Why Washington Hates Trump’s Budget

The Trump administration is getting pushback on its 2018 federal budget, and it’s coming from elected officials on both sides of the aisle.

Why does Washington find the budget plan so distasteful? As our video explains, maybe it’s because President Donald Trump’s budget focuses more on what’s good for taxpayers as opposed to what’s good for special interests and the federal bureaucracy.

(For more from the author of “Why Washington Hates Trump’s Budget” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Key Takeaways From CBO Score of the Republican Health Care Bill

The Congressional Budget Office updated its score of the House-passed American Health Care Act this week, prior to its being sent over to the Senate.

This budgetary analysis projects that if passed into law, the bill would reduce the number of insured by 23 million, but would decrease the deficit by $119 billion while also reducing federal outlays by $1.1 trillion and federal revenue by $992 billion.

While the score is roughly similar to the score from the original version of the bill released on March 23, several modifications to the law occurred since then and were not reflected in earlier estimates.

The new CBO score addresses the effect of allowing states to waive the Affordable Care Act essential health benefit and community rating requirements on premiums in particular.

Effects on Coverage and Premiums

First, the CBO finds that 2 million fewer people in 2020 and about 1 million fewer in 2026 would become uninsured under the American Health Care Act.

It cites that this is due to “4 million more people with employment-based coverage, as employers in states making changes to market regulations would probably view the insurance products in the nongroup market as less desirable alternatives and decide to offer insurance to their employees, and 3 million fewer people with nongroup coverage, as some would enroll in employment-based coverage, and others would become uninsured.”

This is an interesting way to frame the effects of the bill, since reducing premium levels by rolling back regulations could actually have the effect of making plans more desirable for individuals looking to pay less.

The CBO lacks any real discussion of these positive effects.

As for premiums, the CBO finds the effects the same as previously estimated for roughly half the population, or for the people residing in states that did not pursue any waiver.

However, for the other half of the population, the CBO attempts to estimate the effects of different combinations of waiver decisions. It estimates that one-third of the population would be in states that make some changes to market regulations.

For these states, the CBO finds premiums to be 20 percent lower than under current law by 2026.

It also expects that these lower premiums would lead to more people having insurance, but fewer in the nongroup market—although “lower premiums could attract more enrollees to the nongroup market.”

About one-sixth of the population would reside in states that would substantially alter essential health benefits and waive community rating rules. For this population, the CBO projects “significantly lower premiums for those with low expected health care costs.”

However, it caveats that there is an issue of drastically raising premiums on higher-cost and older individuals in the market.

Ultimately, the CBO’s treatment of these effects could be more deeply analyzed. Most importantly, its methodology is relatively opaque, and ultimately includes an internal disagreement around whether or not lowering premiums leads to increased take-up in insurance coverage.

Regardless of these internal issues, the CBO still projects meaningful premium reductions by 2026 under the American Health Care Act, especially with moderate regulatory reforms.

Medicaid and State Exchanges

The largest projected savings in the bill come from reforms in Medicaid, along with the elimination of the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies in the individual market. The CBO’s score on Medicaid still reflects that it assumes more states would likely have expanded in the future under the Affordable Care Act.

Thus, its projection that 14 million fewer people would be insured due to not having Medicaid under the American Health Care Act might be overstated in all of its scores of the legislation.

Of that 14 million, 4 million will choose to be uninsured in 2018, which suggests the CBO’s methodology with regard to the effect of the individual mandate is unchanged from its original score of Obamacare.

In Medicaid, the CBO projects that these changes result in $834 billion savings from 2017-2026. There is little difference here between the past scores and the current.

Similar optimism from the CBO remains for the Affordable Care Act on the exchange side, as it is important to remember this number would be against a baseline that assumes the Affordable Care Act will enroll 7 to 8 million more people in the individual market, when in reality it does not appear this will be the case, as Avik Roy pointed out in response to the first score.

Nonetheless, savings from elimination of the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies is projected to amount to $665 billion in savings.

Key Takeaways

The CBO’s new score of the American Health Care Act has not changed much from the previous iteration besides incorporating views about how the states will respond to the available waivers, and incorporating the increased spending also included in the manager’s amendments.

While there might be disagreements about the coverage effects of state waivers, it is clear that there are meaningful premium reductions from allowing states to pursue them.

Given this, the CBO has still done nothing to address the inherent uncertainty involved in scoring large, complex pieces of health legislation by hiding large considerations behind opaque methodologies.

It also has still failed to walk back its overly optimistic views on the power of the individual mandate or the performance of Obamacare moving forward. (For more from the author of “Key Takeaways From CBO Score of the Republican Health Care Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Students and Faculty Protesters Demand Punishment of College Republicans Group

Student and faculty protesters rushed a college administration building Monday calling for the school to punish its College Republicans group.

Orange Coast College faculty and students protested the school’s College Republicans chapter after the group published emails from OCC professor Jessica Alabi to Orange Coast College President Dennis Harkins. The emails revealed the professor said she would “stand up” to the group, if the president did not, according to Campus Reform.

The materials also showed that Alabi stopped members of the group from attending a campus event because they were perceived as a threat to the “safe space.” The College Repulicans want OCC to investigate the professor.

The protesters shouted, “No hate, no KKK, no fascist USA” and “Get that club out of our face.” Students held socialist flags and symbols or signs mocking the College Republicans.

“It makes no sense to me why the union and a vocal minority of students would protest against the OCC Republicans for simply asking for an investigation into the matter and protections for students from being discriminated against on the basis of their political affiliation,” said Joshua Recalde-Martinez, the OCC College Republicans’ former president. (Read more from “Students and Faculty Protesters Demand Punishment of College Republicans Group” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hannity Now Silent, Fox News Caves to Pressure, Retracts Seth Rich “Conspiracy” Story; But Rich Cousin Contends That He Was Assassinated Over WikiLeaks Emails

By The Hill. Fox News on Tuesday retracted a story regarding the 2016 killing of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich after massive outcry over sharing conspiracy theories about the murder.

“On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich,” the retraction reads. “The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting.”

“Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.” (Read more from “Fox News Bows to Pressure, Retracts Seth Rich “Conspiracy” Story While Cousin Contends That He Was Murdered Over WikiLeaks Emails” HERE)

_____________________________________

Seth Rich’s Cousin Suspects He Was Killed for Talking to Wikileaks

By Cassandra Fairbanks. Jonathan Rich, the cousin of slain Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, is speaking out — and he does not believe that the murder was a botched robbery as the DC police and media claim.

In a now-deleted tweet, Jonathan responded to Sean Hannity of Fox News who had posted an article about their findings that his cousin had contacted WikiLeaks and sent them the emails which were released shortly after his death.

“First thing I said when my Dad told me was he knew something and he was murdered. The rest of the family thought I was nuts. See last name,” Jonathan tweeted.

He was promptly told not to comment by Andy Rich, and the tweet was deleted.

“This is not the place & not a topic for you to comment on. I love you but filter bro. #family,” Andy Rich tweeted in response. (Read more from “Seth Rich’s Cousin Suspects He Was Killed for Talking to Wikileaks” HERE)

_____________________________________

Hannity: I’m Not Discussing Seth Rich

By The Hill. Fox’s Sean Hannity addressed the growing controversy around his continued coverage of the 2016 killing of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich following massive backlash for sharing conspiracy theories about his death. . .

“Out of respect for the family’s wishes for now, I am not discussing this matter at this time,” Hannity said near the top of his 10:00 a.m. ET program.

The host changed the subject, instead continuing his criticism of media outlets for covering the Trump-Russia investigation, calling it hypocritical since no evidence has linked the two.

Later in the opening monologue, Hannity appeared to indicate that he may visit Rich stories again “at the proper time.” (Read more from “Hannity Now Silent, Fox News Caves to Pressure, Retracts Seth Rich “Conspiracy” Story; But Rich Cousin Contends That He Was Assassinated Over WikiLeaks Emails” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former CIA Agent: Deep State Targeting Trump Family Members to Damage President

A former CIA agent said the Trump family is undoubtedly being targeted by intelligence agencies and other actors looking to damage the Trump administration.

Bob Baer, a former CIA case officer, made the comments Friday during an appearance on “The Laura Ingraham Show.” Ingraham asked Baer if right-wing populist political activists should be concerned about being monitored by deep state actors.

“For you and me, no … we’re not that important to the equation,” Baer said. “But you can count on it that people are after the Trump family right now.”

“In the government they’re combing through intercepts, they’re combing through conversations. Nobody in that family is not being watched by the press, by foreign governments who have interests in this — and if you in any way were to become a public figure in politics, yeah, you’re vulnerable,” said Baer.

Baer also noted that the frequency of leaks and level of information they reveal is unprecedented. “I have never seen it this bad in terms of leaks,” said Baer. “It’s not often I agree with Trump, but the fact is, when the NSA intercepted Flynn … that got out and that’s not supposed to happen … that’s classified, top-secret codeword” information. (Read more from “Former CIA Agent: Deep State Targeting Trump Family Members to Damage President” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Jihad Playbook: Why Terrorists Attack Children

The attack in Manchester, England, that has so far killed at least 19 and wounded at least 50 is ghastly. That it targeted children is as unforgivable as it is consistent with the jihadist playbook.

Conservative Review’s Jordan Schachtel has the full story from Monday night, and details are still coming out at the time of this writing.

Among of the bigger observations that has been made about this attack, however, is that it was waged against young adults, teenagers, and children attending a pop concert.

“All acts of terrorism are cowardly attacks on innocent people,” Prime Minister Teresa May said in a statement, “but this attack stands out for its appalling, sickening cowardice, deliberately targeting innocent, defenceless children and young people who should have been enjoying one of the most memorable nights of their lives.”

One such victim – eight-year-old Saffie-Rose Roussos – was confirmed dead by the Telegraph Tuesday afternoon.

During a Facebook live broadcast this morning, a viewer asked why terrorists would do such a thing. This is a more detailed response to that question.

Targeting the innocent is common; sadly, perhaps even commonplace by now. Targeting innocent youth brings the horror of the attack to a whole new level. But horror is the whole point, and it goes back decades. One only has to understand the playbook.

ISIS, its followers, and its sympathizers are ideological adherents to the jihadist tactical theories of Abu Bakr Naji. If you want to understand most of the political Left in America, you should start by reading Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” If you want to understand how Islamist terrorist operate, you should start with Naji’s “The Mastery of Savagery.”

In his book, the 20th-century Islamist theorist says that societies and nations of infidels should be brought to submission to Allah by a three-phase plan of savagery

These phases, as explained by Trump advisor Dr. Sebastian Gorka in 2015, are:

Vexation.

Spread savagery.

Administer savagery.

A talk Gorka gave at the Heritage Foundation in 2015 further illuminates how this strategy works. Here’s a synopsis of the lecture from the Institute of World Politics:

Phase 1, “vexation,” is comprised of operations to distract and exhaust the infidel enemy and his allies. It puts emphasis on smaller dramatic operations (as opposed to dramatic transnational attacks) and is used to prepare fighting units for phase 2. Phase 2, as Dr. Gorka explained, is the “spread savagery” stage, which ISIS has already begun. In this phase, leaders of the insurgency coordinate unconventional warfare to “dislodge” nations from local control. Phase 3, “administer savagery/consolidate/expand,” is designed to out-govern the government. In this phase, the leaders stabilize held areas, unite the population as a fighting community, and implement sharia law and government as a means to establish a base-state. This base-state is a new type of hybrid caliphate used to attack and expand into neighboring countries.

This is the big picture that it is so important to keep in mind when it comes to these sorts of terror attacks. It’s vexing enough for people in the West to worry whether a small explosion will make their trip to the market a fatal one. It’s more vexing when those same kinds of attacks become a monthly occurrence. And it’s even more vexing when those attacks are focused on a society’s children.

The bloodier and more horrific, the better. If ISIS is indeed responsible for this attack, as it has claimed, this is completely consistent with its tactics.

In short, that the Manchester bombing was aimed at killing children is shocking and barbaric indeed, but barbaric – for jihadists – is just part of the playbook. (For more from the author of “The Jihad Playbook: Why Terrorists Attack Children” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch Steven Crowder’s Powerful Response to Manchester Terror

Though the point has been underscored ad nauseam on the Right, Monday’s terror attack in Manchester moved CRTV host Steven Crowder to once again stress the imperative need for truth with regard to religious terrorism that killed at least 22 people and injured dozens more.

According to CBS News, the suspected bomber is Salman Abedi, a 23-year-old that was known to authorities. ISIS has also claimed responsibility for the attack, which killed at least 22 people and injured dozens more.

“I think that whether it’s journalism, or outrage, or even comedy, it serves no purpose if there isn’t some kind of a seeking for truth,” Crowder said Monday night. “I don’t mean your truth … I don’t mean finding a truth — I mean the truth.”

The truth, Crowder says, as made clear once again in the U.K., is that political Islam has no place in the Western, civilized world.

“These values, the political prescription of Islam is, by its own definition, completely incompatible with Western culture because it seeks to eradicate Western culture,” Crowder said. “That’s its purpose.”

“Appeasement is completely futile. Trying to appease a group of people whose worldview requires the eradication of those who appease them is … so silly I can’t even wrap my mind around it.”

In a statement responding to the terror attack, President Donald Trump said that the United States stands “in absolute solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom.”

Trump is being criticized for referring to terrorists as “evil losers in life.” Crowder defended the president’s characterization of the terrorists, explaining that Trump is trying to shame Islamists – who view shame as worse than death.

“Could he find a better way to express himself? Sure,” Crowder said. “But starting by shaming them and belittling them – that’s one hell of a start. And that’s why you’re seeing a contrast between him and other leaders. I’m not the biggest fan of him on every issue. But today I certainly stand with the president of the United States and the sentiment of shaming these absolute losers at life in contrast with other world leaders — and as opposed to mincing words on social media.”

Finally, Crowder called for an alliance of people who value Western values against the forces of Islamic hatred that wish to destroy the West.

“Let’s be ultra-sensitive to the truth. Let’s take our sensitivity in a different direction; let’s try and be as sensitive and as open-minded as humanly possible to the truth. And the truth right now, and the truth that is becoming clearer and clearer by the day is that … the prescribed practicing of political Islam as outlined by Muhammad is completely incompatible with Western civilization. And it’s time for us to ally against it.” (For more from the author of “Watch Steven Crowder’s Powerful Response to Manchester Terror” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Will Reconsider Ruling Blocking Trump’s Sanctuary Cities Order

A federal judge Tuesday agreed to reconsider his ruling blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick accepted the administration’s request to reconsider his April ruling. He gave the two California counties that challenged the executive order — San Francisco and Santa Clara — two weeks to file any documents opposing the request.

The administration was facing a Tuesday deadline to file paperwork to seek a second review by Orrick. (Read more from “Judge Will Reconsider Ruling Blocking Trump’s Sanctuary Cities Order” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Uber Admits Stiffing NYC Drivers by Millions of Dollars

Uber on Tuesday admitted to underpaying its New York City drivers tens of millions of dollars for the past 2 1/2 years.

“We are committed to paying every driver every penny they are owed — plus interest — as quickly as possible,” Uber executive Rachel Holt said in a statement. “We are working hard to regain driver trust, and that means being transparent, sticking to our word, and making the Uber experience better from end to end.”

The ride-hailing company said each affected driver would get a refund of about $900, which includes interest. Uber did not give an exact figure on how many drivers it has in the city, but said it was in the tens of thousands. (Read more from “Uber Admits Stiffing NYC Drivers by Millions of Dollars” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Exposing the Lies: Continuing the Legacy of America’s ‘Abortion King’

“A medical education is not a philosophical education,” writes Charles K. Bellinger at Public Discourse. It’s the first line of his article about the new book by “Christian” abortion doctor Willie Parker, Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice.

Christian abortion doctor? Sure, why not? I’m told there are Christian porn stars too and goodness only knows what else.

Parker, let it be said, has moved on from his Bible-believing past to the liberal mainline Christianity he now practices. And since most Protestant Mainline churches today believe little more than the platform of the left wing of the Democratic Party — including support abortion or get out — I’m sure he fits right in.

Despite the title, Parker’s book, according to Bellinger is a philosophical and theological wasteland. It brims, he writes, with clichés, contradictions and outright lies. Bellinger sites, for example, this bit of nonsense: “As a Christian and as a scientist, I can authoritatively attest that life does not begin at conception.” That’s genuine anti-science.

Bellinger concludes, “In sum, the pro-choice worldview is fully on display in this book, with all of its ignorance, arrogance, and violence.” And why not? Abortion in America was founded on lies designed to encourage ignorance, arrogance and violence.

America’s ‘Abortion King’

That’s the message of the new book by Terry Beatley, What If We’ve Been Wrong?: Keeping My Promise to America’s “Abortion King.” The book is the result of an interview she conducted with Dr. Bernard Nathanson shortly before his death in 2011.

In the 1960s, Nathanson co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He aggressively lobbied and propagandized for unrestricted abortion. He convinced Planned Parenthood to get into the abortion business. And he grew rich performing abortions and instructing others to do the same.

But ultrasound imaging emerged in the 1970s. Nathanson suddenly had the ability to see what was going on in an abortion. He began to rethink his position. As a result, he reversed not just his view of abortion, but the entire course of his life.

Nathanson left NARAL. He left his abortion practice. And he left the abortion movement to become a passionate pro-life advocate. He worked to expose what he called “the dishonest beginnings of the abortion movement.” Dishonest beginnings that he created by crafting deceitful public relations campaigns based on slogans, invented statistics, personal attacks and outright lies.

Nathanson also forsook his “atheistic Judaism” and was baptized into the Catholic Church in 1996.

The ‘Facts’ Behind the Abortion Industry

In his own writings, Nathanson admitted that even NARAL’s board minutes included “nonsensical medical and scientific claims.” Those claims included the widely reported “statistic” that, prior to 1973, sixty percent of Americans favored unrestricted abortion. It was, Beatley notes, probably closer to half a percent.

Beatley writes that Nathanson “acknowledged that the bigger the lies, the more likely Americans would believe them … By simply repeating the slogans and false data, the media created its own narrative and the doctor’s lies became the marketed ‘truth,’” concluding, “It was propaganda and it worked.” It worked in the court of public opinion and it worked in the Supreme Court’s misbegotten Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

And as Willie Parker’s book indicates, it’s still working.

Unexamined assumptions, entrenched worldviews, and the “facts everybody knows” continue to empower abortion advocacy. They help fund the abortion industry. They sear consciences. They poison our politics. And they result in the deaths of millions of unborn children.

Telling the Truth in the Face of Old Lies

In her book, Terry Beatley weaves her own story of pro-life advocacy with Nathanson’s. Hence the subtitle of the book: Keeping My Promise to America’s “Abortion King.”

Her promise wasn’t to write a book. Nathanson told most of the story himself in his book Aborting America and the film The Silent Scream. Her promise was to continue Nathanson’s legacy of telling the truth in the face of lies. These are the popular old lies Nathanson created.

Willie Parker’s book is a clear indication that many in America have not tired of those old lies. Perhaps Terry Beately’s book can act as an antidote for the American’s who have had quite enough of the lies by now.

As Fr. Paul Scalia wrote about the book, “Terry was tasked by the cofounder of NARAL … to teach the truth of how he used propaganda to deceive Supreme Courts justices, legislators and the American public. He equipped Terry with the truth. Now it’s our turn to listen, learn, and respond to the truth.” (For more from the author of “Exposing the Lies: Continuing the Legacy of America’s ‘Abortion King'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.