“If ye love wealth better than liberty,Cruz’s Marathon Against Obamacare Ends, Reid Calls It ‘A Big Waste of Time’
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” — Samuel Adams
So what was that all about? During Cruz’s superhuman speech, a hashtag appeared on Twitter: #makedclisten. Make Washington, D.C., listen.
Our government is not listening to a majority of the American people, which have never supported Obamacare, and the millions who are already suffering under it now. Cruz focused attention on that and on the destruction that Obamacare is wreaking on the health care and employment of Americans. Sen. Harry Reid responded to Cruz’s speech and thus the #makedclisten effort as a “big waste of time.” Reid also called it “anarchy.”
In the mind of Harry Reid, then, abiding by the arcane rules of the Senate in order to protest a bad law that a majority of the American people never wanted is “anarchy,” but his president’s willful and routine violations of the Constitution are not. Reid’s Senate failing to pass a budget for five years, in violation of the law, has become routine.
Compared to Cruz, who even after 20 hours of standing and speaking was able to gut Sen. Dick Durbin in a mini-debate over the federal employee health care system, Reid sounds like he could use a nap. Reid is not listening. He will never listen. And he will never learn. Democracy to him is just a “waste of time” when there is power to be grabbed forever by his political party.
Reid has been in Washington far too long. Obama suffers from a different problem. He has not been in Washington very long, but he brought Chicago’s corruption and partisanship to Washington with him. He won’t listen either. He keeps selling Obamacare’s virtues despite all the evidence that it is hurting millions.
The question is, where do we go from here? Even after 21 hours and 19 minutes of Ted Cruz heroically destroying Obamacare in detail, DC will not listen. Democrat voters and their media megaphones will never hold them accountable. They will stop at nothing to impose themselves on the rest of us, destroying our viable state economies and even our way of life.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/09/25/cruzs-marathon-against-obamacare-ends-reid-calls-it-a-big-waste-of-time/
Two Cheers for Ted
The pundits in D.C. jeered as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) began his lengthy speech (a “fauxlibuster,” they joked) on Tuesday. Some cast it as a self-serving gesture, done to impress “dumb” people outside the Beltway who don’t get that defunding Obamacare just isn’t possible. But as the night wore on, it was clear that Cruz’s stand was as passionate and articulate an attack on Obamacare and a defense of liberty as the nation has ever seen.A few even began to see its wisdom, circulating an essay by David Frum acknowledging that even a defeat served Cruz’s political purposes. Charles Krauthammer, who the day before had traded jokes about Cruz’s Canadian birth, acknowledged on Tuesday that he had executed a brilliant maneuver, if not to defeat Obamacare than to highlight its flaws, and to seize the mantle of leadership of a conservative movement needing inspiration.
What was most impressive about Cruz’s gambit, however, was not the strategy but the substance. In plain language, Cruz laid out the fundamental problems with Obamacare as policy, outlining the cost to working families in higher insurance premiums, dropped health plans, and lost work hours or job opportunities. He also reminded Washington of how the bill was passed, and upheld, in defiance of the people and the Constitution.
A few Democrats eventually wandered down to the Senate floor to debate Cruz, some to try poking holes in his arguments, reminding him that President Barack Obama had won a new mandate from the voters even after passing the Affordable Care Act. Cruz patiently, and deftly, handled their objections, noting that even the unions were turning against the law, and blasting both sides for approving congressional exemptions from it.
It was also difficult not to be moved by Cruz’s passion. No empty gesture could sustain the hours upon hours of explication, analysis, and debate that Cruz tackled on the Senate floor. Agree or disagree with his decision to force the issue into a debate over the budget and the debt ceiling, it is impossible not to be impressed by his sheer will, and by the self-evident sincerity of a man so fluent and ardent in his arguments.
It occurred to me that when I ran for Congress in 2010, and voters would urge me to “do something” if I got to Washington, that this is the type of “something” they meant. They know that a freshman in Congress is barely even worth his or her vote but that a person willing to take risks can change history. And millions went to bed last night knowing someone on Capitol Hill was, finally, keeping watch over their liberty as they slept.
There was one flaw in Cruz’s approach, however. It became clear in the reactions of those who might otherwise have supported his effort but were put off by his attacks on fellow Republicans. Cruz sometimes turned sincere disagreement over tactics into differences in courage and conviction. Despite Cruz’s moderate demeanor, his rhetoric sometimes reflected a political media culture mired in the language of absolutes.
Cruz has withstood intense hostility with uncommon grace, but he should reserve terms like “surrender caucus” and Neville Chamberlain analogies for real enemies if he wants to rally the broader support he deserves. Overall, however, his stand was brilliant. His remarks should be printed separately as a primer on Obamacare, and his tactics should inspire the opposition. He will soon run out of time. But he has turned the tide.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/25/Two-Cheers-for-Ted
On Sunday evening, we discussed the debate on defunding Obamacare – specifically, whether Senate Republicans were being disingenuous in their claim to support defunding. While arguing that Republicans were engaged in sleight-of-hand, I conceded that the GOP’s calculation that avoiding a government shutdown outweighs defunding Obamacare is not “frivolous.” Ramesh proceeded to inflate this concession, paraphrasing me as having described this calculation as “perfectly honorable.”
That is not what I said. Non-frivolous and honorable are not synonyms, and there is nothing honorable about the ongoing political game of posing as an ardent defunding supporter while voting in a manner that guarantees Obamacare will get funded.
A quick perusal of my “non-frivolous” acknowledgment shows that Ramesh’s “perfectly honorable” interpretation is a contortion. Here’s what I said (italics added):
While I disagree with Republicans who oppose the defunding strategy, I don’t think the calculation that there may be more to lose than to gain is frivolous. I just think the people who’ve made that calculation should have been honest about it from the start. Instead, they voted to defund Obamacare until . . . it mattered.So, acknowledging that a political calculation shrouded in dishonest posturing is non-frivolous somehow makes it “perfectly honorable”? That does not make sense to me, but it does reflect how Republican leaders rationalize their dizzying approach to Obamacare.
There is nothing honorable in the legerdemain we discussed on Sunday: The GOP’s unanimous and ostentatious support only six months ago for a defunding amendment when the vote was just a pose, followed today by the belittling of defunding legislation as “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard” — to borrow the words of Senator Burr, who co-sponsored the March defunding amendment – because this time the legislation is accompanied a plan to achieve the stated objective.
On that score, GOP-establishment sympathizers contend that there is nothing inconsistent in supporting defunding as a goal but disfavoring the tactics by which the goal is sought. That is conveniently Solomonic. I’ll put aside some constitutional problems with the ongoing drama (to be addressed in a separate post). To get defunding enacted into law necessarily requires orchestrating a situation in which intense political pressure can be brought to bear that induces some Democrats to vote for it and President Obama to perceive it as in his interests to sign it. This is far from impossible; indeed, it’s been done before (see, e.g., extension of the Bush tax cuts). But short of the specter of a government shutdown, where was that kind of pressure possibly going to come from? If you are against the only conceivable means of achieving a goal, your vote for the goal is a pose; it is not real support.
If the GOP establishment’s position is that government shutdowns damage the potential for Republican success in the next few election cycles, and that electoral success is the only way to stop Obamacare, then the honorable move would be to vote in favor of funding Obamacare so voters know where Republicans really stand.
In light of the GOP-establishment position that the defunding strategy is implausible, though, a question arises. House conservatives and the Cruz-Lee Senate contingent are pushing the “defund now” strategy because, they very convincingly argue, once Obamacare subsidies start to kick a week from now, there will be no realistic possibility of repealing Obamacare – it will be, like Medicare, permanent. The Republican establishment may not like the “defund now” strategy, but are they seriously telling us that Republicans will be in a position to repeal Obamacare four or six years from now? Really? Ted Cruz’s strategy is no sure thing, but it sounds a lot more plausible to me than the notion that Republicans, the guys who ran in 2012 as saviors of Medicare, are going to have the nerve to scrap Obamacare subsidies that are, by then, years old. I’d sooner believe they’d want credit for preserving Obamacare goodies.
Finally, there is nothing honorable about Senate GOP leaders’ current pose of vigorous support for defunding Obamacare while simultaneously announcing their intention to vote in favor of a procedural rule – “cloture,” the ending of debate – that Republicans well know will guarantee that Obamacare is fully funded.
Republican leaders are banking on the public’s understandable disinterest in the Senate’s abstruse procedural rules in order to pull off this fraud. Cloture requires 60 votes – meaning the Senate’s 46 Republicans can deny Democrats the margin necessary to end debate. But Republicans say they will vote with the Democrats on this “merely procedural” step. Here’s the key: Under Senate rules, (a) the end of debate does not mean the end of amendments, and (b) those amendments only require a simple majority to pass. Thus, once debate has ended, as Republicans well know, Majority Leader Harry Reid will propose an amendment to restore the Obamacare funding that the House has stripped. Democrats will then pass that amendment.
A vote for cloture is not a merely procedural formality. In essence, a vote for cloture is a vote to fund Obamacare.
And here’s the kicker: Republicans who vote for cloture get a double dip. First, they will say (as Senator McConnell did today) that they are voting to end debate because they are anxious to vote in support of the House measure that defunded Obamacare – even though they well know their cloture vote will inexorably lead to Reid’s amendment to undo the House defunding measure. Second, when Reid proposes his certain-to-pass amendment to restore Obamacare funding, they will vote against it, a nay vote they will wear on their sleeves to show the folks back home that they opposed defunding – even though they well know their collusion with Democrats on cloture is what allowed Reid to restore Obamacare funding.
That may be someone’s idea of honorable. It is not mine.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359434/senate-gop-gamesmanship-obamacare-defunding-not-honorable-andrew-c-mccarthy
Obamacare, Ted Cruz, and the Line in the Sand
Dr. Thomas Sowell, in his recent column for National Review, asserts that the effort to defund Obamacare is an unnecessary "distraction" which serves only to help the president and Democrats. He argues that now is "the worst time, politically, for Barack Obama since he took office," and to focus on the futile task of defunding Obamacare, risking a potential government shutdown, diverts attention from other scandals surrounding the president.He concedes that Obamacare is "an economic disaster and will be a medical disaster, as well as destroying the Constitution's protections of American citizens from the unbridled power of the federal government." Yet knowing that these terrible outcomes are at stake, he concludes (emphasis added):
But, for the same reason it makes no sense to impeach either President Obama or Chief Justice John Roberts, it makes no sense to attempt to defund ObamaCare. That reason is that it cannot be done. The world is full of things that ought to be done but cannot in fact be done. [...]
There is a United States of America today only because George Washington understood that his army was not able to fight the British everywhere, but had to choose carefully when and where to fight. Futile symbolic confrontations were not a luxury that could be afforded then and cannot be afforded now.
I have tremendous respect for Dr. Sowell. He has been perhaps the single greatest influence in cultivating my understanding of conservative economics. However, I have a fundamental problem with his chosen analogy here.
Washington had options in devising his military strategy. For example, other sites were considered as winter refuge for the colonial army before he decided to march his troops to Valley Forge. He could have chosen a different date and time to cross the Delaware to attack at Trenton, and so on. Washington never engaged in a "futile symbolic confrontation" because, thankfully, he never had to. A "futile symbolic confrontation" is typically an act of desperation, and it is rarely, if ever, a "luxury." Having the option to do otherwise, however, sometimes is.
And options are not a luxury we conservatives have. We have been under siege, and are now surrounded, awaiting the coming salvos of Obamacare implementation which will decimate American liberty. Government bureaucrats stand ready to sign up millions of new dependents to the government healthcare rolls, whose only job will be to vote for Democrats in the coming elections to ensure continued benefits -- which by hook, crook, or Democrat-organized bussing to the polls, they will do. IRS agents are standing by, ready to lay down the fiscal hammer of "social justice" on small business owners and individuals with the audacity to not conform to a bill so convoluted that no member of Congress read it before passage, and navigating its intricacies is the subject of a New York Times bestseller.
We conservatives have been cornered by ideological zealots bent on transforming our nation and our healthcare at any cost, however underhanded and nefarious, and we have rarely been defended with any such zeal. Now, on the threshold of imminent defeat, we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of having no option but to either surrender or fight on the ground upon which we now stand. And we must choose, even though both paths will likely lead to the same terrible outcome that Sowell describes.
And in this regard, maybe it's not George Washington we should be looking to as an example in this particular moment. Maybe it's William Barrett Travis.
Whatever the genesis of the metaphor, most Americans know what it means to "draw a line in the sand," and know its context in the Battle of the Alamo. Fighting for Texas' independence, Lieutenant Colonel William Barrett Travis, a 26 year old lawyer in command of fewer than 200 soldiers at the San Antonio mission-turned-fort, was surrounded by several thousand Mexican soldiers under the command of General Santa Ana. Travis called his men together on the afternoon prior to the final Mexican onslaught. Drawing his sword, he drew a line in the dirt. "I now want every man who is willing to stay here and die with me to come across this line," he said.
The act itself is likely a bit of storyteller flourish, but enshrined in his final letters (which I would urge all Americans to read if they have not) is evidence that, line or no line, to fight for liberty against insurmountable odds or die was Travis' aim, and his men valiantly followed his example. It is the stuff of legends -- courage that may well be remembered for millennia, no less timeless an example of humanity's greatest qualities than the Battle of Thermopylae where Leonidas led his 300 Spartans against Persian hordes.
And that sacrifice, however futile the confrontation may have been for the Texians who fought there, produced a practical benefit. "Remember the Alamo!" became a battle cry, rallying emboldened Texians as they won their independence at the Battle of San Jacinto. It was a key moment in our history. Rephrasing Sowell's conclusion above, Texas may be a state and not a Mexican province today only because William Travis and the men of the Alamo had the resolve to take a stand for what is right in that critical moment in history when they faced certain defeat. Or to put it yet another way, again rephrasing Sowell, winning the Battle of the Alamo was one of those things that could not be done -- but there was, in fact, definitive value in their having taken up the "futile symbolic confrontation."
The metaphor of "the line in the sand" has use the realm of politics. Mike Cox of TexasEscapes.com explains it this way, writing that the "line-in-the-sand metaphor gets its power because it represents something that is absolutely true: Making a courageous decision often comes with a high price." He goes on, "[i]t might cost your life or your office, but chances are, someday you will be remembered for doing the right thing by crossing that figurative line in the sand."
In America, doing "the right thing" should not come at a high political price. But here we are, at a crossroads where another Texan, Senator Ted Cruz, must do the right thing and draw a figurative line in the sand for his compatriots to cross -- if they be courageous and on the side of liberty. The American people clearly do not want Obamacare, and Republicans, who have run and been elected since 2010 on a platform of protecting Americans from it, now have a choice. Do what they think to be politically expedient in Washington politics, or to do what we contracted them to do -- fight for us on Capitol Hill against Obamacare.
Prominent Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and fellow Texan John Cornyn (for whom I also voted) are among those who've chosen not to stand and fight with Cruz in this crucial moment, but to criticize him, and stand among Harry Reid and Democrats in securing funding for Obamacare. They have reportedly rallied Republicans against Cruz to shut down debate and allow Reid and the Senate Democrats to easily gut the House bill with a straight-majority cloture vote that Republicans cannot logistically challenge. For all practical purposes, this is no different, if not much more sinister, than a simple vote to fund Obamacare.
Though I'm certain that as a matter of political optics, McConnell and Cornyn will both be happy to vote against the bill with Reid's amendment to fund Obamacare once it is a useless show vote.
But make no mistake, Senators. We won't be fooled. We will be watching intently, to see which among you choose to cross that line and stand with us and Senator Cruz in the fray, and which among you choose to scale the walls and leave us alone to our fate and Obamacare's destructive new implements, from which you've so carefully exempted yourselves.
And we will remember it well when we exercise our liberty at the polls in 2014.
Wendy Davis was a media hero and Ted Cruz is a 'grandstander'
It's sort of hard to believe, but the Washington media is filled with people who maintain that the major mainstream news media in the U.S. does not have a liberal bias. I don't spend too much time on the broader "media bias" case, because it's too hard to litigate. Point out disparate treatment, and a bias-denier can just say "the cases are equivalent."But Ted Cruz is giving us a very good point of comparison.
Ted Cruz's marathon speech in the Senate last night and today is not going to repeal Obamacare or defund it. He can't run out the clock, because a vote will happen today in any event. His very long speech mostly serves to raise his profile, with the ancillary benefits, including fundraising and maybe a boost as he seeks higher office.
The typical mainstream spin on this: It's grandstanding! He's just raising money! Fauxlibuster!
Flashback to the summer: Texas state senator Wendy Davis, with the help of a screaming mob, runs out the clock on a legislative session, thus delaying the passage of a bill to ban abortions of most babies in the sixth month of pregnancy and later. But at the time, it was clear Gov. Rick Perry would simply call another session, and that the late-term abortion ban would eventually pass.
So, Davis was delaying the inevitable (which is more than Cruz, for sure, who is not even delaying it), but rallying supporters of legal late-term abortion. Also, it helped her raise tons of money and it jumpstarted a gubernatorial campaign.
The media spin was different: Hero! Giving a voice to women! Glowing interviews on every TV station.
Davis's filibuster was no more likely than Cruz's to change the law. Davis's filibuster was just as self-promotional as Cruz's, and just as directed at a bid for higher office. And Davis's filibuster was in defense of something most people dislike: aborting viable and nearly-viable babies; while Cruz's filibuster was in opposition to a law most people dislike: Obamacare.
The difference? I assume it's this: The media generally supports legalized abortion while the media generally like Obamacare. Another difference: Ted Cruz rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/wendy-davis-was-a-media-hero-and-ted-cruz-is-a-grandstander/article/2536358?custom_click=rss
Obama Lied, My Health Plan Died
By Michelle MalkinLike an estimated 22 million other Americans, I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market. We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors.
Or rather, we had such a plan.
Last week, our family received notice from Anthem BlueCross BlueShield of Colorado that we can no longer keep the plan we like because of "changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA)." The letter informed us that "(t)o meet the requirements of the new laws, your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date."
In short: Obama lied. My health plan died.
Remember? Our president looked America straight in the eye and promised: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also lied when she pledged: "Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them."
This isn't just partisan business. It's personal. Our cancellation letter states that Anthem is "not going to be selling new individual PPO plans." When we asked whether we could keep our children's doctors, an agent for Anthem told my husband and me she didn't know. The insurer has no details available yet on what exactly they'll be offering. We either will be herded into the Obamacare federal health insurance exchange regime (launching October 1), a severely limited HMO plan, or presented with costlier alternatives from another insurer. If they even exist.
My family is not alone. Across the country, insurers are sending out Obamacare-induced health plan death notices to untold tens of thousands of other customers in the individual market. Twitter users are posting their Obamacare cancellation notices and accompanying rate increases:
Linda Deright posted her letter from Regency of Washington state: "63 percent jump, old policy of 15 yrs. cancelled." Karen J. Dugan wrote: "Received same notice from Blue Shield CA for our small business. Driving into exchange and no info since online site is down." Chris Birk wrote: "Got notice from BCBS that my current health plan is not ACA compliant. New plan 2x as costly for worse coverage." Small-business owner Villi Wilson posted his letter from HMSA Blue Cross Blue Shield canceling his individual plan and added: "I thought Obama said if I like my health care plan I can keep my health care plan."
Few among Washington's protected political class are paying attention, because they enjoy their lucrative government benefits and are exempted from Obamacare's destructive consequences. But one of my state's congressional representatives, GOP Rep. Cory Gardner, also lost his individual market plan. Unlike most politicians on Capitol Hill, Gardner chose not to enroll in the federal health insurance program. He told me that he opted to participate in the private market "because I wanted to be in the same boat as my constituents. And now that boat is sinking!"
Gardner points to recent analysis showing individual market rate increases of 23 percent to 25 percent in Colorado. "After my current plan is discontinued," he wrote last week, "the closest comparable plan through our current provider will cost over 100 percent more, going from roughly $650 a month to $1,480 per month." He now carries his Obamacare cancellation notice with him as hardcore proof of the Democrats' ultimate deception.
Maryland announced that its post-Obamacare individual market rates could also rise by a whopping 25 percent. The National Association for the Self-Employed is recommending that its small-business owners and freelancers plan for at least a 15 percent increase nationwide. One of the reasons for those rate hikes, of course, is that Obamacare's mandated benefits provisions force insurers to carry coverage for items that individual market consumers had deliberately chosen to forgo.
Americans who had opted for affordable catastrophic coverage-style plans now have fewer and fewer choices. This includes a whole class of musicians, photographers, artists, writers, actors and other creative people who purchased health plans through the individual market or through small professional organizations. As St. Vincent College arts professor Ben Schachter reports in the Weekly Standard, groups like the College Art Association, Modern Language Association and the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust are dropping their plans. Young, healthy members of these groups "are far more likely to see their rates go up -- or to face the individual mandate penalties."
Thanks to Obama, access is down. Premiums and health care spending are up. Research and development on lifesaving drugs and medical devices are down. Hours and benefits have been cut because of Obamacare costs and regulatory burdens by at least 300 American companies, according to Investor's Business Daily. And the Obamacare layoff bomb continues to claim victims.
Obamacare is destroying the private individual market for health insurance by design, not accident. For hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of self-employed job creators, three fundamental Obamacare truths are becoming as clear as Obama's growing nose: 1) You can't keep it. 2) We're screwed. 3) The do-gooders don't care.
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/09/25/obama-lied-my-health-plan-died-n1708856/page/full
ACORN's 'Fraternal Twin' An ObamaCare Navigator
United Labor Union Council, Local 100, often described as ACORN's "fraternal twin," has been awarded an ObamaCare "Navigator" grant to enroll people in health care exchanges. Local 100, based in New Orleans, will be conducting mass enrollments in Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas. As a result, it will have confidential, personal information on thousands of people seeking health insurance.Wade Rathke founded both ACORN and Local 100. At one time, Local 100 was affiliated with SEIU. Over the years, Local 100 funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars of its members' dues to ACORN and its network of organizations.
While ACORN has closed its doors, Rathke remains involved with Local 100. On his blog, he recently wrote about attending a strategy session about Local 100's outreach efforts as an ObamaCare Navigator.
ObamaCare Navigators, who receive grants from the federal government, are tasked with helping people access the health care exchanges and enroll for health insurance. As such, Navigators will possess extraordinary amounts of confidential and personal information on millions of Americans. They will have information on individuals' income and medical history.
Considering how ACORN treated people's voter registration information, often losing it or mistakenly throwing it away, it is worrying that its "twin" would have access to even more detailed information. Even if Local 100 can secure the information, there are no assurances they won't use it for organizing or political campaigns.
Local 100's role as a Navigator, suggest the program is less about health care and more about building a new progressive infrastructure.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/25/ACORNS-Fraternal-Twin-An-ObamaCare-Navigator
HHS Watchdog Unsure If Obamacare Will Work
Budget and resource constraints limiting HHS Inspector General, spokesman says
The inspector general’s office has not done in-depth inspections of specific parts of the law, the spokesman said.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is implementing much of the law, and the HHS Office of Inspector General is tasked with overseeing HHS operations.
“Whether the Affordable Care Act will be able to be up and fully functional on Oct. 1 is not something that we have done assessments of,” said Donald White, an OIG spokesman.
“Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) mission is to protect the integrity of Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) programs as well as the health and welfare of program beneficiaries,” states the OIG website. It focuses on preventing waste, fraud, and abuse within HHS programs.
White said that resource limitations and budgetary constraints prevent the office from examining the entirety of the law.
“We certainly cannot do it all ourselves with the resources that are available to us,” he said.
When asked about the data hub, which will transmit sensitive personal information from several federal agencies and which has been a central focus of those worried about the security of the law’s infrastructure, White said the OIG had not tested it.
“We haven’t done a verification,” he said. The OIG did issue a report on the data hub in August, but the hub had not been completed at this point, and the OIG did not test the hub itself.
A press release from HHS last week hailed the data hub’s security certification but added that the department has created “a rapid response mechanism that will be employed in the unlikely event of a data security breach.”
HHS did not return a request for comment on the security of the law’s infrastructure, and the OIG did not respond to a question about whether it knows anything about the new mechanism.
Congressional leaders and healthcare experts have criticized the OIG’s oversight efforts in the past, with one expert accusing the inspector general of “failing in his duty to the American people” at a congressional hearing earlier this year.
Congressional leaders have repeatedly expressed concerns about security under Obamacare. The data hub is at risk of a cyber attack, Rep. Patrick Meehan (R., Pa.) has said, while lax control over the numerous points of entry into the system pose another threat, according to Rep. James Lankford (R., Okla.).
The administration is currently mounting an effort to curb security weaknesses. The HHS OIG released several web banners on Tuesday to educate people about the potential for Obamacare scams, while the administration has set up a call center for people to report potential incidents of fraud. The Federal Trade Commission will be coordinating the response to fraud, White said.
With under a week to go until the exchanges are scheduled to open, the administration is pushing to get information out about potential fraud.
“At this point, what we think is really important is the substantive information,” White said.
“The timeframe is obviously very tight, so there is a sense that we need to have things up and running so when people start the enrollment process on Oct. 1, we will be ready for them,” he said.
http://freebeacon.com/hhs-watchdog-unsure-if-obamacare-will-work/
NPR Hides the Cost of Obamacare
National Public Radio's Scott Horsley continued his cheerleading for President Barack Obama with a story Wednesday about the president's latest attempt to promote Obamacare to a highly skeptical public. Horsley allowed Obama's claims about the cost of Obamacare premiums to stand unchallenged, though that cost--not advertising campaigns by the law's opponents, as Obama claims--is the obstacle to Obamacare's success.Horsley quotes the president: "Obama is trying to make the argument that signing up is a good deal: 'In many states across the country, if you're say a 27-year-old young woman, don't have health insurance, you get on that exchange, you're going to be able to purchase high-quality health insurance for less than the cost of your cell phone bill.'" He provides no facts listeners might use to evaluate the truth--or not--of that claim.
It turns out that Obama's cost claims are highly misleading, in three basic ways. First, while some premium costs might be less than "expected," they are far higher than the cost of health insurance before Obamacare.
The cheapest Obamacare premium for that 27-year-old woman is $163. Without Obamacare, that same 27-year-old could buy monthly insurance with a modest deductible for about $60--roughly a third as much.
Second, the only way Obamacare is cheaper than the cost of a cell phone bill is if you compare the cheapest Obamacare plan with the most expensive cell phone plan. A basic cell phone plan--including talk, text, and data--runs about $50. An unlimited plan can run in excess of $200. Few young people would consider that "cheap"--particularly at a time when unemployment among young people is very high.
Third, health insurance and cell phones are not substitute goods. Obama is asking young people to pay for high Obamacare premium in addition to their other expenses, not instead of them. That might seem reasonable to a man who has never really balanced a family budget, let alone a federal one (the Obamas lived beyond their means until quite recently). It is unreasonable even for high-earning young Americans.
Horsley does cite Republican opposition to Obamacare, but only in the most general terms, leaving the impression that all Democrats really want is health care for everyone, and all Republicans want is to say "no." (Notably, even President Obama has dropped the pretense of differentiating between Obamacare and "universal health care," which Democrats now admit openly is where they want the legislation to lead.)
In his story, Horsely quotes Clinton: "This only works, for example, if young people show up," said Clinton. "We've got to have them in the pools. Because otherwise all these projected low costs cannot be held if older people with pre-existing conditions are disproportionately represented in any given state." That is a subtle admission that Obamacare imposes new costs on the young--but Horsely does not bother to point that out.
The fact that Obamacare must now rely on political exhortation, rather than competitive pricing, to entice young people to subsidize the system is a searing indictment of a failed policy. Even the law's high-much-touted provision for pre-existing conditions, barely attracted 25% of the expected enrollment. Horsley omits any basis for judging Obama's claims. After the exchanges open Oct. 1, there will be no hiding the truth.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/25/NPR-Hides-the-Cost-of-Obamacare
WaPo Reporter: 'Interesting' Cruz Feels Accountable to Grassroots, Not GOP Leadership
A senior Washington Post congressional reporter found it "interesting" that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told him that he answers to his constituents and the grassroots instead of the leaders in the Republican leadership who make up the permanent political class.On Tuesday, Paul Kane said that in an interview in August, Cruz told him that every day in the Senate he tries to remember "to whom I am accountable; and it is not elected officials in Washington." He also said, "with all respect," it is not the mainstream media either.
"The people to whom I believe I am accountable are the men and women in Texas... who knocked on doors, who made phone calls, who stood up and said 'Please, help turn this country around,'" Cruz, who is leading the defunding Obamacare efforts, told him.
Kane commented on Twitter that he found it "interesting" that Cruz "views people 'who knocked on doors, made phone calls' for him as who he answers to."
In Kane's story, he wrote that "many GOP senior aides and senators say Cruz has become an ideological warrior seeking to purify the party, resembling former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and former senator Jim DeMint (S.C.)."
In fact, Palin, in an exclusive op-ed for Breitbart News on Saturday, wrote that Republicans in the permanent political class were attacking Cruz because he was not the type of politician who promised to come to D.C. to change it only to be changed by it:
Those of us who hang in there supporting a major political party with our energy, time, and contributions would like to believe that that party would praise principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee for following through on campaign promises. We’d like to believe that the GOP establishment would applaud the way these bold leaders have rallied the grassroots to their cause. But, no, such praise would require a commensurate level of guts and leadership, and the permanent political class in D.C. is nothing if not gutless and rudderless.Kane, a longtime observer of Washington's political scene, has found it surprising that Cruz was not just giving lip service, like many Republicans have done, during his insurgent 2012 Senate campaign in Texas, to the idea of going to Washington to defund and repeal Obamacare. For trying to live up to his campaign promises, "top" Republicans have savaged Cruz, even sending Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace opposition research on one of their own in hopes that Wallace would "hammer" Cruz with it.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/24/Wash-Post-Reporter-Interesting-Cruz-Feels-Accountable-to-Grassroots-Instead-of-GOP-Leadership-MSM
Republican Strategy for the Debt Ceiling Crisis
We are coming up on the deadline for raising the debt ceiling of the country. What should Republican strategy be on this issue?In the end, the debt ceiling is going to be raised. The question is whether the Republicans can get something in return. Last time they got the sequester only because Obama didn't think they would have the brass to use it. The sequester is a clumsy tool in that it is impacting our defense capabilities in an unhelpful way. But it has worked, which is the reason why Obama is not likely to accede to another one.
But the president has given a critical opening to the Republicans in the House. In a breathtaking example of his refusal ever to take responsibility, the president is arguing that Congress needs to raise the debt ceiling because all the bills that need to be paid are Congress' spending! Of course, this is technically true in that no money can be spent except as approved by Congress. But the reality is that Congress accedes to the priorities of an administration and it has been historically considered that the president is responsible for the levels and priorities of spending.
But if the president's position is that Congress is responsible for spending, then the smart thing for Republicans in the House to do is to take him at his word and seize the day!
Let's look briefly at the spending problem. Stick with me here. There are only a few charts, but each one makes an important point.
Chart I shows Federal Receipts and Outlays from 1953 through estimates for 2013. (All charts start with 1953, the first year of the Eisenhower administration, because that is the first year of normalcy -- as Warren Harding put it -- following World War II, demobilization, and remobilization for the Korean War.)
The first red arrow highlights the size of the deficit in 2008, which ran approximately $500 billion ($459 billion). The second red arrow shows the deficit growing by $1 trillion to $1,400 billion ($1.413 trillion) in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. This breaks down essentially to an increase of $500 billion in spending and a decrease of $500 billion from lower tax receipts from the deep recession caused by the housing and financial crisis.
Where did that additional $500 billion in spending go to in 2009? That was the stimulus, which could also be seen as the "spoils of victory" as Obama handed out rewards to his supporters, primarily in the public sector unions. That spending was also in accord with Keynesian economic theory of increasing spending during economic slowdowns to restart the economy.
You see a very important thing in Chart I, or, as Sherlock Holmes might say, you don't see a very important thing in Chart I. Do you see what it is?
If the $500 billion in additional spending in 2009 was stimulus spending, that is a one-time deal! There should be give-back in 2010 or 2011. But that "one-time" spending goes on and on. God only knows who it is going to.
How did the administration pull that off? In 2009, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and they pushed through their budget (not the Bush budget for 2009 as they like to claim). Then, after that, they refused to pass another budget! After they lost the House in 2010, the government has been financed with continuing resolutions, which key off the spending -- called the baseline spending -- of the previous year. So, the emergency spending of 2009 got folded into the baseline spending! Pretty slick. The Democrats had to ignore the budget law to do it, but as Stalin observed, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
We have to be fair here. While the administration blew out the budget in 2009, it is also the case (a) that the bill for the welfare state is now coming due as the baby boomer generation retires (1945 + 65 = 2010); and (b) we had the worst recession since the Great Depression in 2009. The problem is that administration is not willing to trim its priorities to adjust to these facts.
Chart II shows the results of these record deficits:
Big problemo! Nobody now living knows where the breaking point is on federal debt. But we don't want to Detroit the country! (Technically, the federal government will always be able to pay its bills because it can print money. But if the day comes when it is perceived as doing that, the value of the dollar will collapse and Detroit will look like a walk in the park.)
The point is that we can't go on like this. And as economist Herbert Stein observed, something that can't go on has to stop.
We have to get the finances of the federal government under control. This is the opportunity that president has given House Republicans by arguing that the bills his administration has rung up are Congress' responsibility.
What to do?
Put spending on a glide path to solvency. It is an achievable goal in the current crisis. It does not require any drastic action before approving a debt ceiling increase. What it does require is getting the president to sign on to a glide path. He will certainly not want to do it, but that is what public argument and private negotiation are for. It is what power is for, and the House has the power to hold out on the budget. It is what governing is for. If you didn't come to Washington to prevent the Republic from being Detroited, what are you here for?
Charts III and IV show what this would look like:
Chart III shows federal spending as a percent of GDP. The red arrow emphasizes the surge in spending in the first year of the Obama administration. Spending surged to 25% of GDP that year, a peacetime record.
The arithmetic is obvious, but is worth stating anyway. There is only 100% of the pie. We can talk about "growing our way out of the problem" and lowering tax rates to stimulate the economy and they are important. But there is only 100% of the economy. The more the federal government takes, the less the private sector retains. And what is not shown on Chart III is that state and local governments now account for 18% of GDP. So if we add federal + state and local spending we get 43% in 2009! That is quite a load for the private sector to carry.
Chart IV shows what the Republicans should do: establish a glide path back to solvency and get the president to sign on to it. It is based on getting spending back to 20% of GDP, the average since the beginning of the Eisenhower administration. Wiser heads may say that this number needs to be greater than 20%. OK. Let's get that out in the open and negotiate it. But let's have some limit rather than ratcheting it up to higher and higher percents of GDP, which is pretty obviously the Democrats' stealth strategy.
Why might this happen? First, the president is not selling his level of spending. He pretends that the 2009 spending was left over from the Bush administration, meaning he is not owning it. Further, the president is taking credit for the reduction in spending as a percent of GDP in subsequent years of his administration even though it remains at essentially record levels by this measure, matched only by two years in the Reagan administration. So the president is not selling himself as "the 25% man."
A glide path still allows room for nominal growth in spending in the next six years, about 2.5% per year. This is nominal spending, meaning not adjusted for inflation, so it is actually a very small real increase in spending.
Doubtless, many AT readers are going to say that this strategy is lame because it does not involve any changes between now and October, when the debt ceiling runs out. Well, politics is the art of the possible. This strategy turns a lot of the president's arguments on him. In the out years, these numbers that look very calm on Chart IV will be a very tight corset for the federal government. They will require intense management of affairs and many changes in entitlements -- means testing, qualifications testing, less benefits. We can expect a high level of Pelosiation, meaning shrieks of agony as reality crashes into Democratic fantasies. But do we want to Detroit the country?
This an exit ramp off the highway to Detroit for the US of A.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/republican_strategy_for_the_debt_ceiling_crisis.html#ixzz2fvQtwvzu
Theft of US weapons in Libya involved hundreds of guns, sources say
The recent theft of massive amounts of highly sensitive U.S. military equipment from Libya is far worse than previously thought, Fox News has learned, with raiders swiping hundreds of weapons that are now in the hands of militia groups aligned with terror organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood.The equipment, as Fox News previously reported, was used for training in Libya by U.S. Special Forces. The training team, which was funded by the Pentagon, has since been pulled, partly in response to the overnight raids last August.
According to State Department and military sources, dozens of highly armored vehicles called GMV's, provided by the United States, are now missing. The vehicles feature GPS navigation as well as various sets of weapon mounts and can be outfitted with smoke-grenade launchers. U.S. Special Forces undergo significant training to operate these vehicles. Fox News is told the vehicles provided to the Libyans are now gone.
Along with the GMV's, hundreds of weapons are now missing, including roughly 100 Glock pistols and more than 100 M4 rifles. More disturbing, according to the sources, is that it seems almost every set of night-vision goggles has also been taken. This is advanced technology that gives very few war fighters an advantage on the battlefield.
"It's not just equipment ... it's the capability. You are giving these very dangerous groups the capability that only a few nations are capable of," one source said. "Already assassinations are picking up in Tripoli and there are major worries that the militias are using this stolen equipment to their advantage. All these militias are tied into terrorist organizations and are tied to (salafists)."
The "salafists" are a jihadist movement among Salafi Muslims. This growing movement in Libya directly endangers the U.S.-supported government, and sources worry that this sensitive equipment is now going to be used by these groups in an attempt to overthrow the government and install a more hardline Muslim leadership.
Some diplomats, who asked to remain anonymous, say they are seeing the kinds of conditions that opened the door to the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack now appearing in Tripoli and across the rest of Libya. They worry that American convoys and western convoys will be attacked using these stolen weapons and vehicles.
"The European ambassador was attacked and we are now commonly seeing robbing and attacking of people in broad daylight. ... This isn't perception, this is actually happening," said one source. The source was referring to an August incident where an escort vehicle for the European Union ambassador was attacked in Tripoli.
To make matters worse, the U.S.-developed training camp on the outskirts of Tripoli has now been taken over by one of these militia groups who are hoarding weapons, sources said. The worry is this camp, abandoned by U.S. trainers within the last month, is being used in preparation for an attack on the new Libyan government.
Meanwhile, special operators told Fox News that training camps throughout eastern Libya continue to train terrorists, and border controls right now around the country are non-existent in most areas.
"The theft of these weapons and the open borders are feeding Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and threatens Libya's neighbors as well. It's already bad. ... and now it's really bad."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/theft-us-weapons-in-libya-involved-hundreds-guns-sources-say/
FDA spending $182,814 to ‘better understand’ social media
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is paying six figures to a group that worked for the "Obama for America" campaign to monitor its social media platforms so it can be more effective on Facebook and Twitter.The agency awarded $182,814 to IB5k, a company billing itself as "the People Who Brought You Obama '08," to provide "comprehensive coverage" of the FDA's social media websites.
The company will track the FDA's online presence so it can "better understand" its social media campaigns, measuring the agency's impact by Facebook "likes" and Twitter mentions.
"Obtaining a snapshot of conversations that our audience is having will help us provide better counsel to FDA leadership so they can communicate more effectively and provide timely content," the FDA's Office of Acquisitions and Grants Services said.
The agency hopes that by monitoring its social media websites it can become better at messaging. The FDA has a smaller social media presence than other government agencies, with over 71,000 Facebook "likes" and 35,000 followers on Twitter.
By way of comparison, the State Department has over 384,000 Facebook likes, and 653,000 Twitter followers. NASA has over 4.8 million Twitter followers, overshadowing the White House's 4.2 million.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/fda-spending-182814-to-better-understand-social-media/?intcmp=latestnews
Only Propaganda Is 'Good Journalism'?
By Brent BozellWhy are liberals in so much denial about liberal bias in the news? Why do they think they're bending over backward to be "objective" doing that which Republicans see as partisan activism?
Daniel Froomkin of the Huffington Post -- formerly of The Washington Post -- suggests an answer. He is exactly the kind of liberal agitator in the newsroom who wants every news story to be a blazing editorial. Every reporter must divide the world clearly between Liberal Sense and Conservative Nonsense. His latest article is titled, "Writing a Neutral Story About Something So Heartless As the Food Stamp Vote Is Not Good Journalism."
On Sept. 19, The New York Times reported, "The Republican-led House yesterday voted to make deep cuts to the food stamps program that has kept millions of American families from going hungry since the recession hit, saying its response to growing need was instead a sign of bloat and abuse."
In short, Democrats keep families from starving. Republicans reject "growing need" as "bloat."
Froomkin argued that attempting objectivity, like quoting awful Republicans, creates horrendous "triangulating mush" that fails to educate voters. The Republican food-stamp vote was for him "a blatantly absurd and cruel move (that) struck me as a good test of whether the Washington press corps could ever bring itself to call things as they so obviously are -- or whether they would check their very good brains at the door and just write triangulating mush that leaves readers to fend for themselves."
Republicans should complain that while the Times story contained spending numbers and quoted both Democrats and Republicans, it contained the usual liberal media bias -- indeed, editorial slant -- in favor of social programs growing by leaps and bounds, forever and ever. But Froomkin was livid at the Times. "Like those at essentially every other mainstream news organization, they wrote it straight. They focused on procedure. They quoted both sides. And they called it a day."
Froomkin characterized Republicans quoted in the Times as either "fabulously disingenuous" or "shockingly dishonest." Froomkin would prefer these fools to be banned entirely from the news pages, unless they were tarred and feathered in print as unhinged extremists. Only that socialist view is the "truth."
Rep. Marlin Stutzman was "fabulously disingenuous" to insist that anti-poverty programs be measured by lifting people out of poverty, not just increasing spending in an era of trillion-dollar deficits. Somehow, he's the irrational one.
But when Republicans talk of dramatic spending increases in a news story, Froomkin faults reporters. He claimed it contrasts "a nonsensical non-argument with a fact and makes it sound like two equal sides." The Democratic "fact" was that the dramatic increase showed "the program was doing its job."
Froomkin is such a censorious Pravda-style writer that he even faulted his own colleagues at The Huffington Post for allowing "a long and utterly disingenuous quote from [Eric] Cantor, left unrebutted."
These are the facts Froomkin thinks are "disingenuous." Since taking office, the Obama administration has more than doubled spending on food stamps. Spending rose from $39 billion in 2008 to a projected $85 billion in 2012. House Republicans just voted to cut $40 billion from food stamps over a 10-year span, which, in federal-budget terms, is a tiny blip, not a "deep cut." The Times story admitted that even with these "cuts," the food stamp program "would cost more than $700 billion over the next 10 years."
The Times also noted that Senate Democrats insisted there would be no "cuts."
President Obama is responsible for a record number of food stamp recipients (47.7 million in June 2013). That's 6 million more Americans than when Obama's "recovery summer" began in June 2010.
Froomkin thought the newspaper accounts should agree with his view that the House vote was "not only an undeniable act of heartlessness, it was also perhaps the ultimate example of how today's increasingly radical and unhinged GOP leadership picks on the poor, coddles the rich, makes thinly veiled appeals to racism and plays time-wasting political games instead of governing."
Froomkin saw some merit in The Washington Post vote on this story, since it suggested conservative racism in pointing out the Census Bureau reports that almost half the food-stamp recipients are black or Hispanic.
"People at the Post are smart enough to realize that the primary political benefit to the GOP of attacking food stamps -- and blaming Obama for the increase in their use -- is that it serves as a dog-whistle, affirming to the base that Republican leaders are against letting shiftless minorities keep taking money out of your (white) pockets. People at the Post are not brave enough to say so, however."
After listening to their Froomkin-esque friends, liberal reporters think they've been painfully objective and dreadfully tolerant of Republican viewpoints. That's one reason the waterfall of liberal bias never stops flowing.
http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2013/09/25/only-propaganda-is-good-journalism-n1708808/page/full
More Than 21 Hours Later, Ted Cruz Has Been Cut Off
The Texas Republican rose in opposition to Obamacare Tuesday afternoon. He spoke for almost a full day. Here's what happened.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, rose to speak on the Senate floor at 2:41 p.m. on Tuesday. He stood up in opposition to Obamacare, he said. And he said he would continue to speak until he could no longer stand.By Wednesday morning, Cruz and some of his colleagues were still standing. He was cut off by a new day of Senate business at noon by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
It was not a filibuster. But it was a very, very long speech from the Texas senator who has been the center of attention in D.C.'s budget fight, and the Senate leader in a doomed-to-fail movement to strip funding for Obamacare out of any resolution that Congress passes to fund the government. If Congress fails to come to an agreement, the government will shutdown at the end of September.
Ted Cruz stood up to "make D.C. listen," he said repeatedly. "Washington depends on the American people not paying attention."
But what we heard during the duration of Sen. Cruz's speech was his view of how to be successful in modern American politics. And, in the reactions to his speech from members of his own party, we may get a sense of just how successful the ambitious senator can be.
Here's what you need to know from the 21 hours plus of speaking.
12:11: Reid: "It's the New Anarchy"
Following up on his comments calling Cruz's speech a "big waste of time," Reid said that "any day that government is hurt is a good day" for the Tea Party. Reid called it "the new anarchy."
Reid continued:
"The American people know that every hour he has spoken or he speaks pushes us closer to a Republican government shutdown." From there, the Senator said that "if anyone has any doubt that there are Republicans rooting for a shutdown, they should just turn on the television."
12:04 p.m.: The End
"This debates in your hands. Ultimately all 100 senators, all 46 Republicans, all 54 Democrats, work for you. The pleas from the American people, I can tell you from Texas, are deafening. the frustration that the U.S. Senate doesn't listen to the people is deafening. So I would call for all 46 Republicans to unite and stand against cloture on the bill."
Cruz closed to scattered applause, and a request from the presiding senator, Pat Leahy, for order. "Senators know better and the Senate will be in order," he said.
"I don't think we learned anything new," Harry Reid said after. "But it has been a big waste of time."
11:56 a.m.: Ted Cruz's Afternoon Plans
Apparently, there's a chance Ted Cruz may have some other arrangements that'll force him to leave the floor by noon.
Limbaugh's website confirms this.
11:54 a.m.: A Question From James Risch
The Idaho Republican joined the floor for the first time as noon approached. If Cruz ends at noon, he'll have held the floor for 21 hour and 19 minutes.
11:49 a.m.: A Question From Mike Lee, and a Question of Time
Cruz allowed Sen. Mike Lee to ask a question as the clock ticked down. But it's not totally clear at this point when exactly Cruz will stop talking. At noon, as Reid made clear, the Senate will begin a new day of business with a prayer. But after that point, at least according to Reid, Cruz should be able to speak for another hour. So far, Sen. Cruz has not shown any sign that he accepts that premise.
Following the question from Lee, Cruz went back to his guiding point: "For too long, Washington has not listened to the American people."
"Single moms," Cruz said, "are calling out to the United States Senate, fix this train wreck, fix this disaster."
"Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate is closed for business."
11:44 a.m.: Harry Reid: "This Is Not a Filibuster"
"This is an agreement he and I made," Reid said. Cruz then objected to the majority leader continuing to speak on the floor.
"If the majority leader is going to cut off and muzzle us in another 24 minutes," Cruz said, "then at this point I don't think it is appropriate to allow the majority leader to consume that time."
Reid later interjected, asking if Cruz would allow Sen. John McCain to speak for 15 minutes. "I will honor the Senate rules and allow my time to expire at noon," Cruz said. Cruz then refused to yield to the majority leader for a parliamentary inquiry.
Cruz then did agree to yield to Reid for a question. "You don't seem to understand you have time until 1 after the morning prayer," Reid said, asking if he would then agree to consent to a question from John McCain after the prayer.
At that point, Cruz yielded to Sen. Jeff Sessions for a question, which turned into a back-and-forth between the two.
11:35 a.m.: Thank Yous
Just like at the conclusion of any long, televised speech, Ted Cruz ran off a list of Congressional staff that he wanted to think for their work during the long speech.
Cruz also thanked the senators who presided during the speech, and the Republican senators who came to the floor to ask questions.
And he made "special note" of Rep. Louie Gohmert who stayed on the floor all night watching his speech.
Cruz also called out Utah's Mike Lee, saying "we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Sen. Lee's principle, for his courage, and for his bravery under fire." And last, Cruz said, he wanted to thank the American people who have been engaged in the health care debate, and watched the speech over CSPAN.
"And with those thank yous," Cruz said, "I would note that Sen. Grassley wanted to ask a question." But, instead, Cruz was asked by Reid to yield to him instead. Which Cruz obliged.
11:30 a.m.: Harry Reid Arrives on the Floor
While Sen. Cruz described his consent requests, the Senate Majority Leader appeared on the floor. Cruz said that, as he understands it, he has 30 minutes left to speak. We'll see where this goes.
Cruz asked Reid if he would be able to speak for longer. It appeared that, off camera, Reid told Cruz he could not. "I'm without a question," Reid said.
11:27 a.m.: By the Numbers
While Cruz is still speaking, a look at the Congressional Record for Tuesday, until midnight, shows that he and some of his colleagues have repeated some words in excess—which happens when you talk for over 20 hours. Here are some of the numbers:
"Obamacare" – 543, "Affordable Care Act" – 4, "Green eggs and ham" – 15, "Small businesses" – 76, "Make DC listen" – 26, "Listening" – 68, "American" – 420, "Insurance" – 222, "Washington" – 124, "Daddy" – 2, "Constitution" – 19, "Texas" – 80, "My friend" – 35, "The senator from" – 73.
11:23 a.m.: The Cruz-Durbin Back-And-Forth Continues
"The Senator from Illinois made an action impugning my motives," Sen. Cruz said. Things are getting testy.
Answering Cruz's question about Hoffa, Durbin said that Senate Democrats have been unable to fix "anomalies" in the Affordable Care Act because Congressional Republicans have not worked with Democrats, preferring to see the law "descend into chaos."
Senator Durbin then asked Cruz if he still believes that the provision of the ACA that forbids barring patients with pre-existing conditions from receiving insurance. Cruz responded saying that the Congress should repeal the entirety of Obamacare, and then work to fix specific problems.
Cruz tried to cut Durbin off, saying that "we are operating on some time constraints." "I recognize the passion of the senator from Illinois," Cruz said, "but I have not yielded the floor."
11:17 a.m.: Durbin to Cruz: Do You Want to Abolish a Program That Will Provide People With Health Care?
Sen. Durbin told the story of a woman named Judy, who would be able to recieve health care for the first time under Obamacare. Cruz responded to Durbin's question, saying that this specific woman should be able to get care, "but in my view any health care reform should empower citizens to take consultation with their physicians and not have any government bureaucrat get in the way of them and their doctor."
Cruz then asked Durbin if he believed Teamsters President James Hoffa is right to say that Obamacare will "destroy" health care for Americans.
11:10 a.m.: Will Harry Reid Come to the Floor?
Ted Cruz, speaking to an off-camera Dick Durbin, asked if Sen. Durbin could ask the Senate majority leader to come to the floor in order for Cruz to propose a series of unanimous consent requests.
Durbin responded, saying that he could not speak for the majority leader, and that Reid will do as he likes. The Illinois Democrat made it clear that he found the request surprising, and then went back to a conversation from last night about the health care exchanges.
10:43 a.m.: A Question From Marco Rubio
The Florida Republican returned to the floor to give Cruz a break Wednesday morning.
10:27 a.m.: Reading Limbaugh
"Fans of Rush Limbaugh know that ever year he reads something that his father wrote," Cruz said. The Texas senator then proceeded to read the story from the radio host's father. That can be read in full here.
10:10 a.m.: Cruz's Pitch to Democrats
"Bucking your party's leadership inevitably provokes a reaction. Inevitably provokes expressions, and often strong expressions of displeasure," Cruz said. He continued:
But let me also encourage any Democrats, there are worse things in life than a few harsh words being tossed your way. To be honest, that pales in comparison to the working men and women of this country who are suffering, who are losing their jobs, who are losing their health care, who are being forced into part-time work.Of course, Cruz knows a thing or two about bucking party leadership. This is an area where the freshman senator speaks with some experience.
From there, Cruz yielded for a question from David Vitter.
10:02 a.m.: Steve Stockman on the Offensive
Lending support for Cruz over Twitter, the Texas congressman drew a stretch of a parallel between Cruz and Obama:
10:00 a.m.: The Cruz Media Blackout
Cruz may have talked all night, but the national media for the most part ignored the speech—or at least didn't give it front-page treatment this morning. He did, however, get major play in newspapers from his home state, like the Dallas Morning News or Houston Chronicle. Here's a compilation of some newspapers from across the country.
9:56 a.m.: The Endgame
"I can't win. There's no way I can win," Cruz said. But, he said, when it comes to ultimately
defeating Obamacare "I have faith in the American people."
What Cruz gets wrong here, though, is that Americans oppose defunding Obamacare if it means shutting down the government. And if that's what this endgame looks like in the short-term, support for Cruz could erode.
9:30 a.m.: The Fourth Longest Senate Speech
Records fall:
Sen Ted Cruz R-TX now owns the fourth longest Senate floor speech, passing Sen Robert La Follette Sr (18 h 23 m)
9:19 a.m.: A Question From James Inhofe
The Oklahoma Republican, who has spent much of the last day on the floor with Cruz, gave the Texas senator a brief reprieve for a question about single-payer health insurance, and whether or not that was Harry Reid's goal all along.
Unsurprisngly, at this point we are getting a decent number of repeats of statements that were made last night. That's, by his own admission, what Sen. Inhofe is doing right now in his statement on Hillary Clinton's health care push in the '90s. But gotta imagine it's nearly impossible to come up with 17 hours of original spoken content.
Of course, there's a big difference between Hillarycare and Obamacare. Congress passed Obamacare. One of them became a law. The other didn't.
9:05 a.m.: Cruz: Towards a Senate With 10 Bernie Sanders
Senator Cruz suggested he would prefer to have a Senate with 10 Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and 10 Mike Lees, R-Utah, than what we have now. The implication here being that, in Cruz's mind, while Sanders is not quiet about his far-left views, other Democrats may be hiding their true beliefs.
With that, back to reading Atlas Shrugged.
8:59 a.m.: Cruz Reads Ayn Rand
A little before 9, the senator began to read from Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Cruz has previously referred to the author as one of his all-time heroes.
8:53 a.m.: Ted Cruz: I'm Not Hip
Comparing himself to Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, Senator Cruz said that he is not hip. That he can't attract people with earrings and Birkenstocks. But, he says, he can still quote Ashton Kutcher. "I will take it as a given that there is no politician on the planet who qualifies as cool."
As he did on Tuesday, Cruz decided to cite from Ashton Kutcher's Teen Choice Awards speech. Video of the speech itself, and some background on it, can be found below.
"Always be sexy," Cruz said, quoting Kutcher. "I salute that message."
8:50 a.m.: Cruz and Paul: Obama Should Be on Obamacare
Extending the princple of David Vitter's amendment, both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz spoke on the floor about how the president should be subject to his health care law.
"I think the president should take it," Paul said. "I think Justice Roberts should take it … If he's going to take that intellectual leap to justify Obamacare, then he should take it."
8:45 a.m.: Cruz Does His Best Darth Vader
Okay, we're getting a little delirious here. Comparing Washington D.C. to the empire and the movement against Obamacare as the "rebel alliance," Cruz tried to pull off a Star Wars analogy. That includes putting on his best growl and saying, "Mike Lee. I am your father."
"Just like in the Star Wars movies, the Empire will strike back." But, at the end of the day, Cruz said, "I think the rebel alliance, the people, will prevail."
8:42 a.m.: Paul: Come on Down, Chief Justice Roberts
"Justice Roberts loves Obamacare so much that I'm proposing Justice Roberts trot on down" and sign up for the exchanges, Rand Paul said on the floor Wednesday morning. Paul also knocked Obamacare's mandates, saying that "when you hear the word 'mandate,' that's not freedom. That's government telling you have to do something."
Paul also got in a bit of a zinger on the authors of the Affordable Care Act:
The people who gave you Obamacare are not bad people. They have big hearts, but sometimes, I think, not big brains."If you can't sell free health care," Paul said, "there must be a problem with it."
His question for Cruz: Do you see an opening for compromise with the president on the Affordable Care Act?
Cruz's answer? Absolutely. Although, again, it's actually very, very hard to imagine Obama agreeing to any of Cruz's proposed changes to Obamacare. Especially where funding is concerned.
8:33 a.m.: How This Is Working Out for Cruz So Far
According to Google Trends, Cruz is breaking into some unfamiliar ground for a junior senator:
So that's Sen. Cruz, killing Joseph Gordon-Levitt, not quite beating out Marvel's new T.V. show in terms of search interest Wednesday morning. But when you ask yourself why exactly Ted Cruz is spending so much time speaking, especially when it's not even for an actual filibuster and he's very unlikely to get any of what he wants on Obamacare, it's worth keeping this chart in mind.
8:23 a.m.: Rand Paul Returns to the Floor
"The president wants 100 percent of Obamacare, as he wrote it, as Democrats wrote it, with no Republican input," Sen. Paul said. What's difficult with this statement, and with much of what Paul and Cruz have said over the last day, is that the Affordable Care Act was of course passed by Congress. And Republicans were given opportunity to offer input on the law, even though in the end none of them actually voted for it in the Senate.
8:11 a.m.: Cruz's Obamacare Amendments
Answering a question from Pat Roberts, Cruz said he would support repealing the medical device tax and Sen. David Vitter's subsidy amendment, which Vitter discussed on the floor with Cruz on Tuesday.
"Different rules should not apply to Washington that apply to the American people," Cruz said.
Cruz also suggested support for removing authority from the IRS, and delaying the individual mandate--which would likely effectively gut the health care law. He then yielded for another question/statement from Pat Roberts.
8:02 a.m.: Cruz's Lions
Calling Roberts an "old lion" of the Senate, Cruz said it was a "big, big deal" to have the Kansas Republican's support on the floor. "It is one thing for the young turks, it was one things for those who have been dubbed the wacko birds" to be on the floor. But, Cruz said, having the support of some of these more senior Senators makes a difference.
Of course, it's worth noting, Senate Republican leadership hasn't been rushing to Cruz's side so far. And Cruz's co-senator from Texas, Minority Whip John Cornyn, didn't have kind words for Cruz on Tuesday.
7:52 a.m.: A Question From Pat Roberts
Roberts, who admitted to not sticking through the whole night, appeared on the floor Wednesday morning with a particularly loose tie and a question for Sen. Cruz.
Roberts' comments weren't about Obamacare directly, but rather about how the Senate amendment process is currently working, particularly in regards to the Farm Bill. Roberts asked Cruz what kinds of amendments he would like to offer on a budget resolution that would impact Obamacare.
7:47 a.m.: Cruz on the Exceptions
Sen. Cruz again claimed that, unless it is defunded, labor unions will eventually be exempted from Obamacare. "I believe if it doesn't apply to everyone, it shouldn't apply to anyone," he said. Although, as bears repeating, there's not much reason to think that claim will actually come true.
"You have nothing to worry about if you have several high-paid lobbyists" at your call, Cruz said.
Cruz also compared Obamacare to the "socialized medicine" of Cuba. Getting a dig in on Michael Moore, Cruz said that "I'm not aware of one person getting on a raft from Florida and heading over to Cuba."
Cruz then yielded to a question from Kansas' Pat Roberts.
7:43 a.m.: Rubio on Hispanics and the American Dream
Marco Rubio, giving Cruz another break, spoke on why the American Dream resonates with the Hispanic community in America. He spoke specifically about how big government pushed Hispanics out of Venezuela and Cuba, and brought them to the freedom of places like Miami.
"That's what big government does, it traps people in the circumstances of their birth." We should defund Obamcare because, Rubio said, "it undermines the American free-enterprise system."
His question for Cruz: Aren't we also fighting today for American free enterprise?
7:30 a.m.: Cruz Returns With a Warning
Thanking Rubio for his time, Cruz said that "if Obamacare had been law, he might not be in the Senate right now." He suggested that it may have prevented him from getting to represent Texas, as well.
The idea here being that, the impact of Obamacare on businesses in general, and the Hispanic community in particular, could be so taxing that it wouldn't have allowed the Rubios and the Cruzes to succeed in America.
"There is no ideal that resonates more with the Hispanic community than the American dream," Cruz said. "Has Obamacare made it harder to achieve the American dream?"
From there, Cruz gave way to another question from Rubio, that is at least in part intended to be an answer to that question.
7:20 a.m.: What We Missed
The floor speech has been going on for nearly 17 hours now. We missed a good chunk of it overnight. But here's some of what happened:
Around 1:00 a.m., Cruz took time to talk about the religious liberty implications of Obamacare.
Cruz was joined by the first Democratic senator on the floor at around 9:00 p.m. as Illinois' Dick Durbin came down. Durbin didn't come just as a friend though. He questioned Cruz on whether or not he really wanted to shutdown the government, and whether Cruz really thought he had the votes to defund Obamacare. You can see video of their back-and-forth here:
Durbin was also one of the few Democrats to come to the floor during Rand Paul's spring drone filibuster.
At around 3:00 a.m., at least Mike Lee had joined Cruz on the floor. At some point, Lee said that he wishes he could be a pirate.
A bit before midnight, Cruz read tweets from his #MakeDCListen tag.
7:13 a.m.: Wow.
So, obviously, we've missed some. But turning on the television at 7 Wednesday morning, we were greeted with a visibly tired Marco Rubio, speaking on the floor, giving Cruz a reprieve. At them moment, Rubio is talking about the business experience of his parents.
"Some of the greatest heroes in the American story are people you will never learn about," Rubio said. "Some of the greatest heroes in the American story are people who worked hard at jobs, back-breaking jobs, difficult jobs, so their children can have careers."
8:35 pm: A Question from James Inhofe
The Oklahoma senator came aboard for support a little after 8:30.
8:17 pm: A Question From Mike Enzi
The Wyoming Republican joined in with other Republican senators in giving Cruz a break in speaking, especially after his Seussian tour de force. He asked Cruz what, exactly, a continuing budget resolution is.
8:13 pm: "They Did Not Like Green Eggs and Ham, And They Did Not Like Obamacare Either"
Cruz compared the health care law to the Seuss story, which he read in full. Americans "did not like green eggs and ham, and they did not like Obamacare either," he said. "They did not like Obamacare in a box, with a fox, in a house, with a mouse."
Video here:
8:06 pm: Goodnight, Cruz Children
"The hardest aspect of public service is being away from those little angels," Cruz said of his two daughters at 8 pm.
Why turn to his daughters at 8 pm? Because that's when, Cruz says, his daughters have turned on C-SPAN. So he's taken the opportunity to read them two bed-time stories.
Cruz read from the Bible, reading "King Solomon's wide words." Things like, "good people are kind to their animals, but a mean person is cruel." And, "we trap ourselves by telling lies, but we stay out of trouble by living right." "Kind words are like honey," Cruz said. "They cheer you up and make you feel strong."
The second item that Cruz read his daughters was, of course, Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham. And yes, he read the whole thing. With feeling.
"I would not could not with a goat," Sen. Cruz read. We assume this is a Senate first.
Cruz concluded, saying "Daddy's going to be home soon, to read to you in person."
7:55 pm: Not a Big Crowd
At least according to The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe:
7:50 pm: Cruz: Obamacare Is Brutal to Young Americans
In a line that has come up before, and likely will come up again as the GOP aims to win over more young voters, Cruz said that "you could not design a law to do more damage to young people than Obamacare if you sat down and tried."
Cruz didn't just focus on Obamacare here, but on the plight of young Americans throughout the economic recovery. He read off youth unemployment numbers, suggesting that Obamacare could make things worse.
In 2012, Obama crushed Mitt Romney among young people nationally, by a 67 to 30 margin. Obamacare and the specter of privacy-shattering big government, Cruz and other Republicans hope, could be a way to shift those numbers.
7:37 pm: Ted Cruz Has a List
The senator has spent a decent amount of time now reading a list of companies that are limiting employee hours to avoid the having to provide health care. This as we approach five full hours of speaking.
The list, however, does come complete with a few quick jokes about White Castle and Fatburger ("there's truth in advertising")
6:50 pm: Mike Lee Returns
The Utah Republican returned for another question, and to read a letter from a constituent about the ACA.
6:42 pm: Cruz to Rubio: "You Inspire Me"
Cruz called Rubio's comments absolutely right, and said that he "inspires" him. Marco Rubio, Cruz said, is a "critical national leader."
6:37 pm: A Question From Marco Rubio
His question? "Why are we so passionate" about Obamacare?
Rubio's question/speech began with a meditation on America, and what it has meant for him and his family. And then it became a question of whether or not the American Dream is still achievable.
"I think it's time we realized that one of the leading threats to the American Dream are policies that are being pursued at the federal level."
Rubio answered the passion question himself, before giving Cruz a chance to. "We are passionate about this opportunity we have to stop Obamacare because of the impact it has on real people."
The biggest political question for America now, says Rubio, is whether or not America can continue to be exceptional, or if it will just become like everyone else.
Rubio is, as yet, the most mainstream Republican senator to join Cruz on the floor. He's the sixth to ask a question. He's also the third of the possible 2016 GOP contenders, joining Cruz and Paul. Again, this speech likely won't change the course of Obamacare. But it could be one of the most prolonged demonstrations of the new course of the Republican party.
"We could be here all night," Rubio said.
6:21 pm: Jeff Sessions All In on Cruz
In his final question, Sessions said that he will oppose any advancing of a budget that doesn't "provide some change in this Obamacare legislation." He further said that he intends to support Cruz.
6:18 pm: Ted Cruz on the "Muzzled" Senate
Lambasting Majority Leader Reid's plan for amendments on a budget resolution, Cruz said that Reid is effectively setting up a situation where "the other 99 senators are muzzled." "That's a sign of a Senate that's not working," Cruz said. "There should be open debate and open amendments."
6:15 pm: The Questions
While we may not be getting too much substance from the questions that (so far) five senators have asked Sen. Cruz, they do make an important point. At the very least, these are five Republican senators who have Cruz's back, and who aren't afraid of showing as much on the Senate floor. Five senators isn't necessarily an intimidating coalition, but they show that even with the public feuding between Cruz and the GOP establishment this week, he still has some support. Even if it's coming from the fringes.
6:08 pm: Cruz on the Boom of Government Business
Sen. Sessions asked Cruz about a percieved increase in workers in Washington because of the growth of government and the ACA. "One of the disturbing trends we've seen in recent years," Cruz said, "is the boom in the business in government."
In reality, however, there has been a prolonged drop in public sector employment over the last several years.
6:01 pm: 'The Target Is Obamacare'
Sen. Cruz tried to make the point that he's not trying to go after his fellow congressional Republicans with his stand, or Democrats for that matter. "It is my hope, my fervent hope, that the voices of dissension within the Republican caucus will stop firing at each other and start firing at the target," he said. "I don't want us to start firing at the Democrats or the president."
Instead, he said, "the target is Obamacare." With all of the rhetorical volleys that have come Cruz's way in the last week, it's hard to see how easily he'll be able to just smooth over tension within the Republican caucus.
5:52 pm: A Question From Jeff Sessions
The Alabama Republican got the floor temporarily from Cruz for a question. The number of Cruz supporters is steadily rising, four hours into the speech.
The question: "If there's a single-payer, who will the payer be?"
Cruz's answer? "The government, which ultimately means the taxpayer."
5:45 pm: Cruz on the March to Socialized Health Care
Responding to a question from Sen. Pat Roberts, Ted Cruz said that the Kansas senator is "absolutely right" in suggesting that the Affordable Care Act is the first step towards socialized health care. "Its intended purpose is to unavoidably lead us down that path," Cruz said.
"When Obamacare collapses in shambles it'll take down the private health insurance system with it, leaving nothing left."
5:42 pm: A Question From Pat Roberts
Cruz yielded the floor to the Kansas Republican a bit before six. His question: "Is this not the first step towards socialied healthcare?"
5:41 pm: Ted Cruz Answers Rand Paul on a Government Shutdown
"I will go to my grave in debt to Rand Paul," Sen. Cruz opened in response to a question from Rand Paul. The admiration between the two senators was on obvious display, including in Ted Cruz's admission that he was not wearing his famed argument boots.
But, to Rand's question as to whether or not Sen. Cruz would like to shut down the government and block a budget from being passed. "We should not shut down the government," Cruz said. "We should fund every bit of the government. Every aspect of the government. One hundred percent of the government except for Obamacare." Cruz continued:
Let me be absolutely clear we should not shut down the government and I sincerely hope that Sen. Reid and President Obama did not force a government shutdown simply to force Obamacare on the American people.Cruz also pushed against the idea of accepting some kind of budget compromise. Why not? "Because I've committed publicly over and over to the American people that I will not vote for a continuing resolution that funds one penny of Obamacare."
Congress' odds of passing a budget that defunds Obamacare are incredibly slim. The chance that Obama wouldn't veto such a budget, slimmer. Realistically, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul know this. What they may not know is what exactly a solution looks like that prevents a government shutdown.
5:31: Rand Paul Enters
It begins. The Kentucky Republican opened with some advise for Ted Cruz, from one long-speech-giver to another. "Try not to eat on television," he said. "Sometimes that shows up."
Sen. Paul praised the idea of lengthy oratory, saying that he thinks that what the American people would like to see is for politicians to stand up and say what they believe in, what they'd like the country to look like.
"How are we going to get to dialogue without somebody standing up and saying enough's enough?"
And Paul's question for Ted Cruz? Whether or not the Texas senator would like to shut down the government.
5:20 pm: Letter Time
Cruz turned to letters from small business owners from across the country as he finished the third hour of his speech. The letters describe the burden some employers feel of the health care law, which requires them to provide coverage for full time employees.
It does seem, however, like reading time will shortly end. Sen. Rand Paul tweeted just a few minutes ago that he's headed to the floor. And he might be bringing candy.
5:10 pm: Paging Sen. Paul
Around 4:30, Rand Paul tweeted out his implicit support of Cruz's stand:
The Hill reports that Sen. Paul is expected to join Cruz on the SEnate floor sometime this afternoon. We don't yet know when that will happen, how long it will last, or what Paul will say.
Cruz referenced Sen. Paul's earlier drone filibuster Tuesday evening, saying "I remember when Sen. Paul began that filibuster. Many members in this body viewed what he was doing as curious if not quixotic." He continued: "The American people got engaged, got informed. And it transformed the debate."
5:05 pm: A Pre-Planned Speech
According to Harry Reid's communications director, Sen. Cruz pre-negotiated the terms of his Tuesday speech with the majority leader on Monday.
4:51 pm: Praising Ashton Kutcher
Sen. Cruz took a moment to highlight a speech that actor Ashton Kutcher made at the Teen Choice Awards this summer. The speech was something that's easy for people to get behind. "I believe that opportunity looks a lot like work," Kutcher said in the speech.
He's not the only conservative to hop on the speech. Sarah Palin previously called it "heartfelt." Glenn Beck called it "incredibly insightful." Cruz himself had earlier called it "remarkable" on Twitter. You can see it here.
4:44 pm: Personal History
A little after 4:30, Ted Cruz began to speak about his father's experience of "being beat and almost killed in Cuban jail," and his own family history. The full Cruz story, as written recently in GQ, makes for a fascinating read.
Speaking slightly earlier about poverty in America, Cruz brought up an interesting political comparison:
I didn't agree with a lot of things that John Edwards said as a political candidate, but I actually agreed with that notion that there are two Americas.Cruz spoke wove hs father's history into this idea, and how his family was able to come up in America.
Understandably, Cruz got a little off the broader point of politics here, saying things like "my father invented green eggs and ham," and then talking about his love of the book.
But as weird and random as this might sound, Cruz is also attempting to do something that Rand Paul pulled off (to an extent) in his spring filibuster. He's introducing himself to the country. Obviously most people in America aren't glued to C-SPAN right now, but bet on seeing these clips of Sen. Cruz talking about his family and his early life floating around in the coming years.
One side of his father's history hasn't (at least so far) come up in Cruz's Senate speech. In the 1980s, Cruz's father's oil business fell with the lowering oil prices, and he went bankrupt. Cruz spoke about this time to GQ:
My father poured all of my parents' personal assets into the company, and demand for oil and gas exploration just disappeared, because oil prices dropped so low. There's a whole generation of people in the energy industry at that time that just lost everything.4:33 pm: Obamacare Is a Rule for the Little People
Sen. Cruz has spent much of the last dozen or so minutes speaking out against the exemptions the White House has issued for Obamacare. Mark my words, he said, if Obamacare goes into effect "you will see an exemption for labor unions." Summoning Leona Helmsle, Cruz called the law a rule for the "little people."
As Ezra Klein writes at WonkBlog, the odds of actually seeing a labor exemption aren't looking too hot.
4:22 pm: The Democrats Come to the Attack
On Twitter at least. You can see the full Twitter reactions at bottom.
4:12: Defending Vitter
Following a quick question from Louisiana Republican David Vitter, Ted Cruz launched into a defense of David Vitter's proposed amendment that would require lawmakers and others to no longer get federal subsidies for their health insurance.
"I want to commend Senator David Vitter for shining a light on basic fairness," said Cruz. Although Cruz later did note that there could be some consequences if some people in Congress lose their subsidies:
If the Vitter Amendment passes, if Congress is subject to the same rules of the American people, there might be a few congressional staffers that tender their resignation.4:03: Getting to Work
Sen. Cruz has spent a decent portion of his speaking time since returning from a question break devoted to the idea that Obamacare is a job killer. "Some politicians suggest people in this country are lazy, don't want to work," he said. "I think Americans want to work."
"Why aren't people able to get jobs? Because Obamacare is killing jobs." And with that, Senator Cruz yielded for a quick question from Lousiana Republican David Vitter.
And, at least so far, the idea that Obamacare is a giant job killer hasn't really borne out.
3:57 pm: Cruz Returns, With History
The senator came back from Sen. Lee's questioning a little before 4. And he came to give a history lesson about mankind's struggle for freedom.
"If you look at the history of government in the world, it hasn't been pretty," he said. "It has been a story of oppression. A story of rulers imposing their rule on their subjects."
Cruz suggested that the U.S. hasn't been working on the proper side of this history. "For some time the United States has not behaved as if each of us collectively have 300 million bosses." But, he hopes, this week of making D.C. listen will change that. ""The most important objective this week is to reassert that sovereignty lies with We the People."
3:48 pm: Hashtags
Senator Cruz is tweeting from the Senate floor. Or at least someone is on his behalf:
The Twitter love is at least starting to come in from House Republicans, like Oklahoma's Jim Bridenstine and Texas' Steve Stockman. Nothing yet from the Senate.
3:37 pm: Question Time
Without yielding the floor, Sen. Cruz elected to take a question from his friend and ally, Utah Republican Mike Lee. "How many more Americans will have to lose their jobs before Congress acts?" he asked. The questions are playing a similiar role to the ones Lee lobbed at Rand Paul during his epic drone filibuster. They give Cruz a minute to catch his breath.
3:35 pm: What's a "Flying Flip?"
The senator said that most Americans "could not give a flying flip about a bunch of politicians." He continued, "almost all of us are in cheap suits and bad haircuts. Who cares?"
We don't know exactly what a "flying flip" is, but we can take a guess at what the senator was getting at.
In all seriousness though, this is another sign of what the overriding theme of this speech has been to this point. It's not really about health care. Policy hasn't been mentioned. It's about what Ted Cruz sees as the incredible failings of the U.S. Congress, a body he thinks won't listen to average Americans.
If Ted Cruz had already lost a lot of friends in the Senate this week, this speech sure won't do anything to help him. How it plays with a grassroots community that he's aiming for for a possible 2016 run though? We'll have to wait and see on that one.
3:28 pm: Against Cocktail Parties
So says the senator:
Mr. President, it is apparently very, very important to be invited to all the right cocktail parties in town. At the end of the day we don't work for those holding cocktail parties in Washington D.C. We don't work for the intelligensia who live in cities and write editorials for big newspapers. We work for the American people.Cocktail parties are stereotypically endemic in Washington D.C., a symbol for an elitist culture gone awry. But it's a trope that doesn't always ring so true with the new reality where many members of Congress are hesitant to cross party lines--even for drinks.
Cruz, for his part, has had some issues with elitism this week. A profile of the senator in GQ presented the Harvard and Princeton graduate as someone who didn't associate with people from the "lesser Ivies."
3:20 pm: Another Kind of Insurance
Playing off the idea of health insurance, Cruz said that his fight against Obamacare is "about insuring that the American people have a voice." Because, get it, puns. He continued, saying it's about:
insuring that those who are struggling, those who are without a job, those who are afraid about losing their health insurance, that Washington listens to them. That Washington acts on their needs.3:15 pm: The Rest of the Senate Needs to Get to Work
Cruz doesn't think he should be the only guy on the floor speaking for hours about the Affordable Care Act. "We oughtta have all 100 senators on this floor around the clock" until the law is no more, said the senator.
And he hit his coworkers on their priorities: "The Senate floor is largely empty. Everyone's schedules are apparently busy enough that standing up against Obamacare doesn't make the priority list." Cruz later pointed to the lack of senators attending his speech as being part of the reason why Congress has such a low approval rating.
"Anyone who wants to know why this body is held in low esteem only has to look out to the empty chairs," he said. And his remarks for his colleagues got a bit more personally biting from there:
There's a tendency as time goes on to view your constituents as an annoyance. In the private sector if your boss picks up the phone and calls, I suspect neither you nor I sat at the computer and played Solitaire.We'll be looking for a response from Senator McCain.
3:10 pm: Nazis
If you were betting on a WWII appearance within the first hour of Cruz speaking, you're in luck! The senator compared people (namely, pundits) who say that his attempt to stop or defund Obamacare can't be done to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler and the Nazis.
Cruz did admit that there have been some historical obstacles that have proved as daunting to overcome as the Affordable Care Act: "The moon might be as intimidating as Obamacare."
3:05 pm: It's Time For Analogies
For any long, extemporaneous speech, some odd cultural references are likely to sneak in. Just 20 minutes in, Cruz has already mentioned the Little Engine the Could and professional wrestling.
A little before 3:00, Cruz compared the United States Congress to a very different body: World Wrestling Entertainment. "It's wrestling matches where it's all rigged," he said. "The outcome is predetermined, and it's all for show."
As for the engine, the Texas senator said that if that Little Engine tried to bring its "I think I can" attitude to Congress, he'd be in for a sorry surprise. "That little engine can't," Cruz said. Presumably, in this analogy, Ted Cruz takes on the persona of the train. If that helps clear anything up for how you view the 113th Congress.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/more-than-21-hours-later-ted-cruz-has-been-cut-off-20130924
No comments:
Post a Comment