It’s time for a “try again” on the Republican plan to repeal Obamacare. In reality, it’s very simple.
Fully repeal Obamacare and let marketplaces create incentives for insurers to compete. Competition will drive down healthcare costs.
That’s it. It’s that simple.
And it looks like the party of limited government, the free markets and individual liberty just got its hat handed to it by its base (in other words, the ones that voted them into power) and the Congressional Budget Office, which released its numbers on Ryancare yesterday.
Called “scorching,” the CBO’s scoring prompted reactions like this one.
“Can’t sugarcoat it. Doesn’t look good,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). “The CBO score was, shall we say, an eye-popper.”
And this one from Virginia Rep. Rob Wittmann.
“After reviewing this legislation and receiving the Congressional Budget Office score today, it is clear that this bill is not consistent with the repeal and replace principles for which I stand,” he said in a statement. “I do not think this bill will do what is necessary for the short and long-term best interests of Virginians and therefore, I must oppose it.”
There is a substantial Budget Committee hurdle for leadership right now in attempting to ram Ryancare through.
We now know that some of the more moderate members, Congressmen Jim Renacci, Jason Smith and John Faso, have a problem with there being no CBO score.
And if they have an issue, there are potentially others.
Second, we believe several House Freedom Caucus Members should be a given “No” in committee. These are Congressmen Mark Sanford, Dave Brat, and Gary Palmer. If you count, for sure, just those three, you just need 2 more to stop this in committee.
Then we have Congressman Glenn Grothman (we know he really hates Medicaid), Congressman Tom McClintock (has made some strong public statements), and Congressman Bruce Westerman (as a State House member, he raged against Medicaid).
Third are the unknown freshman, who were sent to DC “drain the swamp,” not replace Obamacare with RyanCare.
Of these, we feel Congressmen Matt Gaetz and Jodey Arrington are two likely pick-ups.
Can the opposition get to 5 “No” votes in committee against Ryancare?
Those of us who have watched the Republican party (and challenged it) over the last few years had a sneaking suspicion that whatever “repeal” of Obamacare that was going to be put forward by Republican leadership in the House likely wasn’t going to be a repeal bill. It might tweak the edges of it, but it wasn’t going to repeal Obamacare.
It turns out we were wrong.
It’s far worse.
The bill put forward yesterday (among other things) does the following:
*Does not repeal Obamacare.
*Mandates continuous insurance coverage at the risk of a new 30% penalty for people who drop their coverage.
*Creates a new subsidy in the form of tax credits even for those who do not pay income taxes.
*Keeps various Obamacare mandates in place until 2020. In essence, until the next Presidential election.
The great running coach and physiologist, Dr. Jack Daniels (yes, that’s his real name) has a saying when it comes to training: What is the purpose of this workout? It’s a great question because to become a great runner or athlete, or great at anything, you have to have a purpose. You have to have goals.
Our purpose here at the Madison Project has always been to identify, recruit and fund great conservative candidates. We also challenge the Washington, DC Establishment, holding them accountable for the campaign promises they have made over multiple election cycles and have no intention of fulfilling. The repeal of Obamacare is now at the forefront of these broken GOP promises.
The other day we posted exactly what the GOP Establishment is hoping to do with what is being termed “RINOCare.” Not only is it not a repeal of Obamacare, it locks in the more onerous elements of Obamacare, the very things we as conservatives are hoping to repeal and House leadership is not taking kindly to the pushback they are getting from conservatives in the House.
For instance, this story that ran in Politico yesterday about Congressman Mark Meadows’ wife sending what appears to be an email to friends about how House leadership is attempting to mislead the very voters that gave Trump the White House and the Republicans majorities in the House and Senate.
We know exactly how this went down. A communications staffer in one of the leadership offices got wind of the email and quickly leaked it to the press in hopes of shaming Congressman Meadows and his wife into silence (“How dare the rank and file disagree with us!”).
The reverse has happened. Instead of shaming House conservatives into silence, stories like this one have only emboldened them to continue to do the right thing. They ran and won on the promise to repeal Obamacare. They will work towards that end. Not towards a partial repeal. Or a repeal in name only that only adds more subsidies and more debt to our already massive national debt.
Which brings us to the purpose of the Madison Project. There are a host of great conservative groups out there. We are fans of the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund. They, like us, work tirelessly to look for and elect great conservatives. Where they tactically spend more time on the “air way” with TV and radio ads, we spend more time on the ground with voter ID and Get Out The Vote Work. While working towards a common goal, we all do things a little differently and because we all make decisions independent of each other, we went out on a limb in 2012 and were the first PAC to endorse Mark Meadows in his initial run for Congress. There was just something about him and the way he handled his candidate interview with us. While some tried to label him as a stealth Establishment candidate, we were confident from the start that Mark would be a conservative stalwart in the House and he has been exactly that. Has he been perfect? No. But no elected official ever is. But there’s a reason Mark has scored and continues to score well on the official (and unofficial, behind the scenes) conservative scorecards-because his instincts are conservative.
Our work is clearly not finished. Every election cycle gives us more chances to elect more Mark Meadows, more Jim Bridestines, more Ted Cruzs and Mike Lees.
This is our purpose. This is why we exist and we are glad to see our candidates like Mark Meadows not only fulfill his campaign promises but stand on principle in Washington, DC.
Republicans are about to blow the easiest election promise-the repeal of Obamacare. Right now all the chatter on Capitol Hill is about “repeal and replace.”
Why is this a problem?
First, it takes the focus off of repeal and puts it on replace. Conservatives and Republicans ran for 3 cycles on repealing Obamacare. Only in the last couple of years have Republicans focused on replace.
We should repeal Obamacare by using the 2015 bill, outright. Period. End of discussion.
Then there should be a 1-2 year transition off the exchanges and off of Medicaid. Once Obamacare is repealed, we can focus on what replace looks like.
Second, the replacement. The replacement the Republicans are talking about right now is focusing on coverage numbers and coverage numbers only. They are going to keep the Medicaid expansion as to not “punish” the states that did not expand Medicaid. The Republican plan wants to provide individuals covered under the expansion with advanced, refundable tax credits.
This is a real problem.
A major difference between the Obamacare subsidies and the the Republican plan is that Obamacare’s subsidies are currently based on income. The more you make, the less in subsidies you get. The Republican plan will likely cost more. The Republican plan moves the subsidy from an income based payment to an age based payment – meaning everyone in an age range will qualify for something.
Those subsidies are going to be costly, but no one knows how costly because the Congressional Budge Office has not scored the bill yet.
Third, there are substantial pro-life concerns. When providing an advanced, refundable tax credit, there will be issues with how those are used to cover “healthcare” expenses. House leadership will say that conscience protections, similar to H.R. 7 passed this year, will be sufficient. That is, however, misleading at best. The House might be able to pass this legislation, but likely will not survive the Senate’s reconciliation process.
Moreover, any conscience protections will apply to current funding and current programs. There are concerns that the Republican’s new program, to provide tax credits, won’t be captured in those conscience protections.
Some conservatives are voicing opposition to the plan. They know this won’t be full repeal and are saying so. They are, unfortunately, a minority. While protecting the most moderate members of the conference, Republican House leadership is going to put a bill on the House floor that codifies some of the worst parts of Obamacare and then call it full repeal.
We cannot let them do this.
At that point, conservatives, while being shut out of all the closed door meetings, will have a choice. They can vote against the repeal & replacement legislation leaving them to explain why the legislation isn’t full repeal.
Or they can vote for the legislation, compromising on entitlements and most likely on the federal funding of abortion.
So please, pick up your phone and call your Members of Congress. The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. If you need to look up who your Members of Congress are, click here for the House and click here for the Senate!
Let Washington, DC hear your voice before it’s too late!
There’s a lot of discussion these days over “fake news” and for good reason. For years many conservatives have suspected the liberal bent of the mainstream media. Stories and studies have proven this. 80%+ of the media is liberal, both in their giving and voting patterns.
They just don’t want to admit it.
Are they writing fake news? Is there some grand conspiracy?
No. But they are writing news that is heavily influenced by their worldview, the filter through which each of us sees the world around us. In other words, there is no such thing, in the end, as tabula rosa. No one is a blank slate. Each of us approaches a given story or situation with preconceptions, consciously or subconsciously. How we then share that news or story filters through our worldview.
Does that mean that all news written or reported by MSNBC, CNN or other “traditional” or decidedly more liberal outlets is fake? No. But how they write the stories and which headlines announce the news in them is definitely dictated by their worldview.
On the flip side, there are a lot of “news” sites that we have seen posted on conservatives’ social media accounts that more than just raise the eyebrows. They are downright laughable and yet were and are posted and shared without a second thought.
Here is our challenge to all consumers of news.
One, check the source before you read the story. In other words, ask yourself, “Where is this story coming from?” A lot of people made a lot of money this past election season by creating sites that peddled the news many people wanted to hear. See this story for more on that.
Two, who actually wrote the story? What do you know about this reporter of the news or opinion maker? If you don’t know or cannot say, then guess what? You might be a consumer of fake news.
Three, what is the purpose of this story? Is it actually to report news or sensationalize a topic?
Purveyors of fake news have subject lines down to a science. They know what consumers of news are looking for by watching trend lines on search engines like Google. In other words, they are looking for you before you know what you are looking for.
So before we run around calling all news that doesn’t agree with our worldview “fake,” let’s take a step back and run all the news we consume through the simply metric above: the source, who wrote or reported the story and what is the purpose of it.
There are obviously a few problems with this scenario.
The first is that for four election cycles, Republicans have been running on the campaign promise that they will repeal Obamacare and tear it out “root and branch.” It is now apparent that maybe want many of us have suspected all along is true: those were just talking points. There was no real plan of action to actually repeal Obamacare at all.
The second is that with all the intellectual ammunition in the conservative, free market movement, not one Member has thought to create a road map for what healthcare world free of socialized medicine looks like. Really? Is this possible? We don’t need to replace Obamacare (socialized medicine) with anything but freedom in the marketplace.
Here’s our solution and it took us about 5 minutes to come up with it.
Create a marketplace where people are free to pick and choose the plan that fits them and goes with them across state lines. You have a plan you like but are moving? Totally fine.
But get government out of the healthcare business. Make insurance companies compete and in that competition, guess who wins?
No matter where you are on the Donald Trump phenomenon (Evangelist, Apostate, Unbeliever), it’s clear that he is part of a chain reaction, a cause and effect if you will, caused by the elites in Washington, DC.
The pattern has been this. Campaign cycles come, Republican politicians dust off the old playbook, make red meat promises (“I will rip out Obamacare root and branch!” or “We will end illegal immigration!”) to gin up the conservative grassroots, win, retreat from said promises under the guise of, “We just don’t have the numbers that we need to make progress here in Washington, DC-you don’t know how things work here,” attempt to govern like moderate liberals and then, as the next election cycle approaches, dust off the old playbook and lather, rinse, repeat.
And on and on this pattern has gone until the American taxpayer realized that maybe it was time to take the red pill and see how far down the rabbit hole things go.
Here’s what reality looks like. We are a nation that is now $19.3 trillion in debt. Illegal immigrants continue to pour in through our southern border at an ever increasing rate. Unemployment numbers are decidedly well above 5% and it appears in less than 10 years, the non-tax paying American populace will be over 50%.
Yet in Washington, DC, the GOPe fiddles as the nation burns.
To shift the blame from their poor performance and broken promises that gave rise to Donald Trump to “the conservative commentariat industry” that seeks to hold them accountable (read: fulfill campaign promises).
In other words, they would like to continue doing things the way they have always done them with no repercussions.
That is simply not possible.
In the chaos that is the 2016 election cycle, some takeaways have emerged.
One, the Republican Party as we know it is rotten from the inside out. Josh Holmes and others quoted in the article linked above have taken and continue to take corporate contracts to work for policy items that accomplish three things: make themselves a lot of money, help corporations crowd out the American taxpayer and continue to plow the American economy under (and the American taxpayer, but we already said that).
Yet this is the same “crop of influential Republican consultants” who want to take the party back over and “enact their principles.” What, we wonder, are their principles? Is it really to roll back Obamacare? We would offer this in response to that. While the name Billy Piper might not ring a bell for many readers, he is the former chief of staff to Mitch McConnell (Josh Holmes’ predecessor, slightly taller, less hair than Holmes). While Mitch McConnell was out promising to uproot Obamacare, guess what Piper was doing? Lobbying for it and not just for it, but the expansion of it to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, too.
Why would Piper do this even as he actively remains a part of McConnell’s inner circle?
See the three reasons given above.
Another takeaway is that the Republican Party is comfortable being a “little less liberal” version of the Democrat Party. Maybe we should add “extremely” in front of “comfortable.”
They don’t believe in limited government-“It’s here to stay, might as well work with it!” They don’t want free market healthcare because a bevy of former staffers from leadership offices are making hundreds of thousands lobbying for it (see Piper, Billy). They don’t want to stop illegal immigration because corporations like the cheap labor (electoral results and demographic shifts in favor of the Democrats be damned) and corporations fund their war chests.
If there is a lesson to be learned from 2016, it is this: the GOPe gave rise to Donald Trump after years of broken promises. Their hope was to use him as a vehicle to further empower themselves. As an electoral apocalypse looms, they are now pivoting to the blame game.
We cannot and must not let them. Their chickens are coming home to roost and it’s about time.
In this episode of American History in 5 Minutes, Drew Ryun of the Madison Project discusses how the Declaration of Independence came into being, laying the intellectual foundation necessary for the American colonies to move into outright rebellion against King George III and the British Empire.
Wednesday, October 21st, 2015 and is filed under Blog
As we noted last year in our post Defining Conservatism, it is critical that words retain meaning. By definition (literally), that is what they are intended to do. One would never use “cold” to describe “hot” or “dry” to describe “wet.” There are implications to the improper use of words.
We often hear the word “conservative” bandied about, untied to any concrete example(s) of why it should be used other than the ones using it hope to gain some street cred with their hearers, the grassroots activists who are, by experiential action, conservative in nature.
Which brings us to Paul Ryan. First elected to Congress in 1998, Paul came was the fresh, under 30 face of the new conservative movement. He was the smart kid with the pencil tucked behind his ear and slide ruler in his pocket. He was going to save America.
However, in spite of his tax plans painfully crafted to balance the budget over certain time periods (all of which were so far in the future as to beggar the question of relevance), it became abundantly clear that Paul Ryan’s voting record and his rhetoric did not sync. In fact, not only did they not sync, they were so at odds with each other we began to wonder as to the split political personality of Paul Ryan-big government Paul or small government Paul-and who would win the Gollum-style argument in the mirror.
It’s clear now that Paul was, all along, what we have suspected for some time. A big government liberal who has mastered the talking points that conservatives want to hear, which is why we see the easily entertained (namely Hugh Hewitt) rush to defend Paul Ryan’s “conservatism” against the attacks of those who point to his voting record and say, “Prove it.”
In a normal world (not Washington, DC), our actions define us. That is reality. It is how the real world works. In light of that, take a quick minute to review the “highlights” of Paul Ryan’s voting record.
During his tenure in Congress, Paul has voted for (each hyperlinked with what these bills actually have done or will do to America):
Couple this voting record with his stances on amnesty, his voting for a Continuing Resolution that funds Planned Parenthood AFTER the videos exposed Planned Parenthood for selling aborted baby parts for profit and one is hard pressed to define Paul Ryan as a conservative.
A Republican, yes. A conservative, no.
So let’s be done once and for all with this nonsense that Paul Ryan is a conservative. He is, at best, a middle of the road Republican content with being in power and never using it to achieve anything of merit.