Monthly Archives: March 2017

The Republican case for breaking up the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit makes no sense – Los Angeles Times

Posted: March 19, 2017 at 4:52 pm

The 9th Circuit the largest and most important of the 13 federal court circuits in the country, encompassing 11 Western states and territories and covering nearly 20% of the U.S. population is under siege. Four Republican congressmen have introduced bills to break up the circuit in various ways. All four bills have a chance of passing. None of them makes any sense.

The arguments for splitting the U.S. Courts for the 9th Circuit are perennial: Its too big, too slow and, most of all, too liberal. But none of these complaints is sound. Moreover, breaking up the court would add considerable costs while potentially lowering the quality of judging.

Most of the justifications offered for splitting the 9th Circuit have to do with its size, and it does indeed hear a lot of cases more than 55,000 civil and criminal cases in its district courts in 2015 alone, along with 12,000 appeals in its appellate court.

Big doesnt always mean bad, however. The 9th Circuit may do a lot, but its pretty efficient. The circuit has pioneered mediation units and screening panels to help solve cases early, and it disposes of nearly half its appeals that way. It methodically allocates resources, assigning extra judges to areas faced with a shortage. The appellate court broadcasts arguments on the Web, allowing citizens to watch proceedings without traveling to a courthouse. The 9th Circuit doesnt handle cases any more slowly than other circuits if you account for the number of cases assigned to each judge.

Another common rationale for carving up the circuit is its supposedly high reversal rate in the Supreme Court, which last year hit 79%. That sounds high until you realize the Supreme Court on average reverses lower-court decisions 70% of the time. (The 6th Circuit, comprising just four Midwestern states, had a reversal rate of 81%.) The 9th Circuit also encompasses some of the most experimental states in the country, including Arizona, which frequently passes innovative immigration laws; Oregon, with its expansive individual-rights laws on assisted suicide and marijuana; and, of course, California. If anything, its surprising the Supreme Court doesnt reverse decisions from the 9th Circuit more often.

The real cause behind the efforts to split the circuit is that its appellate court is perceived as too liberal. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, has been a conservative bugaboo since the 1970s, when President Carter and a Democratic supermajority in Congress doubled the number of judges on the court and appointed some of the most liberal jurists in American history. Right-wing radio hosts and politicians love beating up on the nutty 9th.

But in reality, the courts liberalism has declined dramatically. Judges appointed to the court by Presidents Clinton and Obama have been steadily more centrist, while Republican appointees have remained conservative.

Meanwhile, the real-world costs of splitting the 9th Circuit are extremely high. So high that every prior effort to split the circuit there have been seven or eight attempts since the early 1990s has failed. Division would double the bureaucracy and infrastructure to the tune of some $200 million up front and $35 million a year for taxpayers. Businesses could face twice the litigation and compliance costs depending on where they operate, and they might have to wrangle with different interpretations of federal law throughout the West. This is one reason why Congress has modified circuit borders only twice, in the 1920s and the 1980s, in response to requests from judges. By contrast, the 9th Circuits judges have historically voted to remain cohesive.

If lightening the caseload is the reason to break up the circuit, there is simply no good way to achieve that goal. California cases make up nearly two-thirds of the circuits work, and drawing a line in the middle of a state with different federal law on either side would wreak havoc. Each of the pending congressional proposals to split the circuit would siphon only 20% to 30% of its current cases, a figure so small that one of the new circuits would be back up to the 9th Circuits current numbers within a decade or so. Not to mention that putting California in its own circuit, or with just a few other states, would probably create one that is even more liberal.

Additionally, the quality of appellate judging might suffer from a smaller circuit. When the same judges sit together over and over, they become very familiar, which can foster discord or, worse, an over-willingness to defer to one another. Indeed, Congress would do well to consider merging some of the smaller circuits, rather than breaking up a bigger one.

On the 9th Circuit, the Court of Appeals assigns its three-judge appellate panels randomly from its scores of active, senior and visiting judges. The circuits geographic spread means a case arising out of California might be heard by judges from Idaho, Hawaii or Washington, allowing for a great variety of perspectives to inform the courts judgment. The judges sit in different frequencies and in different months. Their relationships are professional rather than personal, in part because of their number and distance.

Shifting the circuits borders around wont change the overall number of cases per judge or the way its judges decide legal questions, either. There are liberal judges from Montana and Arizona, and there are conservative judges from California and Oregon. If Congress really wants to speed up the 9th Circuit and influence the way it decides precedent-setting cases, it should create more judgeships. Compared with the other circuits, the 9th is understaffed; it should have at least five more appellate judgeships and 21 more district judgeships.

Adding judges might be particularly alluring to Republicans because it would allow them to make use of the gift former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid now regrets giving them the ability to appoint federal judges without the risk of a filibuster.

The last time a party controlled the White House and had filibuster-proof power to appoint federal judges was in the 1970s, when Carter gave the 9th Circuit its hyper-liberal reputation. If congressional Republicans took this route, they could shift the courts political leanings without creating problems for litigants and businesses along the West Coast.

There is one final advantage to keeping the 9th Circuit intact: Republicans would retain their favorite culprit. After all, what would they do without the nutty 9th to blame?

Ben Feuer is the chairman of the California Appellate Law Group.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook

Read more here:

The Republican case for breaking up the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit makes no sense - Los Angeles Times

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on The Republican case for breaking up the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit makes no sense – Los Angeles Times

Watch: After beating Clinton in 2016, Trump reveals which liberal he wants to beat ‘so badly’ in 2020 – TheBlaze.com

Posted: at 4:52 pm

When President Donald Trump entered the 2016 race for the White House in June 2015 having never ran for political office never before, no one believed he was a serious candidate or had a serious chance at winning the Republican nomination.

And once he won the Republican nomination last summer, no one believed he would be able to defeat Hillary Clinton. After all, she had all the credentials: former first lady, former U.S. senator and former secretary of state.

But Trump won and Clinton lost.

Despite being just two months into his first term, Trump already has his sights set on running for re-election in 2020 and he knows who he wants to beat so badly.

After their defining loss last year, the Democratic Party was left scrambling to find their identity for the next four years as they mount challenges in 2018 and 2020 to push back against Trumps agenda.

One of the potential candidates the DNC may push to challenge Trump in 2020 is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the extreme liberal and progressive members of the DNC. Given how well Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) did in the Democratic primaries, running Warren would be a no-brainer for Democrats and Trump agrees.

He told Fox News host Jesse Watters in a recent interview aired Saturday that he wants Warren to challenge him in 2020 because he believes he would be able to beat her so badly.

When Watters noted the possibility of Warren running in 2020, Trump replied, I hope so.

That would be a dream come true, the president explained.

Trump went on to slam Warren for the craziness and anger she used in her political rhetoric on the campaign trail last year when campaigning for Clinton.

I think she hurt Hillary Clinton very badly, Trump said. I watched those speeches the anger, the hatred, in her heart and I said, Ya know, shes really bad for Hillary.'

Pocahontas would not be proud of her as her representative, believe me, Trump said, mocking Warren for her claim that shes of Native American heritage.

Watch Trumps comments below. The relevant portion begins around 2:25:

See the original post:

Watch: After beating Clinton in 2016, Trump reveals which liberal he wants to beat 'so badly' in 2020 - TheBlaze.com

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Watch: After beating Clinton in 2016, Trump reveals which liberal he wants to beat ‘so badly’ in 2020 – TheBlaze.com

Morgan: Osborne’s liberal Conservatism will be heard – BBC News

Posted: at 4:52 pm


BBC News
Morgan: Osborne's liberal Conservatism will be heard
BBC News
Ex-Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has defended George Osborne's appointment as Evening Standard editor, warning cabinet ministers fired by Theresa May will have their "voices heard". Mrs Morgan, who lost her job after Mrs May became PM, said ...

and more »

View original post here:

Morgan: Osborne's liberal Conservatism will be heard - BBC News

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Morgan: Osborne’s liberal Conservatism will be heard – BBC News

Watch: Liberal activists try to explain why they dislike Trump, hilarity ensues – TheBlaze.com

Posted: at 4:52 pm

Animal activists were out protesting President Donald Trump this week in Hollywood, and they were eager to talk to Dartmouth graduate and aspiring filmmaker Austen Fleccas about their beef with the president, even though those reasons didnt always make sense.

Congregating on Hollywood Blvd around Trumps Hollywood Walk of Fame sidewalk star, the protesters held up signswhile chanting, Theres no excuse for animal abuse! One protester added that Trump is against all humans and animals.

Fleccas interviewed several of the participants, who told him they were protesting the USDAs decision to remove their list of animal welfare reports from its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, but attributed the decision directly to the president.

Why are you against Trump, Fleccas asked one protester.

Because hes an evil dictator, she responded, then went on to explain it is because he is a capitalist. Explaining that she is a communist, the unnamed protester continued, saying thatcommunism has worked in America. Its kind of worked in America, in a way, back in the dayno?

Others focused on the animal rights aspect, saying they wanted all animals to be set free.

Total animal liberation, one protester said. Another proclaimed that people who fight for human rights but not for animal rights are speciesists.

Last month, the USDA removed public access to tens of thousands of records documenting whether animals kept by research labs, circuses, and other entities were being treated humanely, citing individual privacy rights as the reason for the removal. Though the documents were still available through FOIA requests, the United States Humane Society challenged the legality of the move, saying that the agency was eliminating transparency.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services office has since clarified that the information was taken offline to conduct a comprehensive privacy review and the information is slowly being loaded back onto the site as appropriate.

Read more:

Watch: Liberal activists try to explain why they dislike Trump, hilarity ensues - TheBlaze.com

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Watch: Liberal activists try to explain why they dislike Trump, hilarity ensues – TheBlaze.com

WA election: Mike Nahan says he is leader Liberals need after ‘gut wrenching’ defeat – ABC Online

Posted: at 4:52 pm

Updated March 19, 2017 17:34:42

Western Australia's next Liberal leader Mike Nahan has rejected suggestions he will be an "interim leader" and will not be around to contest the 2021 state election.

The former treasurer has spoken for the first time since the Barnett Government's dramatic election loss, in which seven ministers lost their seats.

He described the result as "catastrophic" and "gut wrenching" and pointed the finger of blame at former premier Colin Barnett, telling another media organisation he was "tired" and "not up to" the campaign.

Despite being 13 days older than Mr Barnett, Dr Nahan, aged 66, insisted he was not too old to lead the Liberals.

He will be elected unopposed when the party's MPs meet to determine the leadership on Tuesday. Liza Harvey will remain deputy leader.

"Look around the world, I think Donald Trump is over 70, Hillary Clinton was older than I and she was going for the toughest job in the world and I'm very fit and able," Dr Nahan said.

"It requires energy, which I have, experience, which I have, but also a bit of maturity.

"I will be a leader of a team, not a boss, and that's what we need now.

"There is not any issue of policy that I haven't over the last 30 years come across."

Dr Nahan insisted there was no "Kirribilli agreement" to hand over the leadership to Ms Harvey mid-term.

Meanwhile, the former treasurer said there were a number of reasons why the Barnett government was "hammered", including the One Nation preference deal and a perception it was of touch with voter concerns.

"It's our fault. We failed to address the concerns of the public," he said.

Dr Nahan said the proposal to sell 51 per cent of Western Power to raise up to $11 billion was absolutely right and the Liberal Party would most likely stick with the policy.

"It was the right thing to do, it got rejected," he said.

"Labor will rue the day they allowed the unions to fund their campaign in the millions of millions of dollars because that asset will require major investment and will be depreciating in value."

"The sale of Western Power was poorly carried by us ... the public didn't understand it, they didn't understand what Western Power was or the benefits of selling it, or the risk of holding it in terms of depreciating value that's our fault."

Dr Nahan said he had not spoken to Mr Barnett since the election and did not know whether he planned to retire or stay on as a backbencher.

"He's been a contributor to Western Australian politics for many decades but I would expect him to move on from Cottesloe and vacate the seat sooner rather than later," he said.

But he insisted the Liberals would bounce back.

"I've been playing a lot of sports, some seasons you have a bad one but you can come back and the best thing is a bit of offence and we will come back aggressively," he said.

"Labor has a lot of weaknesses."

Topics: elections, state-parliament, wa, perth-6000

First posted March 19, 2017 16:44:03

Excerpt from:

WA election: Mike Nahan says he is leader Liberals need after 'gut wrenching' defeat - ABC Online

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on WA election: Mike Nahan says he is leader Liberals need after ‘gut wrenching’ defeat – ABC Online

Program sets Arkansas inmates on new path; Christianity-based effort aims to reduce recidivism – Arkansas Online

Posted: at 4:52 pm

WRIGHTSVILLE -- Kenneth Janski, after spending about 15 of the past 17 years in Arkansas prisons, said he volunteered to extend his current sentence.

Janski opted to remain in a faith-based program aimed at preventing repeat prison stays. He could have withdrawn to complete a substance-abuse course, which the Arkansas Board of Parole ruled in July 2016 was the last prerequisite for his release.

"I chose to stay here until I graduate," said Janski, who is in his fourth prison stint since early 2000, according to prison records. His most recent conviction was on domestic battery and drug charges in 2013, records show.

Janski is one of about 200 male inmates participating in Pathway to Freedom, an 18-month Christianity-focused rehabilitation program at the Arkansas Department of Correction's Hawkins Unit on its Wrightsville campus.

People who graduate from the program have been shown to be less likely to return to prison, Department of Correction spokesman Solomon Graves said.

A Little Rock-based nonprofit administers the pre-release program, one of several aimed at preparing prisoners to re-enter society and thus reduce the number of them who return to prison after their releases. The state's 51.8 percent recidivism rate, according to Graves, means more than one of two people released from prison returns within three years.

Pathway to Freedom does not have comparable recidivism data from its six-year run. Of 115 program graduates released from prison, about 15 percent were jailed again, which is far lower than the statewide average, program director Scott McLean said. However, McLean noted, not all of those graduates have been out for three years.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette was allowed to observe the program in action, on a day when a group of men from multiple Northwest Arkansas churches traveled to the prison unit for a regular seminar. Officials did not restrict access to the prisoners or their living spaces.

Walter E. Hussman Jr., the newspaper's publisher, serves on the nonprofit's board of directors. When the program was on the cusp of folding last year because of a lack of funding, Hussman led efforts to save it after reading an article in the newspaper, McLean said.

Many inmates, including Janski, spoke before and after a worship leader gave a prisoner-targeted sermon, part of a tightly packed schedule structured around the theme of the day, reconciliation.

Pathway to Freedom, which the state sanctions but does not fund, is one of multiple pre-release programs in Arkansas aimed at curbing recidivism. McLean said he would like to add a stronger workforce-based component to the program to increase its appeal for inmates.

Janski, whose body bears tattoos of swastikas and a White Aryan Resistance pyramid, according to Department of Correction records, said the culture in the Hawkins unit is far more subdued than in general population prisons.

"It's like life on the streets times 100," Janski said of the typical prison experience. "Everybody is trying to get over on one another."

Minutes later, Janski danced while a visiting Christian band performed songs of worship. He stood, smiling, in the front row.

"I wanted more," said Janski, who applied five times for the program before he was accepted. "[There is] not much rehabilitation in ADC except what you take advantage of yourself."

McLean formed the nonprofit in 2011 after the national Prison Fellowship shut down its InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Arkansas and other states as funding declined. McLean had moved to Arkansas from Kansas to run that program.

Formerly a work-release site, the low-security unit includes three barrack-style living areas. Cots and bunk beds are clustered together, away from a bank of toilets that have no privacy dividers.

Two of the 75-member barracks are dedicated to inmates actively participating in the program. The third is for new enrollees, as well as graduates awaiting transfer to other programs or other units. A computer lab, library, cafeteria and health care station are spread throughout the facility.

Pathway to Freedom leases the site at no cost, McLean said.

In the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2015, Pathway to Freedom spent $444,000 to run the program, according to its tax filing. About $280,000 of that was spent on salaries, including the $82,000 McLean received.

The Department of Correction covers the costs to feed, house and provide health care to inmates in the program, just as it does for all state prisoners, at a rate of roughly $60 per day, Graves said.

Costs to run the program -- which includes educational lessons on entrepreneurship, anger management, finances, parenting and other topics -- fall to the nonprofit.

Pathway to Freedom picks its enrollees from volunteer applicants. People from all religious backgrounds can enroll, but classes are taught -- and the broader messaging stems from -- a Christ-focused perspective, McLean said.

Since its inception, 893 inmates have enrolled in Pathway to Freedom -- including those currently in the program -- and 291 have completed all 18 months, McLean said.

"We don't make it easy," he said. "You have to give up a lot."

About one in three program participants drop out or are kicked out shortly after they arrive, McLean said.

Inmates who participate must make sacrifices -- such as losing television-viewing privileges until they graduate -- and all must hold jobs of some sort.

Eligibility is not solely based on an inmate's crime. A medium- or lower-custody classification -- which is based on factors such as disciplinary records, length of stay and escape history -- is one of the primary requirements to join.

"A guy who tried to kill a policeman can be here and be part of this program," said Mark Warner, deputy warden of the Wrightsville prison.

For one year after their release, graduates are connected with churches, program volunteers and mentors who try to help them re-enter society.

Last July, the Parole Board told Janski that he would earn release after finishing a 12-month program focused on drug and alcohol abuse, said John Felts, chairman of the Board.

Janski's decision to remain in Pathway to Freedom delayed him from taking that course. He can request that the Parole Board reconsider its decision after he completes the faith-based program -- which includes substance abuse education in its curriculum -- but there is no guarantee the program will be accepted as a substitute.

If not, when Janski graduates in April, he'll still face having to take that yearlong class.

"The reason that is the case is because it's a religious-based program, and we've been advised by the [attorney general's] office and [Department of Correction] folks that we cannot mandate a program like that," Felts said. "Even though they request it, we cannot mandate that."

Multiple inmates in the program have informed parole officers that they wish to complete Pathway to Freedom before being paroled, McLean said.

Tyrone Hampton, in his eighth prison stay since February 1991, said he recently told a parole officer of his wish to complete the program before he's released. The Parole Board hasn't decided his case yet.

"I don't think the way that I thought," Hampton said of how the program influenced him. "It took me from being a gang-banger to a disciple of Christ."

Hampton is serving a 25-year prison sentence stemming from a 2010 conviction of possessing a controlled substance. He was sentenced as a habitual offender. Hampton said the substance was methamphetamine and that he intended to sell it.

Dating to the early 1990s, Hampton has been convicted on carnal abuse, and several burglary and theft charges, according to his inmate records.

"I wanted things quick and easy," Hampton said.

Northwest Arkansas churchgoers toured the unit during the March 10 seminar and helped lead religion-based sessions. Volunteers facilitate the seminars eight times a year, McLean said.

"We all need a second chance in life" said 56-year-old Steve Sanchez, a first-time volunteer who worships at Harvest Time church in Fort Smith. "I've done a lot of wrong in my life. I just was lucky and didn't get caught."

Grant Nesbit, a part-time worship leader at Harvest Time, led a half-hour sermon. "I'm surprised they let me come back [to speak] because I'm liable to say anything," he said before removing the microphone from its stand and beginning his session.

Nesbit drew from Revelation 3:16, which in the King James Bible says, "So then because thou art lukewarm ... I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Nesbit urged his audience to not be "lukewarm" or "apathetic" and to fully embrace God.

At times, he used humor to connect, such as when he asked members of the group to raise their hands if they cry.

"If you lie, you fry," he said to laughter. "Get your hands up, babies."

Nesbit, who said he was imprisoned at one point in his life, told members of his audience that he wanted to update them on what's going on in the world.

He said he is disgusted by politics, protesters, modern music and the way young people seem to be attached to their cellphones. He then shared his displeasure about teenagers congregating at malls, saying they sometimes bump into him as a form of intimidation.

"I love God, and I will lay hands on you," he said in mock response before joking about striking the teenagers -- whom he called "little punks" -- in their faces with his knee.

Nesbit told the prisoners that he didn't travel from Fort Smith to "patronize" or "baby" them during his session.

"You need me to kick you in the ask, not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country," Nesbit said, adding about his flirtation with profanity: "That scared the leaders."

He later repeated the famous line from President John F. Kennedy's inaugural address with the word "God" in place of "country" before closing the talk with a prayer.

Graves, who said he heard portions of the sermon, said a "greater level of frankness" is required when addressing inmates who don't want to listen to someone they feel is manipulating them.

"That's what makes the program successful," he said.

McLean said jailhouse sermons must strike a balance between being "firm and loving."

"You're not going to come in here and play patty-cake," he said. "They're not going to hear you."

Nesbit's audience laughed, clapped and was responsive throughout the talk. They then moved into smaller groups for a discussion about reconciliation.

An inmate in one of the sessions volunteered that he had recently written a letter to his son, whom he had abandoned, and asked for forgiveness. He said he also sent a letter to his father, asking to know why he was abandoned as a child -- "What was wrong with me?" -- but he did not receive a response.

The church volunteer leading the discussion praised the inmate for reaching out to his son and breaking a multigenerational pattern.

A Section on 03/19/2017

Print Headline: Program sets inmates on new path; 18-month Christianity-based effort aims to reduce recidivism

See the original post here:

Program sets Arkansas inmates on new path; Christianity-based effort aims to reduce recidivism - Arkansas Online

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on Program sets Arkansas inmates on new path; Christianity-based effort aims to reduce recidivism – Arkansas Online

Obamacare Lite: A Fiscal Fraud – Daily Reckoning

Posted: at 4:51 pm

[Ed. Note: To see exactly what this former Reagan insider has to say about Trump and the fiscal threats from politics and the debt ceiling, David Stockman is sending out a copy of his bookTrumped! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin And How to Bring It Backto any American willing to listen before it is too late. To learn how to get your free copyCLICK HERE.]

Speaker Ryans Obamacare repeal and replace plan, as Ive been predicting, is a complete fiscal disaster.

Not only will it add $1.1 trillion to the Federal deficit over the next decade, but, more importantly, it reforms exactly nothing.

It leaves Obamas big Medicaid expansion virtually in place, swaps one kind of tax credit for another in the individual insurance market and leaves the huge, perverse tax subsidy amounting to upwards of $350 billion per year for employer plans completely untouched.

This latter point exemplifies the Profiles in Cowardice that suffuses the Ryan Plan; and shows that if the legislation ever does make it through the House and Senate, it will cost every penny as much as Obamacare when all the vote getting deals are finally done.

From a fiscal perspective, the Ryan plan starts $1.1 trillion in the hole on a ten-year basis because it repeals, appropriately, the individual and employer mandates and the Obamacare taxes on providers, high cost plans, medical devices and high income taxpayers.

The mandates would have generated nearly $300 billion in fines over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and upwards of $800 billion from the Obama tax grabs.

So the new plan is bleeding $1.1 trillion in red ink before the black ink is dry on the remainder of its 123 pages.

Likewise, an earlier draft of the Ryan plan provoked an outcry from fiscal hawks in the Freedom Caucus and Republican Study group because it established a new entitlement in the guise of reform.

In typical fashion, however, the revised plan puts a fig leaf over Ryans age-based tax credit entitlement by eliminating Bill Gates eligibility for a $4,000 tax credit (hes 61) along with a few million other American households in the super-affluent tier.

I doubt, however, whether anyone who can do 5th grade math will be fooled by Ryans double shuffle. The new provisions still amount to a massive tax credit entitlement that in some ways is for more profligate than Obamas health exchange premium subsidies.

In theory, upwards of 95% of households are eligible to claim some or all of these tax credits which range from $2,000 to $4,000 per person based on age brackets. Thats a multi-trillion entitlement under any other name.

Then again, the tax credit for individual policies is only the tip of the medical entitlement iceberg.

The U.S. has a sweeping medical entitlement system that will cost more than $24 trillion over the next decade, but Ryans new plan simply perpetuates the status quo.

These entitlements amount to almost double the 10-year cost of $13.2 trillion for social security. And 7X the $3.3 trillion cost for benefits like foods stamps and welfare.

Yet the crushing cost inflation and excessive utilization that has ballooned the U.S. health care system to 18% of GDP (compared to 10-12% for virtually all other developed countries) results directly from these massive government subsidies.

They foster a perverse system of socialism for beneficiaries and crony capitalism for the providers and their various cartels.

The heart of the problem is a giant third-party payment system that essentially eliminates market pricing and consumer shopping behavior. The result is overutilization of services, overpricing, and free-riding.

When virtually everything is paid for by third-parties, you do not have price-conscious, shopping-oriented, cost-minimizing consumers who have their own money at risk just several hundred million cost-indifferent patients with various kinds of prepaid cards (e.g. medicare, Medicaid, blue cross, employer plans, etc).

Needless to say, there is no such thing as a true free market when their are no real consumers.

What passes for the health care market today is just a bureaucratic clearing house where provider cartels attempt to maximize their billings while insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs and utilization review and pre-approval agencies seek to minimize what they certify for payment.

As a result, the medical professions and delivery system have morphed into Washingtons greatest crony capitalist lobby.

The consequence, in turn, is high prices, endless hassles over coverage and pre-approvals and a complete loss of consumers sovereignty over their own health care costs and quality. And that is what the public whether it fully recognizes it or not fundamentally objects to about Obamacare.

At the end of the day this is health care socialism and it is what will finally bankrupt America. Yet Speaker Ryans Obamacare Lite plans keeps that system fully in place. After all, the K-Street lobbies which essentially drafted his bill would have it no other way.

Needless to say, if you lay an unreformed Medicaid program and ultra-generous tax credits on the current inefficient and bloated system the only thing that will result is an eventual fiscal hemorrhage.

The Obamacare exchange premium subsidies would have cost about $900 billion over the next decade. But I am more than confident that the new Ryan medical credits will cost every bit of that amount and probably a lot more. How could it be otherwise, when families with a quarter million dollars of annual income are eligible for the largesse?

But the real skunk in the woodpile is Ryans smoke and mirrors on Medicaid. According to CBO, the current law will cost $5.2 trillion over the next decade, and when we add in the state matching share the total taxpayer cost is about $8.5 trillion.

Yet I see no reason to believe that Obamacare Lite will cost any measurable amount less.

In the first place, the new Ryan Plan does not repeal the Obama Medicaid expansion to cover everyone up to 138% of the poverty line. The 11 million recipients Obama added to bring the Medicaid rolls to about 70 million would stay the same.

The only thing the Ryan plan does is that after 2020, anyone eligible for the expansion, but not on the rolls as of December 31, 2019, will be funded at the standard Medicaid matching rate of about 57% on average, not 90%.

But whatever savings that produces will be negated by Ryans sop to the GOP governors. Namely, the new $100 billion innovation grant program to the states for subsidizing high cost populations (pre-existing conditions) and other purposes.

In short, the Federal Medicaid cost would be about $600 billion annually by 2027 compared to CBOs current estimate of $650 billion under current law. And by the time they get done with the vote-count deal making, even that small savings will likely disappear entirely.

Ultimately, the Ryan bill amounts to shuffling the deck chairs on Americas fiscal Titanic.

Neither the GOP Congressional contingents nor Donald Trump explained to the American public that the problem is really too much health insurance and way too much government spending and subsidization of consumer medical costs.

In order to pacify the K-Street medical lobbies and the approximate 35 red state governors and legislators, Ryan has just fuzzed up Medicaid and transformed the Obama premium subsidies into even more generous tax credits.

But it wont work. If the House leadership cannot round up the votes for a deficit neutral repeal and replace bill which is totally out of reach in the current draft they will not bring it to the House floor for a vote before the Easter recess or anytime soon thereafter.

Back in the day, I learned a powerful lesson peddling the Reagan spending cuts as mild as most of them were. Namely, that if the courage-challenged House GOP back-benchers do not see a path to Senate passage they wont walk the plank in the first place.

And they especially dont want to have to explain their wasted vote to angry crowds of Soros and DNC instigated crowds at town meetings from now until the next election.

I have been arguing that the Donald is the Great Disrupter who will bring the nations mutant system of debt-ridden, Bubble Finance crashing down. His nave belief that Obamacare can be fixed with block grants, tax credits and interstate insurance competition (which already exists) is a case in point.

Soon the Congressional GOP will fracture over Obamacare Lite, and I dont know who puts it back together.

Regards,

David Stockman for The Daily Reckoning

Go here to read the rest:

Obamacare Lite: A Fiscal Fraud - Daily Reckoning

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on Obamacare Lite: A Fiscal Fraud – Daily Reckoning

White House Requests $30 Billion More for US Military – to Rebuild … – Scout

Posted: at 4:51 pm

The request includes $5.1 billion in overseas contingency operations funds so the department can accelerate the campaign to defeat ISIS and support Operation Freedom's Sentinel in Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2017 In a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan today, President Donald J. Trump asked for another $30 billion for the Defense Department in this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, to rebuild the armed forces and accelerate the campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jeffery Self, 8th Security Forces Squadron, advances toward opposing forces during a training scenario at Kunsan Air Base, South as part of exercise Beverly Pack 17-2, a no-notice training exercise used to improve responses to base threats, March 7, 2017. President Donald J. Trump is asking Congress for an additional $30 billion in fiscal 2017 Defense Department funding to meet urgent military readiness needs. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Jeff Andrejcik

The fiscal 2017 budget amendment provides $24.9 billion in base funds for urgent warfighting readiness needs and to begin a sustained effort to rebuild the armed forces, according to the presidents letter.

The request seeks to address critical budget shortfalls in personnel, training, maintenance, equipment, munitions, modernization and infrastructure investment. It represents a critical first step in investing in a larger, more ready and more capable military force, Trump wrote.

The request includes $5.1 billion in overseas contingency operations funds so the department can accelerate the campaign to defeat ISIS and support Operation Freedom's Sentinel in Afghanistan, he said, noting that the request would enable DoD to pursue a comprehensive strategy to end the threat ISIS poses to the United States.

Continuing Resolution

At the Pentagon this afternoon, senior defense officials briefed reporters on the on the fiscal 2017 budget amendment. The speakers wereJohn P. Roth, performing the duties of undersecretary of defense-comptroller, andArmy Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Ierardi, director of force structure, resources and assessment on theJoint Staff.

Our request to Congress is that they pass a full-year defense appropriations bill, and that the bill includes the additional $30 billion, Roth said. We are now approaching the end of our sixth month under a continuing resolution, he added, one of the longest periods that we have ever been under a continuing resolution.

Crying Needs

The continuing resolution run for the rest of the fiscal year, Pentagon officials would find that extremely harmful to the defense program, Roth said.

We are essentially kind of muddling along right now in terms of borrowing resources against third- and fourth-quarter kinds of finances in order to keep things going, he said. But that game gets to be increasingly difficult as we go deeper into the fiscal year.

Under a continuing resolution, the department has to operate under a fiscal 2016 mandate, creating a large mismatch between operations funds and procurement funds, Roth explained. The department cant spend procurement dollars because theres a restriction on new starts and on increasing production, he said, but we have crying needs in terms of training, readiness, maintenance ... and in the operation and maintenance account.

The continuing resolution expires April 28, so before then, we would want a full appropriation and, of course, a full appropriation with this additional $30 billion, he said.

The Next Challenge

Roth said much of the money in the fiscal 2017 request is funding for operations and maintenance.

We're asking for additional equipment maintenance funding, additional facilities maintenance, spare parts, additional training events, peacetime flying hours, ship operations, munitions and those kinds of things, said he told reporters. This is the essence of what keeps this department running on a day-to-day basis. It keeps us up and allows us to get ready for whatever the next challenge is.

The officials said full support from Congress is key to improving warfighter readiness, providing the most capable modern force, and increasing the 2011 Budget Control Act funding cap for defense.

(Follow Cheryl Pellerin on Twitter @PellerinDoDNews)

Read the original here:

White House Requests $30 Billion More for US Military - to Rebuild ... - Scout

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on White House Requests $30 Billion More for US Military – to Rebuild … – Scout

Trump could ‘do an Andrew Jackson’ to save travel ban – WND.com

Posted: at 4:51 pm

Because there is a conflict in district court rulings on his temporary travel restriction, President Trump could go ahead and implement it, some constitutional scholars believe.

The Trump administration Friday afternoon filed for an appeal of a Marylandfederal judges ruling that the revised ban violates the First Amendment by disfavoring a particular religion. The case goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

But a federal judge in Boston approved the original order, noted attorney Robert Barnes in an interview with XM Sirius radios Breitbart Daily News.

Barnes, arguing the Constitution and federal law give the president the authorityto restrict entry to the country, said Trumpcould always do a true Andrew Jackson, the last president to challenge a court usurping authority they did not have.

Jacksons response to the Supreme Court, in that instance, was: Well, theyve issued their decision; now, they can enforce it.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, Americas independent news network.

But Barnes noted Trump can argue that because the federal court in Boston approved Trumps Jan. 27 ban in a detailed 21-page order, the president would be in his legal rights to say: Theres a conflict between the courts. Until the Supreme Court addresses this, Im going to do whats appropriate to keep the country safe.'

Barnesacknowledged the media backlash that would ensue, but he noted that Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz made that argument when the Ninth Circuit upheld a block on the original order by a federal judge in Seattle.

A Hawaii judge also put a temporary block on Trumps revised ban, but an appeal of that casewould have gone to the same San Francisco-based appeals court that rejected the originalversion of the ban.

Barnes pointed out that theHawaii judge issued a nationwide injunction against Trumps order.

His basis for doing so was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens, Barnes told Breitbart Daily News.

Every court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights.

He explained the Constitution doesnt extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time.

The case was brought on behalf of Hawaiis leading Muslim imam, who wants to bring over family and friends fromSyria.

Trumps new order bars issuing visas to travelers from Syria and five other Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspends the entire U.S. refugee program for 120 days. It also caps the total number of refugees admitted this fiscal year at 50,000, instead of 110,000.

Hawaii contends Trumps order treats Muslims in the state as second class citizens, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The states petition cites comments by Trump and his surrogates during the campaign to argue that the temporary ban is motivated by animus toward Muslims, violating constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws.

The Hawaii judge, Barnes noted, ruled the imamhas a First Amendment constitutional right to oppose Trumps banbecause hes Muslim.

It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned, where the issue of terror arises from, that that meant they had a special right to visit the [United States], he said.

Barnes pointed outthat the judge did not cite any prior decision.

Barnesargued the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Din decision last year, implicitly ruledthe right to association does not include a right to bring foreigners into the United States.

When you have law professors like Jonathan Turley or Alan Dershowitz or Jeffrey Toobin saying that the prior Ninth Circuit decision which did not go as far as this case did, as the Hawaii judge did saying it basically is bad law, then you know how bad the law actually is, Barnes said.

Reasonable restrictions

WND reported last week that if the administration continues to be thwarted by federal courts, it could implement an alternative security measure that would be authorized by the statute cited in the presidents executive order,according to a prominent Georgetown University professor.

John Banzhaf noted in an interview with WND that Germanys cabinet last month approved a measure allowing GPS ankle tracking devices for individuals who are suspected of posing a terrorist threat but havent been charged or convicted.

Banzhaf pointed out the U.S. law cited in the Trump order, 8 USC 1182(f), gives the president the authority to impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, Americas independent news network.

If the federal-court block on the travel ban continues or the Trump administration loses the case, Banzhaf said, I think they would do well to consider the second part of that article, which permits the president to put any reasonable restrictions on which he wishes.

Its the first part of the statute, he said, that gives the president the authority to ban certain travelers.

It says that he can make an order based upon class of person. And I think any reasonable reading of that doesnt mean hes going to differentiate based upon tall people or short people or whether they have long noses or short noses, Banzhof explained.

When you say class, youre talking about ethnicity, youre talking about religion, youre talking about country of origin, he said.

The statute reads:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Trump is telling us, the Georgetown professor said, that based upon the very weak governmental structure, bordering on chaos, in many of these countries, it is virtually impossible to reasonably vet them, to be able to say beyond any reasonable suspicion these are not, in his words, bad dudes.'

The rest is here:

Trump could 'do an Andrew Jackson' to save travel ban - WND.com

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on Trump could ‘do an Andrew Jackson’ to save travel ban – WND.com

Religion Freedom Act advances from committee – Record Bee

Posted: at 4:51 pm

SACRAMENTO >> The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Religious Freedom Act (Senate Bill 31) by a vote of 5-0 with two members abstaining. Senate Bill 31 prevents California agencies from sharing data that could be used to compile a federal registry based on religion, national origin or ethnicity.

Even our basic American values are being tested by the federal government and the current administration, and the Religious Freedom Act will prevent California from participating in the creation of a discriminatory and ineffective religious registry that tramples on the U.S. Constitution, said Sen. Lara.

On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump proposed a Muslim registry.

No fiscal impact of Senate Bill 31 was found. The California Religious Freedom Act will soon be scheduled for a vote by the full Senate.

Speakers in support of Senate Bill 31 included Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Council on American Islamic Relations, Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights Los Angeles, the California Catholic Conference, the Sierra Club, the California Faculty Association, the California Federation of Teachers, the City of Long Beach, the City and County of San Francisco and the office of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, the office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, California Labor Federation, the State Building and Construction Trades Council, SEIU California, PICO California, ACLU of California, NextGen Climate, Public Counsel, California Immigrant Policy Center, Equality California, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center.

Advertisement

Read this article:

Religion Freedom Act advances from committee - Record Bee

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on Religion Freedom Act advances from committee – Record Bee