TEA PARTY PATRIOTS:
“DONALD TRUMP SLAMS LIBERALS IN ‘DISHONEST PRESS’: ‘I’M GOING TO START NAMING NAMES’
“Real estate magnate and reality television star Donald Trump shredded liberals in the media who are “dishonest” on a conference call with grassroots activists nationwide from Tea Party Patriots on Sunday night, saying he’s planning to start calling out specific reporters for their inaccurate articles. “One of the things that the Tea Party has to be careful of is the dishonest press,” Trump said on the call, which is closed to media but Breitbart News was providing exclusive access to it. It’s so dishonest. They don’t cover certain people accurately. We had something with Citizens United and David Bossie and it was the biggest thing they ever had—and they [the media] don’t even report on it. I walked into the room—you couldn’t even walk in the hallway, it was so crowded, and he said there has never been anything like it. Frankly, it was incredible in a certain way. But the media didn’t report it. You have to be really, really careful with the press—not all of them, because I know some great reporters. But I’m going to start naming names because it really is incredible how dishonest the press is.” Trump added that he doesn’t think the Tea Party movement has gotten a fair shake in the press, and that’s why he’s stood up for conservatives for years. “I’ve always been the biggest advocate and a person who’s stuck up for the Tea Party to this day and I view it as just amazing people who work hard and want to see this country be great again,” Trump said. “I feel very strongly about that, I’ve been a long time fan and I think you know that better than anybody Jenny Beth [Martin].” “Yes I do and we certainly appreciate that very much,” Martin, Tea Party Patriots’ co-founder, said in response during the call. “And we all have learned you certainly have to be careful with the press because they take things and they twist it and there are other times when they just make things up to suit their own agenda.” In response to that, Trump said some in the media will make things up—or twist them out of context—to attack conservatives…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/01/donald-trump-slams-liberals-in-dishonest-press-im-going-to-start-naming-names/
CPAC Panel: How conservatives win in 2016
“…It was a fine topic, and my fellow panelists (Matt Schlapp of ACU, Ned Ryun of American Majority, and Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots) and I found the nearly-full crowd still fully engaged … as is obvious from the video. Curiously, the candidate that drew the greatest response was Jeb Bush, and not in a good way; when we mentioned Bush, boos and catcalls immediately erupted. It’s not a direct result of any misstep by Bush in his CPAC address, but more the problem that I’ve pointed out for over two months, ever since Bush got in the race. He’s not relevant to today’s conservative movement…”
https://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/01/cpac-panel-how-conservatives-win-in-2016/
HEALTHCARE:
OBAMACARE CALLED ‘MEDICINE RUN BY THE DMV’
Doctors: ‘If you want efficiency, don’t look to the government’
“Incorrect tax information. Overly generous government subsidies that must be paid back. A special extension for certain taxpayers who are unaware of the rules. Surprise penalties. Sticker shock in premiums. And deductibles. Obamacare already looks as inefficient and mistake-prone as the Department of Motor Vehicles, according to one leading physician who has served as the president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “[Health care] is not something that government should be involved in to begin with,” said Dr. Lee Hieb, an orthopedic surgeon. “They’ve never done it before, it’s a huge experiment – it just doesn’t work. And, you know, this is just medicine run by the DMV. If you want efficiency, don’t look to the government.” The Obama administration admitted Friday that the federal government sent the wrong tax information to roughly 800,000 people who bought health insurance last year on HealthCare.gov. Administration officials asked those people – who represent about 15 percent of all of last year’s HealthCare.gov enrollees – to delay filing their tax returns for two or three weeks. As a result of the mistake, about 50,000 people who have already filed their 2014 returns will likely have to file again with updated numbers, according to the Washington Post. Hieb, author of “Surviving the Medical Meltdown: Your Guide to Living Through the Disaster of Obamcare,” said the error provides evidence of the incompetence of bureaucracies. “It just reinforces everything that we’ve always known about government getting involved in anything,” she said. “They make it complicated, they make it costly, and it ultimately doesn’t work better than a person could do on their own.” Jane Orient, M.D., the current executive director of AAPS, agrees with Hieb. “This is yet another example of the pervasive incompetence in the implementation of Obamacare, and by the very agency in charge of enforcement,” Orient said. “It is one more reason to shun everything connected with the program. Pay the penalty if you must (if the IRS can figure it out and you are not covered by an exemption).” Orient runs a private consulting practice in which she neither contracts with third-party payers nor provides covered services to beneficiaries of government programs. She advises people to explore alternatives to traditional insurance. “Best to ditch ‘insurance’ altogether – a guaranteed money sink with no guarantee of care – and sign up for a health-sharing ministry (exempt from penalty by statute) and possibly a direct-pay primary care practice,” she said.”
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/obamacare-called-medicine-run-by-the-dmv/
How GOP Takes Away Obamacare From Its Own
“The U.S. Supreme Court, which next week begins to hear a case that could decide whether millions of Americans retain subsidies to buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, could harm low income people in states generally governed by Republicans who support derailing the law. At stake in the case known as King v. Burwell is whether subsidies are illegal because wording in the health law rules out subsidies in states that didn’t establish their own exchanges. Three dozen states are using the federal exchange to buy coverage and most are essentially led by Republican governors or legislatures that have intense disdain for the Affordable Care Act. Opponents of the law brought the case, which is laid out in more detail in Scotusblog. A court decision would likely be handed down in June. Below are two charts that look at the specific costs and states that purchased coverage on exchanges, or what are below called the “federally-facilitated marketplace” or “FFM” as the charts from research firm Avalere Health indicate. If the high court rules against the Obama administration (the defendant is U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell), an estimated 8 million Americans would lose subsidies and insurance markets could be upset in the three dozen states that used the federal exchange. “The federal exchange generally serves low-income populations in red states, so that’s where the premium increases would be concentrated,” said Dan Mendelson, chief executive of Avalere Health. Here are two charts from Avalere Health outlining the states and ramifications the Supreme Court could have should its ruling eliminate subsidies from Americans who purchased coverage on the federal exchange, or FFM:..”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/02/28/how-gop-takes-away-obamacare-from-its-own/
Hospital Profits Soar As Obamacare Prescribes More Paying Patients
“Hospital operators continue to see profits and revenue not seen in a decade thanks to the Affordable Care Act and related efforts to sign up uninsured patients to coverage so facilities can reduce unpaid medical bills. Large hospital operators HCA Holdings HCA -1.01% (HCA), Tenet Healthcare THC -0.94% (THC) and Community Health Systems (CYH) in the last month issued robust 2014 earnings, revenues and large declines in uncompensated care costs, a key measure of expenses. “We reported Tenet’s strongest quarterly EBITDA in more than 10 years,” Tenet chief executive officer Trevor Fetter boasted last week of a key earnings acronym in the hospital chain’s 2014 fourth quarter. Hospitals have been working to enroll uninsured patients. Tenet said its “Path to Health program” launched in 2013 continued to enroll more patients in this year’s second open enrollment period through the use of financial counselors, direct mail marketing and community events. “We held nearly 800 outreach and enrollment events, reaching tens of thousands of people in our priority markets,” Fetter said. “Our daily enrollments have increased by more than 60% during this enrollment period and we estimate that we will exceed the number of exchange enrollments that we achieved last year.” Hospital operators are reporting more paying patients and fewer uninsured, which means far fewer unpaid medical bills. “For the last four quarters, the decline in self-pay admits and adjusted admits and the increase in Medicaid in expansion states have grown quarter over quarter,” Community Health CFO Larry Cash said…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/03/01/hospital-profits-soar-as-obamacare-prescribes-more-paying-patients/
How to handle health insurance on your taxes
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/how-to-handle-health-insurance-on-your-taxes/
GOP: ‘We have a plan’ for ObamaCare
“Three GOP Senate leaders declared Sunday that they have united the party around an ObamaCare backup plan, just days before the Supreme Court hears its biggest healthcare case in three years. “Republicans have a plan to create a bridge away from Obamacare,” Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), wrote in an op-ed published in The Washington Post late Sunday. The three GOP chairmen revealed new pieces of a strategy in case of plaintiff victory in King v. Burwell, a conservative-backed lawsuit that alleges people in 37 states have been illegally receiving subsidies under ObamaCare. Their first idea – which they say is their top priority – is giving people money to help them “keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period.” “It would be unfair to allow families to lose their coverage, particularly in the middle of the year,” they wrote. The senators do not say how the “financial help” would differ from the current tax credits under ObamaCare. The senators also promise to work with governors in those 37 states – nearly all run by Republican governors – to offer them “freedom and flexibility” to move away from ObamaCare. The governors have recently raised alarms about having to rapidly adapt to the potential loss of billions of dollars of subsidies. The Republicans’ op-ed is an effort to counter criticism that the party is unprepared to address the potential fallout – as well as appeal to the Supreme Court justices as they begin arguments. If the court rules against the Obama administration, experts warn that more than 8 million people would lose their subsidies, many of whom could be forced to drop their coverage. The new details of their plan also comes one week after freshman Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) penned his own explosive op-ed in which he warned the Republican Party could “lose the whole war” against ObamaCare because too many Republicans remain divided on a replacement strategy. Sasse also pledged to create his own plan, which would include temporary financial help for ObamaCare customers. A spokesman for Sasse stressed Sunday that the plan would not simply extend the current subsidies, but create a new type of assistance program. King v. Burwell is widely viewed as the Republican’s best chance to undo ObamaCare before 2016. But fears within the Republicans party have grown in recent weeks as the party struggles to unite around a strategy to prevent the massive disruption that could come from a plaintiff victory. Even as ObamaCare remains unpopular nationally, polls show the vast majority of Americans support the subsidies. Still, many conservatives remain firmly opposed to any piece of ObamaCare, including subsidies.”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/234270-gop-we-have-a-plan-for-obamacare
AP EXPLAINS: Supreme Court case against Obama’s health law
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ap-explains-supreme-court-case-against-obamas-health-law
Obamacare rule harms millions: Opposing view
“In King v. Burwell, four Virginia residents are a challenging an IRS Obamacare rule in the Supreme Court. While the case involves only a handful of plaintiffs, it is really about the millions of Americans who are victims of Obamacare’s mandates and penalties. Like the King plaintiffs, millions are harmed by Obamacare’s individual mandate, which forces them to either buy insurance that they don’t want or to pay a tax penalty. But the IRS rule also has devastating consequences for countless other Americans and their families. The victims include workers who have lost their jobs or have been pushed into part-time employment; individuals who lost their health plans and doctors despite White House promises to the contrary; and those whose insurance premiums and taxes are rising due to Obamacare. If the King plaintiffs win, many of these people, who live in states that chose not to set up their own insurance exchanges, would be protected from these harms. The specific issue before the court is whether this IRS rule is valid. That rule gives insurance subsidies, paid by taxpayers, to every state in the country. Congress, however, only authorized those subsidies for states that choose to set up their own insurance exchanges. At this point, at least 34 states have rejected that choice. The IRS rule raises a basic issue that goes far beyond Obamacare: Do agencies have to follow the laws enacted by Congress, or can they rewrite them? The IRS claims that it’s merely following congressional intent, but what it’s really doing is torturing statutory language. That violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, under which Congress makes the law and agencies implement it. And to the extent the IRS gets away with it, we’ll all be victims. As for the legal standing of our plaintiffs, some have questioned it, but this is a non-issue in the case. The Justice Department challenged the plaintiffs’ standing in two different courts, and it lost each time. And at the Supreme Court stage, the government expressly conceded the standing issue. No surprise there.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/01/king-v-burwell-competitive-enterprise-institute-editorials-debates/24229781/
GOP fears grow over ObamaCare challenge
“Republican fears are mounting over a Supreme Court case that the party has long hailed as its best chance to undo ObamaCare. The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on a GOP-backed case that threatens to erase healthcare subsidies for 8 million people. The vast stakes are raising alarm among Republicans, particularly in the Senate, who increasingly fear a backlash at the polls if their party can’t find a fix. A plaintiff victory would bring Republicans the closest to repealing ObamaCare. But the party has begun to fret about the fallout from King v. Burwell, fearing the sudden loss of subsidies could put pressure on lawmakers and governors to restore them. The loss of subsidies for millions of people would also put the Obama administration on the offense for the first time to protect its signature healthcare law.
A White House crusade against the GOP would mean a firestorm of accusations that the party is taking away care and endangering lives – building up for the 2016 election…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/234191-gop-fears-grow-over-obamacare-challenge
Is GOP finally getting nervous that the Supreme Court might gut Obamacare?
“Supreme Court might overturn a key provision of the Affordable Care Act with unalloyed glee. The court might “ultimately take it down,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) crowed in December. “You could have a mulligan here, a major do-over of the whole thing, that opportunity presented to us by the Supreme Court.” We’re not hearing that so much these days, as the court prepares to take oral arguments on a major anti-Obamacare case next week. In the case, King vs. Burwell, conservative organizations argue that a five-word phrase buried in the ACA renders it illegal to award tax subsidies to insurance purchasers in three dozen states that opted out of setting up their own individual insurance exchanges, and chose to let the federal government do it for them. Most legal experts, and the federal government, argue from legal precedent that a hyper-literal interpretation of a single phrase can’t be used to contradict the overall import of the ACA, which explicitly aims to bring affordable insurance to everyone in the country. But that will be up to the Supreme Court. What’s making Republicans and conservatives nervous is the fear they’ll be blamed for the carnage resulting from a court ruling that strips tax subsidies from some 8 million residents and destroys the insurance markets of those three dozen states. Ultraconservative Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) laid out the consequences starkly this week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Chemotherapy turned off for perhaps 12,000 people, dialysis going dark for 10,000. The horror stories will be real. What will happen next is predictable: A deluge of attacks on Republicans for supposedly having caused this.” In the Washington Examiner, conservative pundit Byron York quotes an unnamed GOP aide fretting about “ads saying cancer patients are being thrown out of treatment, and Obama will be saying all Congress has to do is fix a typo.”…”
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-gop-is-finally-getting-nervous-20150227-column.html#page=1
Is Supreme Court’s chief justice ready to take down ObamaCare?
“U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts faced a conservative backlash after casting a decisive vote to save ObamaCare in 2012. Now he must weigh in on the law once again. The case of King v. Burwell, set for arguments before the Court on Wednesday, threatens to gut the law by invalidating subsidies to help millions of people buy insurance in the roughly three-dozen states relying on the federally run marketplace. While it is legally far different than the 2012 case — a question of interpreting the text of the law rather than ruling on its constitutionality — Roberts faces the same kind of scrutiny. After Roberts’s surprise ruling in a 5-4 decision to uphold the law the last time, conservatives denounced him as a sellout. Conservative host Glenn Beck printed T-shirts with Roberts’s picture above the word “COWARD.” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, now a possible Republican presidential candidate, said Roberts was “just playing to the editorial pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times.” CBS reported after the decision, citing two anonymous sources, that Roberts had switched his vote to uphold the law and withstood a fierce lobbying campaign from the conservative wing of the Court. Now conservatives are putting pressure on Roberts again. John Yoo, who was a prominent lawyer in President George W. Bush’s Justice Department, wrote in National Review that the new case gives Roberts “the chance to atone for his error in upholding Obamacare.” But it remains unclear which way Roberts will rule. The challengers argue that the plain English of a phrase in the law referring to marketplaces “established by the state” clearly prohibits subsidies from being disbursed on federally run exchanges not established by states. The administration argues that is a nonsensical reading of one phrase that is contradicted by the rest of the law, which makes no mention of restricting subsidies only to some states. Supporters of upholding the subsidies also have their eyes on Roberts. “The chief is clearly the prime person to look at,” said Simon Lazarus, senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. The legal world is buzzing about a decision the Supreme Court handed down on Wednesday, thinking it might provide a window into how Roberts will rule in King. In the case, Yates v. United States — which centers on a fisherman accused of destroying evidence that he violated restrictions — Roberts joined a majority opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, holding that a fish is not a “tangible object” under a certain law. While a fish is literally a “tangible object,” Ginsburg, along with Roberts, pointed to Congress’s intent in passing the law, which was to crack down on financial fraud, and said that fish have nothing to do with that…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/234200-is-john-roberts-ready-to-take-down-obamacare
Six words might decide the fate of Obamacare at the Supreme Court
“When the Supreme Court takes up the latest challenge to President Obama’s health-care law this week, how the justices interpret a six-word phrase in the bill could determine its fate. The law, adopted in 2010, says the federal government can pay subsidies to help people afford insurance bought through “an Exchange established by the state.” But two-thirds of the states have opted against setting up their own exchanges, and as a result, more Americans have been buying insurance through the federal insurance marketplace. Now, opponents of the law will make their case to the high court that Americans who are not using the state exchanges are ineligible for subsidies. And if they win, insurance premiums could skyrocket and many people might drop their coverage — possibly undermining the whole health-care program. And as the justices weigh whether the health-care law in fact has a fatal glitch, one of the key questions is this: Why did the Obama administration rule-writing officials in the Internal Revenue Service and its parent agency, the Treasury Department, ultimately interpret the language the way they did? It had never occurred to the Treasury Department official responsible for making the changes in the tax code required by the law that there was more than one way to read the phrase — until she happened across an article in a trade journal. Emily McMahon, deputy assistant treasury secretary for tax policy, read an article in Bloomberg BNA’s Daily Tax Report in January 2011 raising questions about whether federal subsidies could be paid for millions of Americans buying insurance under the Affordable Care Act, according to Treasury Department officials. The issue was whether the law allowed these payments if the coverage was bought in states that did not set up their own insurance marketplaces. So McMahon called a meeting with two of her top lawyers, one of them recalled, and asked whether there was “a glitch in the law we needed to worry about.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-six-words-might-hold-the-fate-of-obamacare-before-the-supreme-court/2015/03/01/437c2836-bd39-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html?wprss=rss_politics
SCOTUS’s Upcoming Remedial Reading Lessons
“In two cases next week, the Court should make clear that the law means what it says. The Supreme Court frequently ponders arcane matters. But this week, however, in oral arguments concerning two cases, the justices’ task will be to teach remedial reading to Congress and to Arizona. On Wednesday, the justices will consider this: Did Congress mean what it said when, with patently coercive intent, it stipulated in the Affordable Care Act that subsidies for persons compelled to purchase health insurance can be disbursed only through exchanges “established by the state”? If so, billions have been illegally disbursed through federal exchanges in the 34 states that resisted the ACA’s pressure to establish exchanges. On Monday, however, the court will consider whether the Constitution’s Framers meant what they said when, in the Election Clause, they assigned an important function to each state’s “legislature.” This clause says: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) supposedly is a better idea. It was created by a state constitutional amendment passed by voter initiative. The commission is composed of five members. Four of them are chosen by the majority and minority leaders of the two parties in the two legislative chambers — but these leaders must pick from a list of just 25 (of the 4.9 million Arizonans of voting age) selected by another state commission, one for appellate court appointments. No member of the legislature may serve on the IRC. It draws congressional district maps that are not subject to even such checks as a gubernatorial veto or referendum. The legislature’s role is reduced to submitting nonbinding recommendations to the IRC — “a function without consequence,” as the legislature says in its brief to the court…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414587/scotuss-upcoming-remedial-reading-lessons-george-will
In ACA Case, Context Is Key
“As with everything else here these days, the talk about the Affordable Care Act case before the Supreme Court this week will focus on ideological splits: Will any conservative justice join the four liberals all but certain to back the administration? In fact, the correct conservative legal position would be to rule for the administration. First, it would demonstrate greater deference to the constitutional rights of states within a federal system. Second, it would reflect a restrained conception of the judicial role, respecting statutory language rather than legislating from the bench. The case, King v. Burwell, concerns the availability of insurance subsidies in the 34 states that opted for federally run insurance exchanges rather than setting up their own. A subsection outlining how to calculate these subsidies refers to an “exchange established by the state.” Thus, the argument of those out to destroy the law: If Congress wanted to subsidize customers in federal exchanges, it would have done that. So, for a statutory strict constructionist, case closed. Not so fast. I’ll dispense with the statutory interpretation issue first, and take guidance from Justice Antonin Scalia, an undoubted conservative, who literally wrote the book on statutory interpretation. Scalia’s approach is termed “textualist,” in contrast to the loosey-goosier “purposivist” method of those who see the court’s role as reading a statute in light of its underlying legislative intent. A purposivist would have no trouble deciding this case: The Affordable Care Act is designed to cover as many uninsured as possible. But a good textualist would rule for the government, too, looking solely to the structure and language of the law. First, “it is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” That language comes from the Supreme Court’s 2000 ruling rejecting the Food and Drug Administration’s bid to regulate tobacco. It was written by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and joined by Justices Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito weren’t yet serving.) In the ACA case, the text must be read in the context of other provisions that would be rendered absurd if subsidies were limited to state-operated exchanges. To take one example: No one could buy insurance on federal exchanges because the statute defines an individual “qualified” to purchase as one who “resides in the state that established the exchange.” So under the challengers’ reading, Congress would have taken the trouble to establish exchanges not only doomed to fail, because of the unavailability of subsidies, but that would have no customers at all. A second rule of statutory construction is that Congress “does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions — it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.” That comes from a 2001 Scalia opinion, joined by Kennedy and Thomas. In this case, according to the challengers, Congress hid quite an elephant — a provision that even they agree would gut the law — in a five-word mousehole. Which brings me to the states’ rights issue that, for conservatives, should be even more compelling. The ACA created federal exchanges as the states’ backup plan, respecting states’ rights to choose. Under the challengers’ reading, this federalist flexibility would be transformed into federal punishment: Citizens of states that failed to establish exchanges would be deprived of subsidies, sending the federal exchanges into a death spiral. Individual insurance markets in those states would collapse, too, because other provisions in the law — such as requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions — would still apply, driving sicker people into those markets and premium costs up…”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/02/in_aca_case_context_is_key_125781.html
Be Prepared
How to respond if the Court ends Obamacare subsidies.
“Few people expect much to happen on health care in the 114th Congress, certainly not President Obama. He plans to continue bending and twisting his interpretation of Obamacare’s many complex provisions as necessary to keep it afloat and to avoid dealing at all with opposition to the law among the public or the Republicans who now run Congress. But King v. Burwell could upend the president’s plans. That’s the case, now on the Supreme Court’s docket, contesting the legality of subsidy payments to people in states that chose not to build their own Obamacare insurance exchanges. A decision against the government’s provision of the subsidies would undermine the law in the 37 affected states and, in the process, disrupt insurance for millions of people who signed up for coverage on the assumption that the subsidies would be available to them. The blame for the mess that would surely ensue should rightfully fall on the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress. Congressional Democrats wrote the statute on their own, and the administration has enforced it. If the Court rules that the statute was written carelessly and enforced lawlessly, Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. But don’t expect them to take responsibility. If the administration loses the case, Obama is sure to denounce the ruling as an ideological power grab by the Court and then to demand that Republicans in Congress fix it, with no strings attached. Further, the administration will almost certainly develop a workaround for the states, allowing them to designate and use the federal exchange as if it had been built by the states. This would give administration officials a justification to continue paying federal subsidies in the states agreeing to the workaround, even if it were legally questionable…”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/be-prepared_867731.html
Bobby Jindal: GOP Leaders in Congress ‘Fearful’ of Repealing Obamacare
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/28/bobby-jindal-gop-leaders-in-congress-fearful-of-repealing-obamacare/
IMMIGRATION:
Immigration debate may have increased illegal crossings
GAO: Illegals banked on staying in U.S. based on rumors
“The debate over legalizing illegal immigrants was “a primary cause” of last summer’s surge of Central Americans jumping the U.S.-Mexico border, the Government Accountability Office reported Friday, citing surveys of U.S. officials on the ground in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Crime, gang violence and poverty played major roles in pushing tens of thousands of illegal immigrant children to make the trek, and, to a lesser degree, so did abuse at home and lack of access to good schools. But the children were also pulled to the U.S. by ties to family already living here and by the belief that even if they crossed illegally, they would be given citizenship, the GAO said after surveying State Department, Homeland Security Department and U.S. Agency for International Development workers in each of the three countries. “For example, the State official’s response for Honduras reported that some Hondurans believed that comprehensive immigration reform in the United States would lead to a path to citizenship for anyone living in the United States at the time of reform,” the GAO said…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/1/border-jumpers-enticed-by-legalization-debate-in-u/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Foreign workers fill hundreds of Sacramento-area IT jobs
“It’s nearly 8 p.m., and inside a state office building two dozen computer experts design and troubleshoot a system that will take and process millions of unemployment claims each year. It’s a $200 million Employment Development Department project, but with the exception of two managers, everyone inside the office is from outside of the U.S. They are employed by Deloitte, a major U.S. IT company hired by the state to create and manage its Unemployment Insurance Modernization project. The mostly Indian nationals are allowed to work here under a visa program called H-1B. Tech companies like Microsoft, Intel, Google and Facebook say they need hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to fill jobs here because American colleges can’t crank out computer science grads fast enough. In 2013, the industry lobbied Congress on the issue to the tune of almost $14 million. Those companies, who need workers with highly specialized knowledge like computer expertise, are awarded the visas through a lottery process. It’s allowed under the Immigration and Nationality Act and administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. The visas can be valid as long as six years. News10 reached out to several H-1B workers over the past three months, and they all declined to comment for this story. “The program is going unfettered, unchecked, without bounds, and it’s all in the interest of profit,” Computer Database Administrator Chris Brown said. He said was displaced by one of the special visa workers in 1996, and he has been following the issue for the past 18 years. Hewlett Packard laid off Brown from its Roseville plant during the height of the H-1B program, when as many as 300,000 of the workers were allowed to take jobs in the U.S. The cap for H-1B visas today is 85,000 after federal audits showed there were abuses in the program. There’s an effort on Capitol Hill to raise the ceiling again to levels last seen in the mid 1990s. And, during a recent presidential trip to India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked President Obama to help loosen the restrictions on the H-1B program. India’s tech outsourcing industry makes billions of dollars every year sending programmers and engineers overseas to work for U.S. companies. Brown is watching those new developments with interest. When he lost his job in 1996, it was just two weeks before Christmas. He says he’s afraid more Americans will be replaced by foreign-born workers. “I’m a single income, so on that particular day, as a direct result of this program, we were unable to provide Christmas presents and I kept telling my kids that day that Santa might not show up,” Brown said. A spokesperson for Hewlett Packard said he would not comment on layoffs that happened 18 years and three CEOs ago, but he defended the visas as a needed resource for HP and the industry as a whole…”
http://www.news10.net/story/news/investigations/2015/02/24/foreign-workers-fill-hundreds-of-sacramento-area-it-jobs/22603549/
DEMOCRATS APOLOGIZE AFTER FUNDRAISING OFF OF FAKE DHS SHUTDOWN
“Whoops. Democrats were so convinced that there would be a Department of Homeland Security shutdown last night that they jumped the gun on their plans to raise money because of it. An email sent by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee alerted donors that Republicans had shut down the Department of Homeland Security – even though Congress actually avoided doing so. “Here’s the bad news: Republicans forced a shutdown of Homeland Security,” the email blared. “It started at MIDNIGHT last night. Now more than ever, we need to raise $200,000 to launch an effective Rapid Response campaign against obstructionist Republicans.” The next morning, the DCCC emailed donors to apologize. “We screwed up,” the email read. “According to our records, we sent you an email this morning that you weren’t supposed to receive. Homeland Security did NOT shut down last night. We’re sorry for the mistake (we hate when this happens).” Undeterred by their mistake, however, they still take the opportunity to plead for more money. “Republicans are STILL trying to use our first responders as a bargaining chip against President Obama,” the email read. “These next hours are critical. Please — can you chip in to our Republican Accountability Fund before tonight’s federal fundraising deadline?”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/28/democrats-apologize-after-fundraising-off-of-fake-dhs-shutdown/
House Democratic campaign arm fundraises off shutdown that didn’t happen
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-democratic-campaign-arm-fundraises-off-shutdown-that-didnt-happen/article/2560870
Boehner’s defeat was actually really unusual. Here’s why.
“On Friday, the politics surrounding the continued funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took a surprising, and disappointing, turn for House Speaker John Boehner. Facing restive conservative Republicans who wanted to tie DHS funding to a repudiation of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, Boehner sought to extend funding for the DHS for three weeks and arrange for conference proceedings with the Senate – which on Wednesday had passed a “clean” bill (shorn of any immigration language) to fund DHS through September. Boehner’s hope was that Republican House and Senate leaders, once in conference, would come up with a workable solution. But this hope was dashed when Boehner and his leadership team could not round up enough votes: the measure failed on a 203-224 vote with 52 Republicans defecting. With time running out, House Democrats – who had voted largely as a bloc against Boehner’s plan – came to the rescue and provided enough votes for a one-week postponement. In exchange for the Democrats’ support, Boehner is believed to have promised a clean vote on the Senate bill on March 6. Boehner’s ongoing struggle with the conservative wing of his caucus is well known. But Friday’s vote was unusual. In fact, it almost never happens. Here’s why. During his time as Speaker, several majority party failures have occurred, as Boehner has ignored the informal “Hastert Rule” and allowed legislation to go forward when he didn’t have a majority of GOP support. This resulted in what is known as a “roll” — when a majority of the majority party opposes a bill that ends up passing. Notable examples of rolls since the beginning of 2013 have included the revision and extension of Bush-era tax cuts (bundled into the “fiscal cliff” deal), Hurricane Sandy Relief, and the Violence Against Women Act. These examples have been written about extensively. Rolls also feature prominently in political science scholarship, such as the book “Setting the Agenda” by Gary Cox and Mathew McCubbins. In ignoring the Hastert Rule, Boehner bucked conservative opposition and relied upon Democratic support to pass legislation – which hurt his reputation as a party leader in the short run but preserved (in his estimation) the overall Republican brand name in the longer run…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/28/boehners-defeat-was-actually-really-unusual-heres-why/?wprss=rss_national
Split over ‘tactics’ is to blame for DHS funding impasse, House GOP leaders say
“Fanning out across Sunday morning’s talk shows, the top three House Republican leaders sought to portray Friday’s embarrassing defeat of a Department of Homeland Security funding bill as the result of a dispute over the “tactics” of how to combat the president’s executive orders on immigration — not as a sign of a more profound divide between conservative and moderate GOP factions. “We do have some members who disagree from time to time over the tactics that we decide to employ,” House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Sunday on “Face the Nation.” “But remember Republicans are united in this idea that the president has far exceeded his constitutional authority, and we all want to do things to stop the president from his illicit activities.” “We get in an argument over tactics from time to time,” he reiterated. “The goals are all the same.” Meanwhile, on “Meet the Press,” Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) struck much the same note when asked to react to the provocative suggestion, from moderate Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in the Los Angeles Times, that Friday’s floor failure was driven by “a small group of phony conservative members who have no credible policy proposals and no political strategy to stop Obama’s lawlessness.” “We have a difference of opinion in strategy and tactics, but in principle we are united,” McCarthy said. “We are united in the principle there’s a right way and wrong way to legislate. Unfortunately, the president chose the wrong way.” Facing a midnight deadline, Boehner wanted his fellow Republicans on Friday to support a three-week extension of funding for the Department of Homeland Security in order to continuing battling President Obama’s executive orders to expand pathways to legal status for illegal immigrants. But the vote failed after 52 Republicans sided with the vast majority of House Democrats to defeat the measure. It was a particularly embarrassing defeat for Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who won a leadership position last year in part because of the expectation that he could bring the House’s most conservative members behind Boehner on key votes such as this one. On “Fox News Sunday,” Scalise faced pointed questions from host Chris Wallace about his failure to deliver the votes of “Freedom Caucus” Republicans to Boehner. “You are the tea party favorite, if you will, who joined the leadership with the assurance that you were going to be able to bring more conservative members to back the leadership. You’re also, as the House whip, the person who’s supposed to count the votes,” Wallace said. “You were defeated, and defeated basically by your own caucus — 52 Republicans. What happened?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/01/boehner-scalise-DHS-funding/?wprss=rss_homepage
Boehner: ‘I think’ I can lead conservatives in House GOP caucus
“Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Sunday said he thinks he can lead conservative members of his caucus who disagree with him on tactics to fight President Obama’s executive orders on immigration. In a live interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Boehner was asked if he can continue leading those members as Speaker. “I think so. I’m not going to suggest it’s easy, because it’s not,” he said. “We do have some members who disagree from time to time over the tactics that we decide to employ,” Boehner added. “Republicans are united that the president has far exceeded his constitutional authority.” Asked if he likes his job as Speaker, Boehner said, “Most days. Friday wasn’t a whole lot of fun… It was just messy.” Boehner was referring to a major defeat of his initial plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through March 19. The House had voted earlier to form a conference with the Senate to hammer out differences over attaching immigration provisions to the funding bill. On Friday evening, the vote for a three-week funding bill failed in a 203-224 vote after conservatives balked at the strategy and Democrats whipped against it, hoping for a “clean” bill funding DHS through September. The House later passed a bill funding DHS for only one week. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested in a letter to Democrats Friday that she had struck a deal with GOP leaders to bring the full-year spending bill up for a vote this week. Boehner appeared to deny those rumors, which other GOP leaders had also rejected this weekend. “The promise I made to Ms. Pelosi is the same promise I made to Republicans that we would follow regular order. The bill is back in the Senate. We’ve asked for a conference with the Senate,” Boehner said Sunday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has scheduled a vote to advance the bill to move to conference for Monday afternoon, but Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has already promised to block it. “If they vote, in fact, not to go to conference, this bill may be coming back to the House,” said Boehner, who didn’t detail his plan to avoid a DHS shutdown next Friday. If Boehner brings the “clean” full-year DHS funding bill up for a vote without immigration riders attached, there’s been chatter among conservatives about a possible coup to oust Boehner as Speaker. Asked which party Boehner likes dealing with more, he said, “I like dealing with both parties.”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/234247-boehner-i-think-i-can-lead-conservatives-in-house-gop-caucus
Boehner After DHS Funding Revolt: House a ‘Rambunctious Place’
“After conservatives lawmakers in the House rejected his push on Friday to fund the Department of Homeland Security for an additional three weeks — instead passing just a oneweek extension — House speaker John Boehner conceded that the chamber is “a rambunctious place.” Speaking to CBS’s John Dickerson, Boehner wouldn’t admit that some lawmakers undermined him when — worried he may cave in to President Obama’s unilateral amnesty — they revolted against his strategy to provide a long-term funding source to DHS. “It’s the House of Representatives,” hes said. “The House is a rambunctious place. We have 435 members. A lot of members have a lot of different ideas about what we should and shouldn’t be doing.” When asked if he could lead those members, Boehner replied, “I think so. I think so. I’m not going to suggest it’s easy, because it’s not.” The speaker suggested it’s “the frustration of the country” with Obama’s policies — not his own leadership — that has caused the frustration of many GOP lawmakers…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414630/boehner-after-dhs-funding-revolt-house-rambunctious-place-brendan-bordelon
John Boehner on ‘Messy’ Day That House Tossed DHS Bill: ‘I’m Not Into Messy’
“John Boehner, too. For the House speaker, “Friday wasn’t all that fun,” he says, though “most days” he likes his job. The Ohio Republican and his leadership team in the GOP-controlled House had a stunning defeat when a three-week spending bill for the Homeland Security Department went down after more than 50 conservatives voted against it — contending that it will allow the Obama administration to implement its executive action on immigration. The rejection came just hours before a threatened agency shutdown. A compromise — with support from Democrats — is keeping the department open for one more week. Boehner tells CBS’ “Face the Nation” that Friday “was just messy and I’m not into messy.” He calls the House “a rambunctious place” and says he enjoys “all the personalities — and I have got a lot of them.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/01/john-boehner-on-messy-day-that-house-tossed-dhs-bill-im-not-into-messy/
John Boehner: Obama’s ‘illicit activity’ caused shutdown standoff
“House Speaker John A. Boehner laid the blame on President Obama for the standoff over homeland security funding, saying the president is “running the country right off the cliff.” “Remember what’s causing this: It’s the president of the United States overreaching, and it’s not just on immigration,” Mr. Boehner said on “Face the Nation” on CBS. He pointed to the 38 times Mr. Obama unilaterally changed the Obamacare law, though it was Mr. Obama’s action on immigration that led to the showdown for the Department of Homeland Security. “So the frustration in the country, represented through the frustration of our members, has people scared to death that the president is running the country right off the cliff,” said Mr. Boehner, Ohio Republican. The president in November announced a plan to unilaterally grant legal status, work permits and Social Security numbers to more than 4 million illegal immigrants. Republicans decried it as unconstitutional and moved to block the program. House Republicans rebelled Friday against Mr. Boehner’s plan to pass a three-week funding bill to extend the fight and avoid a shutdown of the department that night. Enough GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to kill the bill in a startling rebuke to Mr. Boehner.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/1/john-boehner-obamas-illicit-activity-caused-shutdo/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
GOP leaders are struggling to show they really are in charge
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150228/us–congress-homeland-c49b5fa9bb.html
Senator Mike Lee: Congress At Fault For Obama’s Amnesty Power Grab [AUDIO]
“Republican Sen. Mike Lee said “almost all of” President Obama’s executive amnesty action is ultimately the fault of Congress passing vague laws. Asked how much of the blame for the shift in power from Congress to the executive branch should be laid at the feet of Congresses of the past, Lee said: I’m going to make a lot of people unhappy with what I’m about to say in response to that question, but almost all of it is Congress’s fault. We’re kidding ourselves if we think we can come up with a system of laws that delegates all of this lawmaking power to the executive branch. We’re kidding ourselves if we don’t think presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike, are going to abuse that. We’re kidding ourselves if we don’t think that’s going to result in an erosion of not only our constitutional order, but also liberty itself. So, yeah, this is Congress’s fault, it is overwhelmingly Congress’s fault and we’ve got to turn it back. Speaking with me on my WBAL Radio show at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Lee was unambiguous in his warning that Republicans, particularly conservatives, cannot rely on the courts to keep executive power in check. Congress, when passing laws, has to be explicit in its language to prevent presidents from having wiggle-room in the implementation and expansion of laws. “We cannot allow the president to act as though he were a government of one,” Lee said. “He is not. We have a Constitution, that Constitution puts the legislative power, the power to make law, in the hands of Congress. And if the President of the United States doesn’t like our current immigration laws he needs to go through Congress, he can’t just decree it.” On the strategy some Republicans have suggested of letting this issue play out in the courts. “We don’t know how that litigation is going to turn out. And I think it would be unwise for us to proceed as if that preliminary injunction is going to stick,” Lee said…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/01/senator-mike-lee-congress-at-fault-for-obamas-amnesty-power-grab-audio/
Congress OKs 1-week bill to keep Homeland Security open
“Bordering on dysfunction, Congress passed a one-week bill late Friday night to avert a partial shutdown of the Homeland Security Department, as leaders in both political parties quelled a revolt by House conservatives furious that the measure left President Barack Obama’s immigration policy intact. The final vote of a long day and night was a bipartisan 357-60 in the House, a little more than an hour after the Senate cleared the measure without so much as a roll call. That sent the legislation to the White House for Obama’s signature, which the president provided just a few minutes before midnight, capping a day of bruising political battles and rhetoric to match. “You have made a mess,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at one point to Republicans, as recriminations filled the House chamber and the midnight deadline neared for a partial shutdown of an agency with major anti-terrorism responsibilities. Even some Republicans readily agreed. “There are terrorist attacks all over world and we’re talking about closing down Homeland Security. This is like living in world of crazy people,” tweeted Rep. Peter King of New York, a former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
Hours after conservatives joined with Democrats to vote down a three-week funding measure, 224-203, the Senate presented a one-week alternative to keep open the agency, which has responsibility for border control as well as anti-terrorist measures. That amounted to a take-it-or-leave it offer less than three hours before the deadline. Some Republican opponents — members of a “Freedom Caucus” — sat together in the chamber as the vote total mounted in the legislation’s favor. This time, Pelosi urged her rank-and-file to support the short-term measure, saying it would lead to passage next week of a bill to fund the agency through the Sept. 30 end of the budget year without immigration add-ons. Aides to Speaker John Boehner promptly said there had been no such promise made. Taken together, the day’s roller-coaster events at the Capitol underscored the difficulty Republicans have had so far this year in translating last fall’s election gains into legislative accomplishment — a step its own leaders say is necessary to establish the party’s credentials as a responsible, governing party. Republicans gained control of the Senate in November’s balloting, and emerged with their largest House majority in more than 70 years. Further demonstrating GOP woes, House GOP leaders abruptly called off a vote on a major education bill that had attracted significant opposition from conservatives as well as Democrats and the White House. Aides attributed that decision to the need to work separately on rounding up enough votes to pass the funding measure for Homeland Security. For their part, tea party conservatives in the House unflinchingly defended their actions. “It does not make any difference whether the funding is for three weeks, three months or a full fiscal year. If it’s illegal, it’s illegal,” said Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala…”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150228/us–congress-homeland-53e9b374a4.html
DHS Funded — for a Week
“Congress passed a one-week continuing resolution to fund the Department of Homeland Security after House Democrats and a group of conservatives blocked passage of the three-week funding bill. House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) wants to create a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the House-passed DHS funding bill that bars President Obama from implementing his executive orders on immigration and the Senate-passed bill, which contains no such stipulations. (Senate Democrats blocked debate on the House-passed bill in order to avoid voting on the immigration orders directly.) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) convinced Democrats to back the one-week funding measure by implying that Boehner had promised to put a clean DHS bill on the floor next week; Boehner’s office denies that claim. Representative Gerry Connolly (D., Va.) criticized Pelosi’s backing of the one-week measure on the basis of such a presumed deal, describing it to National Journal as “an awfully thin reed on which to decide to vote for a one-week extension after you whipped Democrats to vote against a three-week extension.” Some Boehner allies fear that he might lose his speakership if he brings up a clean DHS bill for a vote, but conservative backbenchers poured cold water on that idea. “I’ve had my differences with the speaker at times both on tactics and policy,” Representative John Fleming (R., La.) told Politico. “But we elect each speaker for two years. There is no discussion or talk among conservatives to get him out.” Representative Mike Simpson (R., Idaho) said that Boehner’s supporters would continue to back him even if a minority of Republicans deprived him of the votes necessary to win a support from a majority of the House. “There’s enough of us that would say, ‘We’re not voting for anybody else,’” Simpson told National Journal. “If somehow you did something that made him step out and put up another candidate, we’re voting for Boehner and you’re never going to have votes…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414610/dhs-funded-week-joel-gehrke
Nancy Pelosi: Even Members of Congress ‘Cannot Live’ Without Getting Paychecks on Time
“Before Congress voted Friday to fund the Department of Homeland Security for one week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) attempted to illustrate how difficult it would be for DHS employees to go without getting paid. “I don’t know about you, but I think almost everybody I know cannot live without having our paycheck on time – members of Congress even,” Pelosi said. She didn’t add that most members of Congress make an annual salary of $174,000 — nor that she’s the 14th richest member of Congress, with a net worth of $29.01 million, according to Roll Call.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/28/nancy-pelosi-even-members-of-congress-cannot-live-without-getting-paychecks-on-time/
Democrats: Boehner Promised Us a Vote on a Clean DHS Bill Next Week
Deal or no deal, House leadership will be tested next week.
“House conservatives were told a shutdown-averting vote last night bought them a week reprieve to strategize a new fight against President Obama’s immigration orders. Democrats believe they’ve been promised a vote on a full-year funding bill by next Friday. A week from now, one of those groups is going to be very disappointed—and likely irate at the deception of its own leadership. House Democrats voted en masse Friday for a one-week continuing resolution to fund the Homeland Security Department, just hours after banding together to kill a three-week funding measure. Their votes switched at the urging of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who told members they would soon get a vote on the Senate-passed full funding bill. “Your vote tonight will assure that we will vote for full funding next week,” she wrote in a letter to colleagues. Just what is behind that assurance was left unsaid, but Democrats believe Pelosi extracted a promise from House Speaker John Boehner for a vote on full funding next week. “I think what changed was there was a commitment given that if we passed the one-week extension, they would agree next week to bring up the Senate clean funding for DHS, so I believe there was an agreement that was made,” said Democratic Rep. Janice Hahn. “We took [Republicans] at their word, so I hope it’s true.” Multiple Democratic aides confirmed leadership had promised their bosses a vote on the Senate-passed full funding bill next week. Two senior Democratic staffers added that they had heard from both caucus leadership and the White House that Boehner had given them an agreement to allow that vote to take place. Pelosi’s office would not confirm or deny a deal with Boehner. Reports of such an agreement were vehemently denied by the speaker’s office. “No such deal or promise was made,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. Of course, confirming an arrangement to give Democrats the clean vote they want would surely draw outrage from Boehner’s right flank. Whether one leader is lying to their caucus or the two misunderstood each other, their respective caucuses went to vote Friday with vastly different ideas of what the next week would hold. Even Democrats who were tight-lipped about whether Pelosi had told them of a deal said they had read—and believed—reports of the arrangement. Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Pelosi ally, was among many in the caucus who said the minority leader would not have switched course on short-term funding without earning the best deal she could. “This wouldn’t have been accepted if that wasn’t going to be the case,” she said. Still, Pelosi’s strategy was not completely without Democratic skeptics. “She also assured Democrats who she whipped to vote no this afternoon that, in the event of the failure of the three-week clean [continuing resolution], Mr. Boehner would have ‘no choice’ but to bring up the Senate bill tonight. How’d that work out?” said Rep. Gerry Connolly. He called the promised deal “an awfully thin reed on which to decide to vote for a one-week extension after you whipped Democrats to vote against a three-week extension.” Meanwhile, Republicans, who have surely read those same reports, will be closely watching Boehner to see if he indeed brings a full bill to the floor. They were told the one-week extension would buy them time to force a conference with the Senate on the full-year funding bill, which they could then use to push for riders that would undermine Obama’s immigration orders. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has already said his caucus will block any such efforts.”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/democrats-boehner-promised-us-a-vote-on-a-clean-dhs-bill-next-week-20150228
Feinstein: ‘Clean’ DHS bill only option
“Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Sunday that the only option to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is one that does not roll back President Obama’s executive action on immigration. “I see nothing else happening other than a clean bill,” Feinstein said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” acknowledging that it is something that Democrats have long desired.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said Saturday that she was unaware if Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has promised Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) he’d bring to the floor this week a bill to fund DHS without addressing Obama’s actions from November. The House late Friday overwhelmingly voted for a one-week DHS funding bill after Pelosi rallied Democrats to support the measure after opposing a previous measure to fund DHS for three weeks, which failed. Conservatives have railed against both clean-funding bills, as they do not roll back Obama’s action to defer deportation for up to 5 million illegal immigrants and offer more work visas. “What I’ve seen over the last few years is the need of a minority to impose their view, regardless of what the situation is,” Feinstein said Sunday. “I think most of us are accustomed to sitting down, we work out a compromise – which is not a dirty word.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/234241-feinstein-clean-dhs-bill-only-option
Steve Scalise vows to continue immigration fight
“House Majority Whip Steve Scalise vowed on Sunday to keep fighting against President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration in the midst of the Department of Homeland Security funding battle. Congress passed a last-minute one-week stopgap bill to fund DHS on Friday ahead of a midnight deadline, so lawmakers have another week to come to some resolution. “Let’s go to conference and work out these differences, and finally put a check on this president that he himself said 22 different times, he doesn’t have the authority to write his own immigration policies,” the Louisiana Republican said on “Fox News Sunday.” “We’re going to keep fighting this battle.” “What we did was pass the bill that now