Senator Rand Paul is shaking things up in the Senate as always, this time giving the Graham/Cassidy bill a new name — “Amnesty for Obamacare.”
I was thinking this all sounds familiar…amnesty?#GrahamCassidyِ: Amnesty for Obamacare.
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 19, 2017
Senator Paul, a career physician, has been a vocal opponent of Graham/Cassidy bill in favor of a full repeal. He has lead the fight against plans in both houses of Congress, referring to the proposals as “ObamaCare Lite” and demanding more significant changes.
“These have been plans that have spent nearly as much money as ObamaCare, that left most of the taxes and regulations in place, and basically failed to honor our promise of repeal,” the Kentucky senator wrote in an op-ed for Fox News.
The bill was introduced last week by Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, and aims to roll back the Obamacare Medicaid expansion and give money from deconstructing ACA programs to states so that they can run their own health care programs. Senator Paul argues that it is actually just “a redistribution of ObamaCare taxes and a new Republican entitlement program, funded nearly as extravagantly as ObamaCare.”
“This isn’t a repeal. This is keeping Obamacare and redistributing the proceeds,” Paul told CNN. “So, this is not a repeal bill, this is sort of, ‘Hey, we’ll take Obamacare, replace it with Obamacare, but we’re going to let the states have a little more power in how we spend it.'”
Senator Paul has pointed to the fact that Graham/Cassidy does not repeal a single ObamaCare insurance regulation. He also wants people to understand that the new bill would still spend 90 percent of what we currently spend on ObamaCare.
“Graham/Cassidy won’t fix our health care problems, and it will become a permanent drain on the treasury – one that is already $20 trillion in debt, with a $700 billion deficit next year,” Paul’s op-ed continued. He argued that a full repeal, as the GOP has repeatedly promised, would saved over a trillion dollars in spending over 10 years.
The outspoken senator also blasted the major sales pitch being used to push the bill, that “if you like your ObamaCare, you can keep it.”
“That’s nice, but I don’t like it, I don’t want to keep it, and I don’t want to keep paying for it. So how about we all keep our word and get rid of it?” Paul wrote.
Despite pleas from his colleagues to get on board, Senator Paul will not be doing so, and has vowed to vote no on amnesty for Obama’s failed healthcare legacy.
FLASHBACK: Three Recent Supreme Court Justices Were Confirmed Within 45 Days
There’s ample precedent for a quick confirmation.
There are 45 days until the November 3rd presidential election, and there’s ample precedent for an expedited confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice in such a timeframe following a vacancy.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg died on Friday, setting up a possible contentious confirmation process to fill her seat. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pledging that a tentative Trump administration nominee for the position will receive a vote on the Senate floor, despite outrage and indignation on the part of progressives falsely maintaining that McConnell is breaking precedent he set by refusing to confirm Merrick Garland. President Obama tried to get Garland confirmed when the opposing party controlled the Senate, a divided government that does not exist in 2020.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself was formally nominated by President Clinton on June 22nd, 1993. Her confirmation process began on July 20th, and she was confirmed on August 3rd, with a total of 42 days elapsing between her nomination and confirmation.
John Paul Stevens’ nomination was advanced and confirmed in a speedy 19 days, and Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed in 1981 in a total of 33 days.
In fact, every single Supreme Court nomination of the past 45 years was nominated and voted upon within a shorter duration of the time remaining in Donald Trump’s first presidential term.
Yes, Trump has time to nominate and get his nominee confirmed to the Supreme Court. EVERY SINGLE VOTE ON A #SCOTUS NOMINEE OF THE LAST 45 YEARS was voted on in less time than what Trump has between now and the end of his current term. pic.twitter.com/og5aOZsiw1
— Matt Batzel (@MattBatzel) September 19, 2020
There’s actually wide precedent for nominating and confirming a Supreme Court justice within the confines of President Trump’s first term, and Democrats are being untruthful or erroneous to suggest otherwise.
McConnell is beginning initial work to advance confirmation hearings, with potential liberal Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski presenting themselves as possible holdouts. It is possible to approve a judge with 50 votes in the Senate and a Vice Presidential tiebreaker.
Fake News Media4 days ago
SHAMEFUL: Fox News Censors Newt Gingrich for Correctly Stating George Soros’ Role in Fomenting BLM Terror
Crime4 days ago
Omaha Business Owner Who Killed BLM Rioter in Self-Defense is Hit with Multiple Felony Charges
Crime3 days ago
ILHAN’S DISTRICT: 17-Year-Old GOP Volunteer Shot Dead Outside of Gas Station in Minneapolis
News3 days ago
OUTRAGEOUS: Milwaukee Man Who was Defending His Home from a Leftist Mob is Arrested
Campaign 20203 days ago
VOTE STEAL: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules to Count Mail-in Votes Submitted After Election Day
Big League Economics4 days ago
SHAME: Democrats Are Blocking Stimulus Legislation That Includes Second $1,200 TrumpBux Check
Immigration3 days ago
New Jersey IT Company Busted for Exploiting H-1B Cheap Labor Program, Must Pay $350,000 In Restitution
States3 days ago
EMAIL LEAK: Nashville Dem Mayor’s Office Colludes to Hide Data Indicating Restaurants and Bars Were Not COVID-19 Hotspots