Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
October 23, 2014

Why Ted Cruz Might Be Right About Defunding Obamacare in the Senate

cruz 206 062713 445x274 Why Ted Cruz Might Be Right About Defunding Obamacare in the Senate

(Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

Sen. Ted Cruz said Wednesday evening that he hopes every Senate Republican will stand up against funding Obamacare. But even that might not be enough to stop the Senate from stripping defunding language from a House spending bill.

“I would make a plea today to the 46 Senate Republicans that today is a day for party unity; that every Senate Republican should stand with Republicans in the House, should stand with conservatives and should stand with the American people,” the Texas Republican said during a joint appearance with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on Fox News.

Earlier in the day, House Republicans accused Cruz and Lee of giving up the fight when they suggested that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has the votes to remove the provision defunding Obamacare from the House measure.

But just how many Republican defectors does Reid need to round up in support of a stopgap spending measure that holds the health care overhaul harmless? The answer might be zero.

What about the number of GOP senators the Nevada Democrat would need to break a potential filibuster? The answer to that might technically be zero, too.

If the House sends over the continuing resolution to keep the government running past Sept. 30 as currently envisioned, there’s a procedural method by which Reid could hold a debate limiting vote on the bill before stripping out the House language that would defund the 2010 health care law.

That means at the point Democrats need GOP votes to overcome a filibuster threat, any Republican senator casting a “yes” vote on a motion to invoke cloture, and thus limiting debate, will still be voting on a bill that would cut off money for Obamacare.

After cloture is invoked with at least 60 votes, any pending amendments that are germane to the underlying measure (such as one to strike part of the text) automatically get votes at the end of 30 hours of debate — with simple majority thresholds for adoption. Here’s the actual language from Rule XXII:

After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not then actually pending before the Senate at that time and to the exclusion of all motions, except a motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote begins.

At that point, the vote to pass the bill and send it back to the House would only need Democratic votes. Both Cruz and Lee have said that the real fight would take place when the amended bill returns to the House.

“There is a difference between a vote and a victory, and we have to remember that this will not be either won or lost with a single legislative volley from one side of the Capitol to the other,” Lee said on Fox News. “This, like so many other legislative debates, might well take several volleys between House and Senate.”

Of course, each volley takes time and moves the calendar closer to the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1. If Congress doesn’t pass something to keep the government funded before then, a shutdown will ensue.

  • tpartynitwit

    This post makes no sense given the headline, which is appropriate because we’re discussing Tedious Ted Cruz, who only wants us to LOOK AT HIM!

    • buckw

      The school bus just arrived. Get your books and lunch and get on. Don’t forget to kiss Mommy!

    • juantolduso2

      just today your idol admitted that this was all an attack “against him”,so yeah it is all about the self-imposed and crowned king Obama,king of Chicongo!, and you say it is all about Cruz?

  • Tommy Rogers

    shut it down. Reduce it. Its a monster sucking the wealth and life out of hard working Americans. Fed uses the word “pumping” its PRINTING and counterfeiting! The stock market is up because of the interest free money the bank gets…Any savings you have or will have will be so diluted in the future you may owe money on it….wait, you already do. If you 401k goes up 20%, and the dollar loses 20% of its value, what have ya got? Taxation by inflation.

  • 66

    The stupid party, made up of conservative traitor-in-chief McCain and Nancy boy Graham, needs to listen to the new kid, the incredibly disciplined and smart Cruz. Even Rubio succumbed to inside the beltway politics. The GOP needs new thinking and gutsy leadership. Guys, its Socialism (now called “progressive”) VS the Constitution, and the GOP has been socialism light. Yeah, that’s compelling. TEA party was created to fill the leadership void of the GOP, but the GOP wants to stomp it out. Listen, Republicans, strap on a set and take on Obama; the democrats and media will scream racism, but most Americans will finally see what they want in response to Obamacare and runaway spending: OPPOSITION!

  • teapartydoc

    I am a surgical subspecialist in one of those massive organizations that has been built up in preparation to be an ACO within Obamacare. It has become obvious to the administrators of these systems that Obamacare is not going to be the gravy train for Big Medicine (I sometimes like to call it the medical-industrial complex, but that would include Big Pharma; just think of this as the Blue Model of medicine) that they thought it was going to be, and they are laying people off right and left. I can count about 30,000 covered in the major media in just the past few weeks, and that is only the small portion that has not been hidden below the radar. Just about every man in the street knows someone who has lost their job or had hours cut and lost benefits because of this.
    The bottom line is that this law is the economic equivalent of a nuclear strike on an American city. It needs to be fought with the same urgency, and the damage avenged with the same ferocity. This is no time to play footsy with the pigs who foisted this on us. If the politicians want to stand up for their constituents and be recognized and appreciated for it I can not think of a better time. And if this is allowed to stand without pinching, biting and eye-gouging, well then i guess it’s time to form a new party that will represent the people.

    • Ed Kennedy

      Yet the exact same law in effect in Massachusetts for almost 7 years has an approval rating of 84% from the general public and over 90% approval from members of the medical profession.
      http://www.mahealthconnector.org

      Hmmmh? I guess you’re saying the rest of the country isn’t smart and capable enough to implement a program that provides healthcare to millions that Massachusetts had few problems with getting running? Or are you using anecdotal tall tales that have no evidence to back them up?

      • Rick Caird

        Your link does not point to a poll with those results. Any polls I found have much poorer results. Second, Mass. does not pay the full cost of the program. Roughly 50% is subsidized by the Federal government. So, Mass is getting something for nothing, but that will not continue. Third, the Mass care program does nothing to control costs. It is unclear how the bill to cap prices will affect quality of care. It is also unclear how access to doctors is affected. If more people try to see the same number of doctors, then wait times increase or emergency rooms get more crowded.

        • Black JEM

          Umm – wait times to see a doctor in Mass are pretty much tops in the country.
          Insurers are trying to leave the market.
          Mass is so bad that the Obamacare rates may actually be LOWER than what they currently are in Mass.

          • GoneApe

            This sounds correct.

      • rangerider

        Apples and oranges, dude:-)

      • JeromeD

        As others have pointed out, Mass. got the world’s best deal: they gave themselves universal care, and they gave the rest of us the bill. Disgusting. America as a whole cannot emulate that, unless you wish to sign over the next generation to indentured servitude to make payments on the debt. Actually, that’s perhaps already been done.
        And, of course, the promise to “control costs” is empty. Worse than that, it’s actually malicious, as there is no actual cost-control in the bill. Seriously. There is a provision to get more MONEY by forcing young, healthy people into plans or to pay a “fine,” but there is 0 cost control. Romneycare is identical in this. It was signed into law in 2006, and from 2007 to present, long term care costs (just to name one type of the legions that are skyrocketing) have jumped 80%. http://www.telegram.com/article/20130906/NEWS/130909915/0

      • willwood

        Your numbers reflect the number of Mass residents who approve of everyone else in the country paying for half of their medical care. And 90% of the doctors who take that money agree. Take a poll on how many people outside that state like paying for your care.

    • Buster’s View

      Hear, hear!

    • GoneApe

      You stated this perfectly. They used every illegal and dirty trick in the book to pass this monstrosity so getting rid of it should extend the same rules. By whatever means necessary.

  • Robexaminer

    NO, a shutdown will NOT ensue. More like going on a weekend schedule. Try telling the truth!

    • Rick Caird

      And, you know this how?

      • Robexaminer

        For example, you can look at the history of past so-called “shutdowns” in the mid 1990s and earlier.

    • https://www.facebook.com/ritchietheriveter Ritchie The Riveter

      Even if you are right, Progressives will try to portray this as The End of the World and demagogue the issue.

      But it might not work this time … despite all their wailing and gnashing of teeth over the sequester, the public has seen that their world doesn’t cave in when government spends less than anticipated.

  • Ed Kennedy

    Finally! People are starting to realize the fact that until 2017 the Republicans have no chance to stop implementaion of the ACA. Even if they win the Senate in 2014 there is no way that they will have the 2/3rds necessary to overturn an Obama veto.

    Elections have consequences and until the GOP has enough votes, this “Defund” issue is nothing but grandstanding and a hustle to separate the rightwing base from their dollars. Beware politicians that send strident issue emails with a big DONATE button in the middle.

    • Rick Caird

      Your error, Ed, is in assuming Obama will go to the mat, himself, to keep ObamaCare going. If the Republicans get ObamaCare repealed as part of a budget bill, then Obama has the choice of shutting down the government in order to keep ObamaCare. If he vetoes, then the House and Senate Democrats have to on record as favoring ObamaCare above running the government.

      That would all be well and good if the country favored ObamaCare, but it doesn’t. Careers would be lost over that vote.

      • Ed Kennedy

        Of course he will. And House and Senate Democrats have already gone on record as supporting the ACA. Flip-flopping would be good for their careers?
        And don’t bet the house on the country not liking ObamaCare, we love RomneyCare here in Massachusetts once it was implemented and they are one and the same.

        • https://www.facebook.com/ritchietheriveter Ritchie The Riveter

          One and the same?

          Wrong … you can walk away from Romneycare, by moving to another state, when it fails to meet your needs Not so with Obamacare.

    • SouthronAmerican

      The moment Obama decided to start unilaterally delaying portions of the law, especially giving corporations an extra year to comply, he opened up a window for stopping implementation that wasn’t there before.

      But what happens at this point depends entirely on how savvy Republicans lawmakers are over the next two weeks. If they continue to insist on a full bore defunding, it will hurt them, and they’ll lose. If, after this continuing resolution fails, they instead turn towards insisting on a year delay to mirror the delay Obama has granted to corporations and stick to it, they’ll likely win.

      Then, in 2014, when a decent percentage of people have watched their insurance premiums skyrocket, there will come an opportunity to completely gut the act. This is especially true because the group that’s going to see the biggest increase (people in their 20s) are a demographic the Democrats depend on to win elections, especially off-year elections when minority turnout tends to be much, much lower.

  • Conservatronic

    At some point, people are going to realize that Obamacare was not an improvement over the status quo. “Change” isn’t enough. Obamacare took a bad patchwork system and made it horribly worse. Of course, any attempt to point this out is met with the same, typical soft-headed demagoguery — i.e., Republicans just want people to die in the streets — and the endless repetition of bogus numbers of uninsured. The fact is, the Democrats have created a system that is objectively indefensible, and so they’re defending it with schoolyard taunts. And they’re certain that what really matters is sticking Republicans with the “blame” over the shutdown. If the Democrats were truly the kind of people they and the liberals believe them to be, it would be incumbent on them to admit that their ramshackle attempt to shove the country down the path to single-payer is not going to work as promised.

    • poundnails

      Well stated.

    • Happybidr

      I agree.

      The Dems’ talking points are that Obamacare is “the law of the land” which is meaningless. Everything Congress acts on changes the law of the land. And by the way, slavery and prohibition were both the “law of the land,” too.

      And am I the only persoon who remembers the disastrous expansion of Medicare called the Catastrophic Health Care Act” in the 1980s, passed under Dem leadership? That, too, was “the law of the land” yet once the mandatory extra tax/fees on seniors became reality, just a few months after it became law, an uproar arose and Congress easily and quickly repealed the darn thing! Hello! It wasn’t that long ago, and it happened just as I predicted in a published paper (sorry for the self-serving pat on the back there, lol). Obamacare can suffer the same fate IF the Dems in the House and Sen who are up will feel the pressure from voters of this nightmare.

      Our new motto: Remember the Catastrophic Health Care Act!

  • Rick20033

    I wish the media could get this straight: The Republicans *are* funding the government. The only thing they are not funding is Obamacare. If the government shuts down, it is because Obama and the other DEMOCRATS shut it down to force the Republicans to fund OBAMACARE. This isn’t complicated, but the media (once again) are more interested in supporting their Democrat Party than they are in faithfully reporting the news and letting the people make informed decisions.

    • ThyOracle

      Why do you expect anybody with an IQ over room temperature to believe your logic? Obamacare is the law of the land, validated by the Supreme Court, and sanctified by a crushing electoral victory of Obama over Romney. The Republicans are willing to shut down the govt. to prevent Obamacare from working, keeping with their immature extremist politics beholden to the radical tea party elements in the House Republican caucus.

      • Phillip Brisco

        Which explains, perhaps why it was so popular that the pubbies basically difinestrated the dems in ought ten as a direct result of obamacare. yip yup, it is even less popular now. Dang those extremist pubbie bitter clingers who are so extreme that they can only find 60% of the people to agree with them on O’care and 80% to agree with them on guns.

        • ThyOracle

          That was ’10.–and the fight over the law. If they had been able to carry that into 2012, we would not be having this conversation. The question is not support for the law, which few people understand, but support for shutting down the gov over it. If the 1995 case repeats itself, the Republicans will deeply regret doing it.

          • Buster’s View

            The Republicans picked up seats after the ’95 shutdown, nearly balanced the budget over Bill Clinton’s objections, got welfare reform, over Bill Clinton’s objections, etc., etc…Don’t believe the media lie, I mean, line. It’s just not true. Of course the Dems and media have repeated it so many millions of times now that even many Republicans believe it, but it’s still not true.

          • ThyOracle

            Actually the Reps picked up a couple of seats in the Senate and lost a few in the House, but the main point is that they blew out the considerable momentum that they had. Gingrich was riding high and Clinton was on the defensive before the confrontation. Afterwards Clinton was 20 points more popular than Gingrich, and 10% more people blamed Reps than Dems. I don’t think that either the Rep victory on welfare or the Dem victory on maintaining immigration at previous levels was a result of the shutdown.

      • DubyaFTW

        The re-election of Obama only proves that there are now more Takers than Makers in the USA. But, while a minority, the producers (aka The TEA party) always get the final say in how things get done. If not, they quit producing and your precious ideology goes unfunded. Democrat politicians get this, but not you.

        • ThyOracle

          The productive and wealthy states, take CA and NY as exmples are Dem states. The red states, mostly the old confederacy and the underpopulated West, are the takers of gov transfers and also the places where most food stamps are used. I like the idea that they are both takers and ungrateful, but I always that Southerners had the grace to say thanks.

          • don williams

            California is so far in debt it will probably be the first state to default in the history of the US. And you’re right, Democrats run the state, they’re running it right into the ground. I’ve lived in California my entire life and I can tell you that today we definitely have more takers than makers in the state. Small businesses are leaving the state in droves and new small businesses are not starting up at a pace to supply the jobs needed to get this economy on the right track. Look at the stupid high speed rail project The democratically controlled Senate and assembly passed. Once the federal funding to get it started ends the system will not generate enough income to keep it up. The state will go further into debt. The next step would be to shut it down or drag this state into bankruptcy. Thank you democratically controlled California, you’re doing a great job of killing this state.

          • ThyOracle

            I was referring only to federal transfers to the states. The numbers that I have seen indicate that CA gets about 80 cents back for every dollar it contributes to DC in fed tax revenues. http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state
            As to how CA finances itself, and its overall viability, I have no clue and certainly would not argue with a native.

          • Chuck Stamford

            Amen, from another native of California. During the Democrat majority in the State Legislature, a period of nearly three decades now and counting, California has slipped from the 8th largest economy in the world to 11th, and falling. As you noted the state has begun racking up substantial short falls in it’s budgetary obligations, mainly in it’s underfunding of public sector pensions negotiated by the public sector unions that were illegal until made legal by a Democratically controlled legislature and signed into law by Jerry Brown, or as he was affectionately known at the time, Gov. Moonbeam (this was during the naive period in politics when liberals were seen as slightly weird, but not dangerous in the long run). Rather than rein in its profligate spending on one liberal utopian program after another, the state actually began to sell off state assets, parks, buildings, etc., as if that could fix the systemic problem. But they’ve also consistently raised the income tax to finance all of these social programs people used to do for themselves, until now the state has one of the highest rates in the nation.

            Liberal Democratic rule in California has also managed to reverse a nearly century old trend of growth. Since the turn of the 20th century California weather has drawn a flood of people from the other 47 contiguous states. With the people came the most vibrant housing market in the nation, the biggest defense industry, the greatest computer industry, and an agricultural industry with the capacity to feed the entire world! What could have possibly caused such an economic giant to reverse course? Liberalism. Now the economy is shrinking as businesses are fleeing the state in such numbers that the California Assembly seriously introduced legislation that would prohibit companies leaving the state from deducting their moving expenses; expenses that have ALWAYS been deductible from state taxes both in California and, to my knowledge, in every state in the Union! Two years ago, for the first time in the state’s 150 year history, more people moved out of the state than moved in.

            And don’t even get me started on education in California! According to a 2005 study of K-12 education in California by the RAND Corporation:

            “As recently as the 1970s, California’s public schools were reputed to be excellent. Today, that reputation no longer stands. Instead, there is widespread concern that California’s schools have slipped in quality over the years and that they are no longer performing as well as they did previously or as well as schools in other states.”
            (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG186.sum.pdf)

            Note well that “the 1970s” is exactly the point in California’s history when the “progressive” headlock on state politics was insured by the establishment of teachers unions that, until then, were illegal.

            History can’t lie. And the history of California over the last thirty years demonstrates as clearly as any scientific experiment could that liberalism is destructive of prosperity; that liberalism is like a parasite in this regard, feeding off its host until the host either sheds the parasite or dies.

          • Sylvia Sparks Simpson

            You might want to check facts and not go with wishful thinking. People are fleeing CA in droves. The state that has withstood the Obama debacle and actually welcomed many new businesses because of low taxes is Texas. We routinely send more money to Washington than we receive back and did not sign on to the state run exchanges or medicaid expansion. Thank you Gov. Perry for listening to the people of our state. And, you might want to read up a bit more and find out that the states that are withstanding the Obama debacle of an economy are mostly southern and midwestern.

          • ThyOracle

            Texas will be a blue state soon enough….Even Cruz admits that.

          • Sylvia Sparks Simpson

            Maybe in 100 years. Or possibly sooner if more illegals get to vote.

          • ThyOracle

            Cruz thinks
            “If Republicans do not do better in the Hispanic community,” he said, “in a few short years Republicans will no longer be the majority party in our state.” He ticked off some statistics: in 2004, George W. Bush won forty-four per cent of the Hispanic vote nationally; in 2008, John McCain won just thirty-one per cent. On Tuesday, Romney fared even worse.

            “In not too many years, Texas could switch from being all Republican to all Democrat,” he said. “If that happens, no Republican will ever again win the White House. New York and California are for the foreseeable future unalterably Democrat. If Texas turns bright blue, the Electoral College math is simple. We won’t be talking about Ohio, we won’t be talking about Florida or Virginia, because it won’t matter. If Texas is bright blue, you can’t get to two-seventy electoral votes. The Republican Party would cease to exist. We would become like the Whig Party. Our kids and grandkids would study how this used to be a national political party. ‘They had Conventions, they nominated Presidential candidates. They don’t exist anymore.’ ”
            http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/11/19/121119fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

          • Chuck Stamford

            You’re using last years corn crop to predict next years oil production. What makes you think there is a causal connection between what percent of the Hispanic vote the Republican candidate for president gets and Texas politics?

          • ThyOracle

            Because I believe everything Ted Cruz says.

          • DubyaFTW

            You must be thinking of the part of California that is trying to secede from the liberal, urban, resource black holes that drain them of their prosperity. The rest of your post is a complete fabrication. Meanwhile, as the average income of most Americans dropped 7 percent in the last ten years, Washington DC incomes rose 23 percent. How do you explain this?

          • ThyOracle

            I make no claims to understanding CA government. Any place that can choose Reagan and Moonbeam is beyond my ken.
            I was referring only to federal transfers to the states. The numbers that I have seen indicate that CA gets about 80 cents back for every dollar it contributes to DC in fed tax revenues. http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state
            Democratic states are much wealthier. And the Rep states would lose more on food stamps. http://www.policymic.com/articles/14007/food-stamp-use-is-highest-in-red-states-the-truth-republicans-do-not-want-you-to-know

          • DubyaFTW

            It’s not that Democrats make wealthy states, they are merely drawn to money like leeches to a bleeding pig. Once the parasites fully infest the wealthy region, they quickly destroy the host. California, your perfect example, is bankrupt, not prospering.

          • ThyOracle

            That’s about as dumb and ahistorical an argument as I have ever seen. What made these states wealthy and Democratic was industry, commerce and labor unions. CA is more complicated than that–having more to do with dumb politics in the 1990s by Rep governors around prop 187 and beyond.

          • richard40

            Keep in mind that while CA wealth was being built it was a repub state, which elected Reagan. It was only after the dems took over and started looting that wealth, that the decline toward bankruptcy began.

          • ThyOracle

            There were a couple of Gov. Browns, father and son, during that period.
            California has a fascinating political history. See Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience, if you want to get the full story. You can see part of it online if you Google shefter california railroad.

          • richard40

            True it was not an exclusively repub state, it was fairly balanced, and only slightly leaned repub. But it is pretty clear that once it became exclusively dem in the 90′s was when their fiscal decline and bankruptcy started.

          • ThyOracle

            Gov by Proposition has made California impossible for outsiders to figure out. From 13 that limited property tax revenues to 187 which cost Reps the Latino vote in the 1990s, I find it difficult to understand what is happening out there.

          • DubyaFTW

            Labor unions making states wealthy… like Michigan, for example? Industry and commerce I’ll agree with, so why support an all-out assault on industry and commerce in the form of Obama and his policies? Meanwhile, California has tried every Leftist idea that ever slithered out of Satan’s bottom, so why does it continue to fail? Nope, you don’t see any connection. You really believe that liberalism is the road to economic prosperity. Heck, even Democrat politicians know better than that. They intentionally use liberalism and the power of government as weapons to destroy the private economy, hoping to someday say, “See we told you Capitalism would fail.” This murder of our free markets justifies their advance toward an all-powerful government, with you and me as “workers” rather than empowered citizens. Read history for extensive examples of this childishly simple, but brutal agenda. Meanwhile, you actually believe that Obamacare and the Democrat party is the sure path to Utopia. A foolish zealot of the world’s deadliest ideology.

      • Chuck Stamford

        Obama’s re-election says nothing about Obamacare, which was a strictly partisan vote, unlike his re-election was. The re-election of a President, even such landslides as Reagan’s, were never taken as a universal endorsement of every policy or program begun during Reagan’s first term! In fact, as I recall, the “loyal opposition, which even then included most of the mainstream press, was arguing exactly the opposite then, just as I am now.

        Further, a new poll suggests a slim majority of Americans favor defunding Obamacare. Furthermore, while the SCOTUS, in a stunning power grab (actually changing the text of the ACA, a power reserved exclusively to Congress by the Constitution!!) did rule, but a rogue SCOTUS decision never actually “validates” anything.

        And while we’re focused on constitutional questions surrounding the ACA, how about noticing the clear unconstitutionality of the ad hoc exemptions and waivers (violating “equal protection”) and unlawful implementations, or rather lack of them as required by the ACA?

        • ThyOracle

          Telegraphically…, but with respect.
          Romney said “If elected, I will repeal Obamacare on day one”. If the people wanted to repeal it, they had a choice. It was one of the critical issues, so, while I agree that it is not generally true, in this case, I think that the election was a mandate.
          I can cite a poll by Kaiser saying that about 70% don’t want to repeal it.
          Scotus decisions, rogue or not, tend to be durable and lasting. When you find some courts ruling on the unconstitutionality of the things you don’t like, let me know.

          • Chuck Stamford

            Look, first off, the president has no constitutional authority to repeal an act of Congress. Second, Romney signed Romneycare into law and while governor went to great pains to identify himself with the concept of state run, mandatory healthcare! So everyone knew that not only was Romney ideologically amenable to a mandatory state run healthcare system, but was making promises everyone knew he couldn’t keep. So no, Romney didn’t represent a “choice” on Obamacare. That you’d suggest he did makes me wonder what planet you were vacationing on during the last presidential campaign season.

            Kaiser seems to believe their profits will increase markedly when Obamacare is fully implemented. Don’t ask me why, because I don’t know why they believe that, but there is little doubt they do. It’s the only thing that explains their corporate behavior since it was passed. Same with AARP, which seems to be selling its clients out, given that Obamacare is supposed to be funded with cuts to Medicare…to the tune of $500 BILLION a year! Maybe they see the law as so complex and confusing there is an opportunity to make millions offering those who actually have to use the system a “take-me-by-the-hand-and-lead-me-through-the-maze” service for a fee. In any case, no sane person is going to trust the figures produced by a company that has a financial interest in what they are! Which makes me wonder about you.

            As for the problems with the SCOTUS, I’m afraid we’re rapidly reaching a point where an amendment to the Constitution limiting their power is going to be needed, for over the past fifty years especially they’ve spun out of control. When the Framers set up the Supreme Court they saw it as the weakest of the three branches with the least potential to become tyrannical. It is now the strongest of the three and has unlimited power, as Justice Roberts has just demonstrated for us. For where in the Constitution is it written that the Supreme Court, in deciding whether an Act of Congress signed into law by the Executive is constitutional, can do so by changing the text of the law first?

          • ThyOracle

            I rarely bother to reply to people who I treat respectfully and who are consistently condescending.

          • Chuck Stamford

            If that was meant to imply I’ve been condescending to you, you must have a very different understanding of the word than I do. All I did was disagree with you, and give you the courtesy of telling you why.

            Your point that Obama’s re-election by a margin no where near that of Reagan (who no one of the opposition at the time considered to have a “mandate” for every one of his policy positions or items on his legislative agenda), and over a candidate few Republicans loved, who had a record as governor, his last office held in politics before running for president, that included signing into law what was arguably Obamacare lite on the state level basis, gave Obamacare a “mandate” from the people is pure speculation. There are no facts upon which to rest it. One could make the same unsubstantiated claim of a “mandate” for the “Obama phone”

          • ThyOracle

            In the last post, you said:

            That you’d suggest he did makes me wonder what planet you were vacationing on during the last presidential campaign season.

            In any case, no sane person is going to trust the figures produced by a company that has a financial interest in what they are! Which makes me wonder about you.

            Those meet my definition of condescending.

          • Chuck Stamford

            You’ll find mine in any good dictionary.

          • ThyOracle

            Apology accepted.

        • richard40

          True, in addition obamas reelection carefully managed to conceal the avalanche of scandals that happened about 6 months later. If all those scandals had been know before the election, and if the IRS had not been able to illegally and partisanly suppress obamas main grass roots opposition, would he have still won.

      • juantolduso2

        Let’s put aside the fact that “the LAW” was passed with only Emocrat votes,some bribed,but I grant you,passed.Now,since when any law can not be changed,altered or amended because it is the law of the land? Are you telling us then that the law that established humans(i.e. blacks) as property,since it was the “LAW’ of the land could not be changed? I say that immoral law was thankfully changed! Obviously your argument concerning the “law of the land” does not hold the keyboard it was typed in! I grant you the electoral victory because it was!Congrats, but you are buying the party line that the Republicans want to shut down government. No they don’t,they are funding all parts at the current level but those parts that fund your idol’sdoesnotcare program. As to extreme,well…defending abortion is not extreme,I know,it’s a choice to kill a human(tissue mass in your party’s case) and that from the all inclusive,tolerant,pure as the wind driven snow Democrat party.That is not extreme,is it? I go even further and say that it is radically extreme,but hey,you can be pro-choice as long as that choice is not life!,then you are an extremist.That is who the Emocrats are and will be.

        • ThyOracle

          I don’t talk with people who can’t spell the names of Presidents or parties correctly. It is usually a sign of some kind of mental defect and never done by anyone with sufficient intelligence to argue with.

          • juantolduso2

            the typical response when the argument is lost!,besides the arrogance and condescension.

          • Steve Ahle

            Insults and many, many comebacks without source links, relevant information, or intelligence.

            I’m assuming you’re either a paid lib poster –

            or you really don’t have a thing to do.

            Either way…I feel terribly sorry for you.

          • ThyOracle

            Just an empirical observation. Anyone who calls the President or the party names is not either very bright or very mature. Either way way you are not likely to get much interesting out of them. And the point is to interact with people who are intelligent and fun to argue with.

          • Wilkins Micawber

            Remember the names those of your ilk called Bush? “Chimpy” comes to mind, which is ironic because your boy actually resembles one.

          • Wilkins Micawber

            some kind of mental defect….judging by the nonsense you post on here that would most certainly apply to you.

          • ThyOracle

            For the relevant scale of mental defect, look at the ODS for the “Emocrat” fellow.

            World renowned psychologist Dr. Christopher Zimmermann has developed a classification scheme for people who suffer from ODS. Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) Classification Scheme

            Stage 1 Obama Derangement Syndrome
            Early symptoms include subtle, low level criticisms of Obama’s “leadership” abilities. A simple understanding of separation of powers and what Obama can/can not do is enough to reverse most ailments.

            Stage 2 Obama Derangement Syndrome
            At this stage, attacks on the President begin to take on a nonsensical element such as criticism of Obama playing Golf, taking a vacation with his family, or eating mustard on his hamburger. The tone used by stage 2 sufferers mimics that of a gossip tabloid or an unhappy teenager’s blog.

            Stage 3 Obama Derangement Syndrome
            As the disease progresses, deeply held anger, resentment, and fear manifests itself. Those afflicted with ODS-3 are unable to call the President by his name. They use incendiary monikers such as Barry, Obummer, Zero. The derangement begins to branch out to Obama’s family. Even mentioning Michelle Obama’s campaign to encourage healthy lifestyles is enough to cause hysterical fits of rage.

            Stage 4 Obama Derangement Syndrome
            Opposition to Obama becomes not just predictable, but a force of habit. Those afflicted use phrases like, “Anyone but Obama.” The diseased begin to take any position, so long as it is not Obama’s position. They begin to mock ideas like “hope” and “change” as naive, simply because Obama embodies them.

            Stage 5 Obama Derangement Syndrome
            As stage 5 ODS sets in, the assaults on the President’s character begin to imply he is evil at his core. The development of conspiracies that suggest Obama is knowingly executing an agenda that will harm America are commonplace. Questions like, “Is Obama A Bigger Threat Than Al Qaeda?” and “Obama: A Radical Leftist Who Seeks To Dismantle Capitalism?” are common place.

            Stage 6 Obama Derangement Syndrome
            This stage is mostly reserved for birthers and bigots. People who have developed ODS-6 are offended by Barack Obama’s very existence. The subtle racial undertones, kept concealed in the previous stages of the disease, can no longer be contained. They find it impossible to believe that a black man could be elected President of “their” country, despite the overwhelming evidence that the President was born in America.

          • Wilkins Micawber

            Fascinating how infatuated you are with this purple-lipped spawn of an African witch doctor and a Kansas trollop. You must be some sort of mongrel as well.

          • ThyOracle

            a witty racist troll. I am impressed

          • Wilkins Micawber

            If pointing out the obvious about this purple-lipped mongrel is racist then I am and proudly so.

          • ThyOracle

            I think that the ODS scale would need a special provision for you. It does not have a category for the unabashed racist.

          • Wilkins Micawber

            You throw the word “racist” around as if it were an insult. Aside from that, we don’t hate Obama for his race, he is half white, allegedly, but for everything else about him.

          • ThyOracle

            If you don’t hate Obama for racist reasons, then why do you use racist language to denigrate him?

          • Wilkins Micawber

            What racist language? He DOES have purple lips, his lineage is EXACTLY as I described it. So where’s the racism? Aside from in your own mind.

          • ThyOracle

            If you think your language is factual, then you are further gone than I thought. I assumed that you were just being cute and witty. Let’s assume this conversation has run its course.

          • Wilkins Micawber

            I take that as an admission of defeat on your part. Another liberal bested. This is too easy.

          • ThyOracle

            I don’t see this as a contest–more as an effort to see if people have anything interesting to say. So, when the coversation gets too boring, or in your case, racist, I figure that I have learned what there is to learn and depart.

          • StOoPiD_MoNkEy

            You’re the only mongrel on these comments cracker. It amazes me that someone so bigoted and prejudiced even musters an opinion. I’ve read your posts, and you are absolutely disgusting.

          • Wilkins Micawber

            What’s this? Stoopid, purple-lipped porch ape learned to type!

          • Gr8wood

            eye b reddin yur comnt an it sur b insultin! b nic.

          • ThyOracle

            eye like yur styl!

      • GoneApe

        Reality will crush your fantasy view of economics. Meantime, whatever can be done to disrupt the Democrat plan for domination and government control is worth the effort. We have no use for the left short of deportation.

      • Wilkins Micawber

        The law of the land, rammed through on a reconciliation procedure and with many companies and organizations, including Congress, exempted from it. Bad laws need to be overturned and Obamacare is the very definition of a bad law.

      • robin hood in reverse

        Thanks to the vulgar stupidity of intellectuals, I am a long winded idiot.

        Back in the day, the Puritans were not cool with freedom of religion but thank god liberalism is the idea that evil deserves a fair chance. The freedom loving Quakers taught the Puritans a lesson by walking up and down the aisles butt naked. Mass is at 9 am. If you want to coexist, just call and I’ll give you directions. When we go to the Church festival, we can share a Pelosi – a warm Italian desert with bacon.

        Milton Friedman said socialism is force.

        For every one person a guy talks about a bad experience with, a woman talks to 15. When women spend time together, women PMS at the same time – one of many mysteries that cross racial and ethnic lines. Women can win a “men don’t think things through” argument but what happens when communal women don’t change their mind even though the facts change? After breaking up with a two bit socialistic jackass, women are ruthless elephants.

        Margaret Thatcher, the stepping stone, said Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Tyranny, Nazism, Despotism, or Big Centralized Government is sinful, leads to decay, immoral, dishonest, immature, shameful, fearful, distrustful, dehumanizing, stupid, weak, pessimistic, morally bankrupt, evil, backwards, politically incorrect, void of moral choices, contemptuous, secretive, destroys people’s dignity, unethical, unjust, inefficient,absurd, and creates class divisions to hold people down.

        Shame on the members of public service unions and their bought and paid for politicians. Shame on people who strike for themselves at the expense of others. Shame on the people who make public union members feel as if there is no alternative. Shame on thinking nothing is sacred and everyone’s body is an amusement park except mine. Shame on the public servants who know the stimulus and government is corrupt. Shame on the Democratic Party. Shame on the President. Shame on academia for the politically correct narcissistic Frankfurt critical theory. Shame on academia for destroying the truth by teaching a pack of socialist lies. Shame on the liberal media.

        Shame on cynical Republicans for caving in to the pressure. Uncle Toms and uncle Rhinos go along to get along. Shame on black democrats selling out their brothers and sisters and calling black Republicans uncle toms – raw deals suck! Black, white, orange, and purple conservatives call a Rhino a Rhino.

        Milton’s wife complained about socialism and Milton said “deep sigh bummer”. He had to stay in a hotel for a week. Behind every great man is a great woman but if I had a pair I would play with them all day. Chicks don’t have a sense of humor unless they’re dykes.

        Karl Marx was fat, lazy, and stinky bum who managed to do an unbelievable amount of harm with his extremely faulty intelligence machine. On page 64 of the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels outlined everything.

        Welcome to Hotel California. No free speech and you can only travel via the Hotel shuttle. Please invite all your rich friends. All property is taken from the emigrants and anyone who complains about the service. We pay with counterfeit dollars and extra tax people who work harder to have more counterfeit dollars. If any of the other guests like your dress or suit, we all share at Hotel California. Next week, we are going up to your lake property but you can’t go until you are part of the collective. You are no longer the President of your company and all the machines are ours. Tomorrow morning your chain gang is farming and next week you will be doing factory work. The dupes check-in but they can never leave.

        Words are so important that I would love to have an Orwellian nightmare find the right ones. Einstein said people are infinitely dumber than the universe. We won a cold war without understanding how Communists fundamentally transform countries. The audacity of hope and change is exploiting our incredible stupidity.

        Marxism has never worked. Socialism requires “new” men and women who do not distinguish between earned and unearned success. After World War I, the Marxists were surprised that the workers do not unite and create heaven on earth.

        The crazy Marxists decided civil societies were the problem. The solution was destroying the civil society before finding out nothing grows in a pile of dirt if you do not reward earned success. Since Marxism does not work, the Marxist has to replace religion with worship of the state and kill people to create heaven on earth. Words, names, and slogans are very important to the Marxist who wants the Marat media to worship a Robespierre in order to get a bunch of leeches to suck off Napoleon’s hemorrhoids. Mark’s legion is the ruthless mob of useful idiots. When the civil society is a pile of dirt, normalization begins.

        If you show the guilty mercy, you punish the innocent after the fundamental transformation. Every systemic problem creates a constituency that the communist wants to expand to punish and demoralize the innocent while doing nothing about the guilty during the civil society destroying 10, 20, or 30 year period. The best defense is an infuriating offense. Frankfurt critical theory is simple. Criticize, criticize, and criticize your problem solving opposition with your intentionally created problems that you have no solutions for while preventing the opposition from solving the problem – pure madness.

        Orwellian nightmares come up with politically correct wonderful names for awful things and awful names for good things. Lies are told again, again, and again by people who have no clue. Political correctness is important so the trouble makers can vilify without return fire. Orwellian nightmares put crazy narcissistic control freaks in charge of bureaucracies whenever possible then betray and condemn the useful idiots when the transformation is complete and the police state begins.

        Cynicism is a double edged sword. On one hand it protects people from crushing disappointment. On the other hand it paralysis people from saying or doing anything constructive. Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals to honor the devil because the devil got his own kingdom. The communist super genius is a truly evil person. Karl Marx thought Big Government was a bad idea and Stalin killed Trotsky because he agreed. There is a 1963 book called the Naked Communist that outlined destroying our civil society.

        Machiavelli said people remember who ripped them off longer than their loved one. Everyone loves to give after they have plenty but people work for themselves and government is non-working spouse who has ripped off and killed more people than anyone else. When your spouse hookups with a central banker watch out. A famous central banker said “If I control the money supply, I care not about the law”. Jesus said to turn the other cheek yet kicked over the money changing tables. Herod was the Frank Lloyd Wright of his day. The narcissist introduced Caesar to his Daddy Warbucks but the Romans were never able to conquer the Scots thanks to their inflation free tally sticks.

        The Federal Reserve is third and largest national banking experiment. The time span before the second and third grand experiment was called the free market gilded age. The six largest banks had no place to go except off the end of the free market diving board. The Federal Reserve was created on Jekyll Island. The second worst President of the United States thought the Federal Reserve was a good idea in 1914. Wilson blamed the bankers but liberals always promote their intellectual failures with their vulgar stupidity. Barack Obama is the Prince of Hyde Park.

        If debt is money that can only be paid off with more debt …… someone else needs up with all money and calls the shots. The bad guys have been at it for centuries.

        A Harvard Professor and previous President of IMF wrote a book called “This time is Different” . Carman Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff studied fiscal crisis in 65 countries over 500 years. The following are the central banking equations and Relationships:

        GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Exports – Imports.

        GDP= Money Supply x Money Velocity = Price x Transactions.

        GDP Delta= Population Delta + Productivity Delta.

        1% GDP reduction in taxes increases private sector 3% in GDP.

        1% GDP increase in Government Spending deceases private sector 1.2% GDP with a -0.2% change in GDP.

        A great deal of government debt can put a country at significant interest rate risk.

        Government is a monopoly that is 20% more expensive than the free market.

        If we go from a 38% tax rate to 20% tax rate with a balanced budget the private sector will grow from $11 Trillion to over $16 Trillion. Tax revenue won’t decrease 48%. Tax revenue will only decrease 24%. Half of Washington won’t have to go on a permanent vacation, only one out four. Employment will increase 25% so displaced bureaucrats will have lots of new opportunities to contribute to society.

        If we get down to a balanced 10%, $20 Trillion – more than a 60% increase in jobs if half of Washington goes on a permanent vacation, each dollar earned buys ($0.90/$0.62) 45% more, and hard America becomes a soft warm place and our soft power will return.

        But it is all about feelings.

        John Nash’s beautiful mind recognized the importance of interactions in which the results of one person’s choices depend not only on his own behavior but also on the choices of another person. There is a related game called Ultimatum. You and your partner split $10. Less than $3 deals disgust and anger. The dealer has a pulpit.

        The Laffer effect is no joke. Charles Adams, an international tax attorney and historian, wrote books on taxes. Once tax rates rise above the disgust and anger point, the expected extra tax revenue never shows up. A flat tax system is part of Constitution. Everyone has to pay taxes to keep as many people’s tax rate below the disgust and anger tax rate or make sure an overwhelming majority is disgusted with high taxes.

        Carman, Kenneth, and John all sincerely believe dealers can routinely get an $8 to $10 deal by getting his or her partner work for a $3 to $5 deal. With each $3 to $5 of earned success the partner becomes a dealer that turns the $3 to $5 deal into $6 to $8 of earned success. Turning $10 into $13 is a win-win systemic solution that creates good people, great outcomes, and durable trust but when it rains, rainmakers show up and turn everything to dirt.

        There will always be zero-sum losers who just accept less than $3 deals and think the key to success is being an abusive dealer. A $7-$3 deal isn’t better than a $6-$4 deal because $7-$3 deals turn into $6-$2, $5-$1, and $4-two bit deals. Rainmakers turn everything to dirt because they feel entitled to $7up and someone else has to pay for the diet $7up. A shared sacrifice life is the unknowing bully master plan and then you die. The rainmaker coach treads through players who can’t make enough back court shots to win the game.

        There is another way to explain the same thing!

        When you walk into Monticello (Thomas Jefferson’s place) there is a bust of Turgot. Turgot inspired Smith, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Jackson, and Friedman. Before the Fabian Keynes reopened Pandora’s box, the political economic debate was largely over and the Austrian School of Economics won.

        Figuratively speaking, every state is a Prince. A good Prince only defends negative rights, sees the means of production as the small businessman, does not clip coins, lets the church provide charity, lets people make decisions on as localized as possible basis, and does not do the rich man any favors. Everyone has the right to free speech. A man’s house is his castle and a warrant is needed to forcibly visit. People take better care of their own property than the state takes care of public property. Limits on usury so that banking is a very boring endeavor. Indirect taxes make more sense than direct. The private market should always be allowed to compete with the public market. From 1776 to 1913, the sum of Federal, State, and Local taxes were less than 10% and the dollar only dropped 3% in value.

        Second place is the first place loser but a peek is worth ten free market estimators. “Wealth of Nations” is easy to summarize. Companies play free market basketball on a diving board because a company cannot maximize its’ profit if the company hits more often than the dummy.

        Friedrich Hayek introduced himself to Fabian Keynes by asking about Sir John’s predecessor Francis Edgeworth. Edgeworth did the invisible hand check math but what about the poor and the middle class!

        Thanks to Thomas Jefferson and company, we were a 10% tax soft warm place for 150 years. Switzerland, much of Eastern Europe, and Russia are on the 16% flat tax plan.

        From 1776 to 1914, the dollar only dropped 3%. Over the last 100 years, the dollar dropped 95%.

        The 10% public sector bottom 20% to top 20% ideal distribution is around $3.50,$4.50,$6.25,$8.25, and $11.25. We went off the gold standard 40 years ago. Over that period the average overall tax rate was about 30%. Over the last 40 years relative wealth distribution went from ($2.75,$4.00,$5.25,$7.00,$9.25) to ($1.25,$2.00,$2.75,$3.50, & $18.50). 30% to 40% Obama has taken us to ($1.00,$1.75,$2.50, $3.25, and $16.75). If the dollar is no longer the world currency,($0.75,$1.31,$1.87,$2.41,$12.19).

        What did past leaders do?

        George Washington never told a lie, created guerrilla warfare, and was our first President. Soon after the Fertile Crescent created the first city-state, someone else created guerrilla warfare.After winning, Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall and won’t leave. Useless third party Humptovation is folly of the elite until freely associating masses revolt.

        Ronald Reagan wasn’t a lifeguard. President Reagan was a life saver for opening the big pool for business. When the rich man goes off the end of innovation diving board, he or she swims to the side of the pool and gets back in line. Reagan also cut taxes along the virgin mother of economics.

        During the Elizabethan age, Queen Elizabeth took England from an indebted backwater to the dominate world power. King Phillip and Sir John Keynes did not bust her Friedrich Hayek and capitalist pirates. Her cast iron booty was pure silver and gold that’s why our founding fathers promoted the species in the Constitution but what Queen Elizabeth and her public corporations were all about has been forgotten.

        Queen Elizabeth wanted everyone to love her and loved to give. Her despotic suitors and predecessor weren’t smart enough to realize they had to take in order to give. Taxpaying parishioners love to give after they have plenty of earned success making other people happy.The English loved her and still love her to this day.

        Queen Elizabeth’s public corporations were a means to put a bloated bureaucracy through a Church of England basket strainer. If the taxpaying parishioners thought a project or bureaucracy was of no use then no money went into the collection basket.

        By separating what government needed to do and what everyone wanted done, she was able to lower the base flat tax rate. The virgin mother of economics made it very clear that her capitalist pirates had to walk the free market plank. There is a right and wrong way for fat cats, politicians, and bureaucrats to get some loving. The fat cats, at the end of the diving board, made everyone love them by putting more money in the collection basket. With the belly flop junk out of the system, the government pumps ran smoothly and the control valves worked.

        Reagan and his virgin didn’t have a problem with a shutdown of the government – Reagan did five times.

      • Gr8wood

        Dementia 101′ You believe yourself even when all has and will prove you wrong.

        • ThyOracle

          Do you think that it is a great style of governance that 40 conservative House members can gum up the works on any piece of legislation that has been signed into law by threatening to shut down the govt? When you cut through all the bombastic rhetoric, that is what is at stake–and it is a terrible precedent.

          • richard40

            Its more than 40 now, the entire house repub caucus passed the bill to fund the entire gov, except for obamacare.

          • ThyOracle

            That means you have 40 happy House members, and 170 unhappy ones, including the leadership.

            The best summary of where we are is:

            So, the basic bottom line here is that Cruz is right about what’s realistically possible, but GOP leaders are nonetheless well-and-rightly pissed off at Cruz for ginning up all this mad, stand-and-fight foolery that denied Boehner his preferred “vent-and-pass” plan for the continuing resolution. Now, we’ve got this fight between House and the Senate — neither of whom want to be left holding the bag when this effort to defund Obamacare fails.
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/20/ted-cruz-attacked-gop_n_3963702.html?ref=topbar

      • richard40

        At one time separate but equal was the law of the land as well, but it was a bad law, and was eventually repealed. Just because something is currently a law does not make it good, and does not mean it must be funded. Obamacare is bad law and should be repealed as well. In the meantime there is nothing in the constitution that says congress must pass whatever funding Obama/Reid wish just because Obama/Reid threaten to shut down the gov if they do not get it. Of course in the end there will probably be some compromise, but how come nobody is discussing how Obama and Reid should compromise, how come any compromise must come only from the repubs, while Obama makes absolute demands, like fund whatever I wish or I shut down the gov, and repubs are blamed for Obamas intransigence.

  • TheGrittyEdge

    Marco Rubio, are you listening? Stand with Ted or start planning your civilian career Marco! THIS is our “red line”!

  • Gr8wood

    Rubio? Thats a name from the past. If Cruz can bring sanity to the senate Republicans there can be serious debate via a filibuster. This tactic has been used for the last hundred years and has worked for both sides of the aisle. You cant take the CBO seriously it is like a reed in the wind and will bend for the current administration. This so called healthcare law will bankrupt our country and quickly topple our currency world wide.

  • freedomlover

    Shut it down, do not reopen it until this pile of crap job killing,
    Obamacare is buried in the trash.

    • ThyOracle

      Ain’t happening. Even Rand has figured that out.

      MACKINAC ISLAND, Mich. (AP) — Republican Sen. Rand Paul says President Barack Obama’s health care law probably can’t be defeated or gotten rid of. And he’s suggesting there is little he and other congressional Republicans can do to stop the law from taking effect.

      http://bigstory.ap.org/article/paul-we-probably-cant-get-rid-obamacare

      • richard40

        Rand Paul is right, but that does not mean there was no reason for the house to pass the bill ending Obamacare, and make the senate vote it down. You can never get what you want if you are so scared of Obama and the MSM that you wont even ask for it. And this way, when red state dems have to vote for obamacare, we will definitely know who to vote against. For those who think repubs will be blamed, they will if you foolishly accept the false dem/MSM narrative, that repubs want to shut down the gov, and are insisting on defunding of obamacare. It is equally true, if not more true, that Obama wants to shut down the gov to force the house to fund obamacare. The issue should be is it worth shutting down the gov to protect obamacare funding, Obama and Reid thinks it is.

  • Charles Wolf

    This article is less than ten days old.
    It couldn’t have turned out to be more wrong.
    Cruz is being crucified – not by Dems, by by his own party,,,
    They hate him.
    He’s already a lame duck, and with 5 years to go.
    After this, if he tries to run for prez, his own party will go birther on him.
    Cruz is *ucked.

  • ThyOracle

    The Republican house is under Cruz Control.

  • Bassgeye

    #MakeDCListen #HR2131

Sign In

Forgot password?

Or

Subscribe

Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...