.” None of this was true, and Mr. Obama must have known that.

So did he address these failings in his Facebook post? Of course not. The former president changed his talking points for ObamaCare. “Women can’t be charged more for their insurance,” he bragged—but the GOP proposal doesn’t alter that policy. “Young people can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26,” he said—but Republicans would leave that in place, too. “Contraceptive care and preventive care are now free,” Mr. Obama added—except taxpayers actually pay for them with levies on, among other things, hospital stays, medical devices and insurance policies. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama shoved his broken promises down the memory hole.

Mr. Obama did repeat the left’s canards that the GOP proposal “would raise costs, reduce coverage, roll back protections, and ruin Medicaid.” He piously added: “That’s not my opinion, but rather the conclusion of all objective analysis,” starting with “the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.”

The CBO, however, did not issue its report on the Senate legislation until four days after Mr. Obama posted on Facebook. And when the CBO report did come out, it didn’t back up his indictment. For example, the CBO concluded: “By 2026, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals in most of the country under this legislation would be about 20 percent lower than under current law.”

One could scour the CBO’s report in vain for anything to justify saying the bill would “roll back protections” or “ruin Medicaid.” Under the Senate plan, Medicaid outlays would continue to rise, albeit at a slower rate.

Wielding the left’s favorite new club, Mr. Obama also claimed that “23 million Americans would lose insurance” if the GOP bill passes. But how can that be, since only 10 million people get coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges? Further, how many of those people want insurance in the first place? The CBO says that “in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law—primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Neil Gorsuch has spent only a fraction of a term as a Supreme Court justice, but few justices have had a more promising start. He has shown himself a careful textualist in reading statutes, a serious originalist in interpreting the Constitution, and an adherent of judicial restraint—and he has done all this with an engaging style that will allow him to reach over the heads of Court watchers and critics to the people. He seems an ideal schoolmaster for the American republic—a jurist whose every opinion is a lucid primer on the civics of our governance.

His first majority opinion in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA was a superb exercise in meticulous analysis of statutory text. The question at hand was whether a law designed to regulate debt collectors applied to a bank that had a bought a debt and tried to collect on it. By its terms, the statute covers those “who regularly collect debts . . . owed or due . . . another.” The bank argued that it was collecting the debt of its own, not of another, since it had purchased the debt. The debtor seized on the past tense of the term “owed” and contended that the debt was another’s because it had been previously “owed” to the party from which the bank bought it. Gorsuch showed the debtor’s argument did not follow from ordinary language because the past tense is often used to describe the present state of a thing, as when one refers to “burnt toast or a fallen branch.” Moreover, he observed that the word “due” was obviously meant only to cover debt that was currently due. Thus, Gorsuch held that to rule for the debtor “we would have to suppose Congress set two words cheek by jowl in the same phrase but meant them to speak to entirely different periods of time. All without leaving any clue.”

His first concurrence, written in Maslenjak v. United States, objected to the majority opinion in the case because it went further than necessary. Here, the issue was whether a statute that made it a crime to lie during a naturalization proceeding covered only lies that caused the government to grant citizenship. Gorsuch agreed with the majority that causation was required, and thus that the lower court must be reversed because of a jury instruction that did not require such proof. But he complained that the Court’s majority then proceeded to craft instructions on the contours of the jury instruction on causation. Gorsuch correctly argued that the better course was to permit lower courts to decide on these details after briefing on the precise questions. The essence of judicial restraint is judicial modesty: the Supreme Court should decide no more than is strictly necessary because it is likely to make mistakes on matters that are not directly before it.

Gorsuch also signaled that he will be an originalist and a strong ally of Justice Clarence Thomas. In Weaver v. Massachusetts, in which a majority of the Court assumed that the right to a public trial extends to jury selection, Gorsuch joined Thomas in demanding that that assumption be tested against the original understanding in a future case. In dissent from the Court’s refusal in Peruta v. California to take a case on the Second Amendment, Gorsuch again joined Thomas in arguing that the lower court had ignored the history surrounding the amendment, which shows that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry them publicly.

If we are to believe the latest news reports, congressional Republicans are out to murder Americans, ripping life-saving medication from their hands and forcibly dragging them from health-care clinics by the thousand. Setting aside the fairly obvious fact that the GOP reform bill will not, in fact, kill millions, one wonders why the Left’s semblance of measured rhetoric on health care has vanished so quickly.

The recent histrionics from Democratic politicians, pundits, and even many journalists stand in stark contrast to the tone of public conversation about health-care reform before Donald Trump’s election. As recently as last fall, commentators on both the left and the right seemed to agree that the Affordable Care Act needed further work.

To be sure, Democrats at every level of government remained adamant that the few shortcomings of Obamacare were a necessary part of the equalizing process to provide health insurance for low-income Americans and minorities. But at the same time, most on the left named those shortcomings (however reluctantly) and acknowledged the need for improvement.

Even the Democrats’ own presidential nominee said as much. During the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton admitted that “premiums have gotten too high” and vowed to “fix” Obamacare. And while Clinton’s idea of “fixing” Obamacare would have looked much different from, say, Ted Cruz’s, she didn’t embrace the far-left-wing solution of single-payer health care, either.

A Huffington Post article from early 2016 divulged some of President Obama’s own proposed health-care reforms, noting, “Even the guy who signed it knows the Affordable Care Act has problems.” And last fall, several Democratic senators stretched magnanimous hands across the aisle, urging their Republican colleagues to work with them for the sake of improving the Obamacare markets.

“There are things we can do and need to do to address restoring competition in these exchanges, and my hope is when we’re through the elections and past the elections, we’ll do those,” said senator Tom Carper (D., Del.) last September.

“You know, I think the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning has been a roller coaster,” Democratic senator Chris Murphy (Conn.) said around the same time. Senator Bob Casey Jr. (D., Pa.) agreed: “I think it’s important to be vigilant, because like any complex area of policy, it’s going to require some changes.”

But after Trump’s surprise victory in November, the tenor of health-care-reform dialogue underwent a rapid transformation. Today’s Left — including these previously fair-minded Democratic senators — seems to have completely forgotten their earlier admissions that Obamacare needs some work.

Instead, pundits and politicians alike have settled on a tone akin to total panic. The American Health Care Act that passed the House this spring, and the recently proposed draft bill written by GOP leadership in the Senate, are surely not the type of reforms that Democrats had in mind. But neither of those bills by any means represents a full repeal-and-replace effort, and both at least attempt to address the skyrocketing costs and plummeting options that have plagued the Obamacare exchanges.

In the months since Donald Trump became America’s 45th president, the unemployment rate among black people has hit the lowest number since 2000.

In February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the black unemployment rate at 8.1, but the number dropped to 8.0 in March, 7.9 in April, and 7.5 in May.

During most of Barack Obama’s presidency, black unemployment was in double digits, hitting a high mark of 16.8 in March 2010. Between July 2008 (during the financial crisis) and February 2015, the rate remained above 10 percent.

Black unemployment has not been this low since December 2000, when 7.4 percent of African-Americans looking for work were unable to find it.

This good news should be taken with a grain of salt, however, because the workforce participation rate remained low in May, at 62.7 percent. It is possible that many people stopped looking for work, just as others found good jobs.

Some might argue that Obama could be credited for this drop in unemployment. But under that logic, Bill Clinton is responsible for the increase in black unemployment in the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency.

Even so, this decline in the black unemployment rate is good news for the new president during his first year in office.

This comes on the heels of a Los Angeles Times report that President Trump has been a unique champion of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).

“For [President] Obama, people expected him to come in and fix everything — especially for black people,” Walter Kimbrough, president of Dillard University in New Orleans, told the L.A. Times. “But he never campaigned strongly for HBCUs.”

But Trump came into office with no expectations, and has pleasantly surprised black leaders like Kimbrough. “He’s coming in saying he’s going to be the president for HBCUs,” the university president noted.