Another Candidate Announcement-- Andy Kim vs Tom MacArthur In New Jersey

Yesterday Randy Bryce, the woke iron worker, union and veterans activist, former Bernie delegate (and Hillary elector) announced his candidacy for the seat Paul Ryan holds in southeast Wisconsin. We dedicated the whole day to it; it’s that important. We were unable to comment on two other new candidates though-- one, literally the worst possible Nebraska “Democrat” you could ever conjure up and the other, a great first time candidate is New Jersey. The first is an old reject, conservative former Republican legislator, Brad Ashford, who joined the Blue Dogs, served one term in Congress, supported the GOP agenda-- he was even worse than Kyrsten Sinema-- and then lost his reelection when progressives refused to turn out for him at the polls. Ashford is the only member of Congress I’ve ever referred to as a “piece of shit.” He voted more frequently against progressive goals in the House than any other Democrat, if you want to call him a Democrat. The DCCC, which does want to call him a Democrat, just could not wait to try to get him back into Congress. He's exactly what they want in a candidate. I don’t know anything about the other Democrat in the race, Kara Eastman, but she couldn’t possibly be as bad as Ashford. The Omaha World-Herald pointed out that Ashford was “one of the House members most likely to cross the aisle on major votes [which] bolstered his credentials as a moderate but routinely prompted sharply worded denunciations from rank-and-file Nebraska Democrats on social media.” They got two things wrong: 1- he was the member most likely to cross the aisle and 2- that bolstered his credentials as a conservative, not as a moderate.

The other race that was announced Monday, the one we’re more interested in, is for the South Jersey seat occupied by one of the devious architects of TrumpCare 2.0, reactionary multimillionaire Tom MacArthur. The Democrat running is Andy Kim, a former Obama White House national security official who coordinated the fight against ISIS inside the National Security Council, after working at the Pentagon, the State Department and in Afghanistan as a strategic adviser to General David Petraeus. Andy was a Rhodes Scholar and received a Doctorate in International Relations from Oxford after going to the University of Chicago. Andy, his wife, Kammy Lai and their 21 month old son, Austin, live in Marlton, just down the road from the school where Andy attended kindergarten.

In a statement, he told NJ-03 voters that he’s been traveling around the 2 counties-- Ocean and Burlington-- that make up the divergent district and speaking with people from the suburbs Northeast of Philly, through Shamong, Lacey and Stafford townships and up to Toms River and Brick, and that he sees “a groundswell of energy I’ve never seen before. People want change. They want leaders to take the time to listen, and build a system that puts people first. People in the Jersey Third have told me that they are scared about their futures. They worry about getting good paying jobs, having affordable healthcare, and ensuring their family’s safety.” He continued that he’s “running for Congress because we can no longer take democracy for granted, the people's voice needs to be heard. I am stepping up because no one can assume that someone else will fight on our behalf. I have spent my life serving my country. I will be honored to serve as the next Congressman from the Jersey Third.”

Last month, I watched Representative Tom MacArthur rush a vote on a dire healthcare bill without letting the American people understand the consequences. Under Trumpcare, tens of thousands of people in our congressional district will lose their healthcare.

Nobody voted to send a representative to Congress to gut healthcare. I’m running for Congress to work on solutions, and fix problems, not on gutting healthcare to win a political fight.

I grew up in South Jersey. It’s where I hit my first home run, earned my first paycheck, and received an incredible public education that opened up a world of opportunity.

My wife, Kammy, and I have a 21-month-old boy and another baby on the way. As parents, we have to think not only about our future, but the future of our children, and the world they are going to live in, even beyond our own lifetimes.

I never thought I would run for Congress. I am doing this because I believe it is the right thing to do. I believe we need a new generation of leaders in Congress that are focused on representing the people and finding solutions. We need leaders who want to serve the people, represent their neighbors, and work together to build a stronger nation.

This morning I asked Andy Kim how he feels about some of the legislation we’re following, especially Ted Lieu’s infrastructure bill and John Conyers’ Medicare-for All bill. He hadn’t read either specific bill yet, but he was very supportive of each. "People in South Jersey and across this country,” he said, “want real solutions. They want our government to invest in the big ideas that will help re-energize our communities and give people the stability and hope they deserve. This means we need health care for everyone no matter if they are rich or poor because health care is a right. That must be a top priority because tens of millions of Americans without insurance is a disaster. Infrastructure is another place where we need bold solutions. We need to think big because this can't be done incrementally and needs vision, big ideas, and strong leadership to make the right investments in our future. Not only would this help create jobs, it is absolutely necessary to reinvigorate and revitalize our nation for decades to come."

The News For Republicans In New Jersey Could Hardly Be Worse

The recent Bedminster fundraiser, headlined by Señor Trumpanzee and Governor Chris Christie, for embattled Republican Congressman Tom MacArthur, showed how aware Republicans are of the toxicity of Trump and of the GOP agenda. There are no photos of MacArthur and his two party leaders, Señor T and Governor Lard Ass. The press were prevented from getting anywhere near the event and photos were strictly prohibited. What are they hiding? Who are they hiding from?

In New Jersey, at least, the stealth is too little too late. A newly released Quinnipiac poll of the state’s voters carries catastrophic predictions for the Republican Party in the Garden State. A fairly unattractive Democratic hack candidate, Wall Streeter Phil Murphy “buries” the GOP candidate, Christie’s Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno. Buries? Sure— 55% to 26%. “The blue wave,” explains Quinnipiac, “sweeps across the ballot as New Jersey voters say 57 - 29 percent that they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control the State Legislature… [I]f New Jersey is a weather vane, the wind is blowing in the Democrats' direction."

"Hobbled by eight years in a little noticed job and her ties to a remarkably unpopular governor, Lt. Gov. Guadagno is little-known and little-liked," Carroll added. "Half the state doesn't know enough about her to judge her as a candidate.

"The last New Jersey governor from Goldman Sachs, Jon Corzine, failed to win a second term, but only one-third of voters hold Murphy's Wall Street career against him. Guadagno's experience as lieutenant governor seems to be hurting her more."

Murphy gets a 33 - 18 percent favorability rating from New Jersey voters, while 47 percent haven't heard enough about him to form an opinion of him. Guadagno gets a negative 20 - 28 percent favorability, with 50 percent who haven't heard enough to form an opinion.

Murphy's 23 years at Goldman Sachs leaves 33 percent of voters with a negative impact on their opinion of him, with 7 percent saying it has a positive impact and 56 percent who say it has no impact on their opinion.

Guadagno's service as Gov. Christopher Christie's Lieutenant Governor leaves 54 percent of voters with a negative impact on their opinion of her; 9 percent of voters with a positive impact and 35 percent who say it has no impact on their opinion of her. Gov. Christie, President Trump Approval Ratings.

Christie makes history again as New Jersey voters disapprove 81 - 15 percent of the job he is doing, the worst approval rating for any governor in any state surveyed by Quinnipiac University in more than 20 years. Even Republicans disapprove 58 - 31 percent.

President Donald Trump also is at a historic low, as Garden State voters disapprove 66 - 28 percent of the job he is doing.

No wonder MacArthur insisted that no pictures of himself and Trump or himself and Christie— let alone himself and both of them— be allowed. He was happy to take the $800,000 Trump raised for him from about 100 fat cats, but his upcoming contest with Andy Kim is going to be difficult enough— with Kim tarring him as one of the principal authors of TrumpCare— without connecting him viscerally to the detested Republican president and the even more detested Republican governor. Only 19% Boo New Jersey voters approve of TrumpCare. 69% disapprove— including 67% bow independents. The closer Kim’s campaign can tie MacArthur to TrumpCare, Trump and Christie, the easier it will be for him to win in 2018. Photos from begone days, like the one below, won't help MacArthur.

Congressional Republicans Are Starting To Brace For The 2018 Anti-Trump Wave

Remember how well Trump's coattails worked out for Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire?

We still have a year and a half before the 2018 midterm election day and I feel confident we'll be seeing a LOT more stories like the one Politico's Jake Sherman wrote to start this week off: GOP growing worried they’ll lose House.

Republicans are growing increasingly worried that they will lose the House of Representatives. The pervasive pessimism comes as there continues to be a dearth of legislative victories, and a toxic political environment that appears to be worsening. Of course, the midterm elections are nearly a year and a half away. But more than a dozen Republicans we’ve spoken to in the last few weeks say the prospect for political and legislative wins big and small is dimming. And as much as President Donald Trump has worked to woo over fellow Republicans with dinners at the White House and regular meetings with GOP leadership, it hasn’t had much of an impact on the overall state of play.

The rank and file has been frustrated with the House committees, which have not produced a drumbeat of legislation to tout as victories. And the party is deeply split on health-care reform, a tax overhaul and infrastructure spending. Passing a budget to set the groundwork for tax reform is still seen as far off. And the congressional schedule doesn’t leave a lot of time to kick things into high gear. The House is in session for 13 more days and the Senate is in session for 14 more days before the July 4 recess. Not to mention, there’s serious concern in the GOP that there could be more revelations about President Donald Trump, and Robert Mueller’s investigation still remains the wild card. Attorney General Jeff Sessions testifying Tuesday before the Senate Intel Committee is expected to just add more drama to distract from the GOP agenda into the mix.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN? Republicans will be less willing to take risks as they shift into political survival mode.

Different Republicans in vulnerable seats are navigating these treacherous waters in different ways. Carlos Curbelo, for example, in a South Florida swing district Hillary won handily, 56.7-40.6%, is doing whatever he can to separate himself from Trump in ways that will appeal to his constituents-- like on Climate Change, which is already manifesting itself in his district with rising oceans and regular street flooding.

New Jersey plutocrat Tom MacArthur is taking the opposite tact. He's in a swingy South Jersey district that voted 51.8-47.2% for Obama in 2012 but flipped to Trump last year 51.4% to 45.2%. MacArthur joined the mainstream conservative grouping, the Tuesday Group, but stabbed them in the back, making a deal with Mark Meadows of the hard right Freedom Caucus to wreck Medicaid and pass TrumpCare in the House. He was kicked out of the Tuesday Group and has attached himself to Trump. On Sunday afternoon Trump headlined a fat cat fundraiser for MacArthur at his sleazy Bedminster Golf Course (in Leonard Lance's 7th district; Lance, who voted for TrumpCare in committee, felt the pressure in the district and then flip-flopped on the final vote, infuriating Trump, was not invited to the event). Chris Christie was there but the press wasn't allowed to hear Trump and MacArthur address a crowd of about 100 wealthy right-wing check writers. The invitation said that the event-- Trump's first for a member of Congress since Putin installed him in the White House-- was sponsored by MacArthur Victory, the NRCC, TMAC PAC, and the New Jersey Republican State Committee. MacArthur is a notorious self-funder, buying his first race (2014) with a 5 million dollar check but taking so much in special interest bribes-- nearly $2 million-- as a freshman that he only had to write himself a $200,000 check for his 2016 campaign.

Anyway, all across the country Republican incumbents in swing districts are going to have to do the calculus and decide if they're going to run from Trump or embrace him. So far many have warily tried to stick with him despite all the scandal and controversy. California congressmembers on shaky political ground-- like Darrell Issa, Mimi Walters, Dana Rohrabacher, Steve Knight, Devin Nunes and Duncan Hunter-- have made the bet the the DCCC is too lame to field effective campaigns against them and they have tied their political futures to Trump. Zombie-like they seem to expect him to suddenly change his ways and turn the disastrous approval numbers-- not just for himself, but for that party-- around.

Katie Hill is the Santa Clarita Valley progressive who we're hoping replaces Trump rubber stamp Steve Knight in CA-25. This morning, in a wide ranging discussion of the issues facing her neighbors in L.A. and Ventura counties she mentioned that "Government health care spending is vital to the well being our community and it’s also a jobs issue. Steve Knight’s yes vote on Trumpcare was an irreverent vote to our very purple, working class district. Instead of stripping 77,000 of our neighbors of their health care, we need to be bringing more people into the health care system by strengthening the ACA and eventually moving towards a single payer system. That way people can get the care they need and those working in health related professions, like my mom who is a nurse, can make a decent living working in a compassionate profession. If we look at Knight’s voting record, he's voting 100% in favor of Trump’s legislative agenda... To me, this is a massive failure of the representative government we’ve been promised. We have to put the concerns of our neighbors before scoring political points with party leaders. Most importantly, we need representatives willing to buck partisan party politics when it compromises the well being of our community."

Is Tom MacArthur's Self-Financed Political Career Crumbling Before Our Eyes?

The biggest group of mainstream conservatives in the House, the Tuesday Group felt betrayed by one of its leaders, New Jersey Rep. Tom MacArthur, who worked with radical right extremist Mark Meadows of the Freedom Caucus to help pass TrumpCare. Officially, on Tuesday he resigned from the Tuesday Group. But 2 Republican staffers have told me, he was pushed out of the group by angry members who feel that his TrumpCare betrayal will cost dozens of Republicans their seats in the 2018 midterms. "That bill is going to cost [Leonard] Lance and [Mike] Coffman their seats... that's what [MacArthur] accomplished. He's a pariah around here now."

Officially, the DCCC has included NJ-03 on their list of targeted districts but they haven't recruited a candidate yet and I was told that the district isn't a priority because Trump beat Hillary there 51.4% to 45.2%-- more typical backward-looking DCCC "strategy." (Obama beat Romney there 51.8% to 47.2% and beat McCain by about the same margin.) NJ-03 is a South Jersey swing district. Most of the voters live in Burlington County, primarily in the suburbs northeast of Philly, like Mount Laurel, Cinnaminson and Willingboro, although the district's biggest city is Tom's River in Ocean County on the other side of the Pine Barrens.

The DCCC has insisted on running Republican-lite candidates and the last Democratic congressman to represent the area was Blue Dog John Adler who won the seat in 2008, running as a normal Democrat-- and with a bigger archest than any other Democratic non-incumbent in the country. But he voted with the Republicans so frequently that when the 2010 midterms rolled around his 52-48% win turned into a 53-47% loss as Democratic voters refused to even bother turning out for the DCCC's idea of a candidate (not their own). And this despite Adler spending $3,285,638 to Republican Jon Runyan's $1,518,073.

In 2012 the DCCC ran Adler's widow, who lost by 10 points and 2 years later they ran another conservative-leaning Dem, Aimee Belgard, who did even worse (for what was then an open seat) against rich carpetbagger MacArthur. At that point the DCCC gave up on the district. The "Democrat" who took MacArthur on in 2016, Frederick Lavergne, billed himself as a Democrat-Republican, wasn't supported by the DCCC and reported raising only $600 and spending nothing. MacArthur spent $1,910,489.

But there's some good news on the horizon. Progressive Andy Kim, a Rhodes Scolar who worked in the Obama White House, is strongly considering running in 2018. The founder and Executive Director of RISE Stronger, a grassroots group whose mission is "to build a dynamic, strategic movement of politically engaged communities that demand a responsible and accountable government which serves the interests of the people." Their story:

In the days following the 2016 presidential election, Andy Kim, a former White House Director for Iraq at the National Security Council, gathered several hundred people to a meeting in Washington, D.C. to lay out a vision for a new wave of citizen engagement in this uncertain and tumultuous political landscape in America. That meeting launched RISE Stronger, which has since grown to become a citizen watchdog organization of nearly 30,000 members across the country who are ready to ensure elected officials and government are both responsible and accountable to the people.

In that first meeting, people said they felt paralyzed-- unable to think about how to move beyond the uncertainty, disappointment, and fear. Participants struggled to think of actions that regular citizens could take beyond voting, calling their representative, and donating money to a cause. Dissatisfied with these limited options, RISE Stronger emerged to reinvigorate what it means to be a citizen and to empower Americans across the country to find new ways to engage in the American democracy.

The goal of RISE Stronger is simple: capture the political energy of Americans, sustain it, and focus it towards action that will ensure that the government and its leaders are accountable to its citizens, transparent in their actions and policies, and guided solely by the interests and values of the American people.

Keeping grassroots activism at the heart of its work, RISE Stronger draws from a vast network of former White House and government officials and other policy experts to inform and augment the work of its members throughout the country. A network of local and state chapters, and an active online hub will serve as an incubator to new ideas and initiatives that propel forward the work of members and increase the engagement of Americans.

RISE Stronger is made up of passionate people from all walks of life who are committed to protecting and advancing freedom, equality, and justice, and ensuring a transparent, responsible and accountable government for all.

"MacArthur has become Trump's biggest supporter in New Jersey," wrote Kim, "and is the main author and lead negotiator for TrumpCare 2.0 that jeopardizes care for people with pre-existing conditions while blatantly protecting the health care plans of Congress from these changes."

The Extremists In The Freedom Caucus Have A Secret Weapon Undermining Healthcare: Tom MacArthur (R-NJ)

A headline at Axios yesterday: GOP health care plan has momentum. This is the new plan where, aside from kicking 24 million people off health insurance, the Republicans gut protections for the sick (by eliminating protections for people with pre-existing conditions)-- and all to allow a tax cut for the super-rich. The far right extremists at the Freedom Caucus think it does enough damage to have earned their support. Whats known as the Meadows-MacArthur amendment allows states to waive a set of "essential health benefits" and a ban on charging sick people higher premiums in limited circumstances and if the state has established a high-risk pool. Radical anti-health care extremists like Dave Brat (R-VA), Raul Labrador (R-ID) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) are urging other extremists to vote for it-- and that may come as soon as Friday.

The bill's impacts will be so bad for consumers that congressional Republicans exempted themselves and their staffers from the worst of the provisions, something that didn't go unnoticed by Democrats. Madison-based Democrat Mark Pocan called then right out on it: "House Republicans showed their hand when they exempted themselves from their own plan. If this latest version of Trumpcare isn’t good enough for Members of Congress, it’s not good enough for the American people. The reason Trumpcare failed, was that the American people took a long hard look at what the President and Speaker Ryan put on the table and flatly rejected it. Now, House Republicans are trying to introduce a worse version of Trumpcare that will likely cause more people to lose health insurance, make it harder for people with preexisting conditions to get coverage, and leaves people at the mercy of insurance companies."

Meanwhile the Regime has some healthcare sabotage up its sleeve-- just in case. Mick Mulvaney spoke with Nancy Pelosi Tuesday night and threatened to cut off crucial ObamaCare payments as soon as next month.

Canceling the payments to insurers, known as cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), would cause chaos in the insurance market. The payments are the subject of ongoing litigation, with a judge ruling them unconstitutional last year because Congress had not appropriated the money.

"Mulvaney indicated that while the Trump administration had continued the CSR payments, they had not yet decided whether they would make the May payment," the aide said. "Mulvaney made clear that, absent Congressional action, the judge's order would stand and the administration would cease making payments."

Pelosi is pushing for the payments to be funded in the spending bill Congress is negotiating this week.

If Mulvaney follows through on his comments, then that would raise the pressure on Congress to appropriate the payments so that they are not canceled, as the administration is threatening.

Top congressional Republicans, though, are resisting funding ObamaCare payments in the spending bill, leading to a standoff.

That could be awkward for mainstreamish conservatives in swingy districts. Politico and the rest of the Beltway media refers to them as "moderates," which they're not, but Politico's Kyle Cheney and Rachel Bade were correct in pointing out that much of this resuscitation mess is the fault of fake-moderate Tom MacArthur (R-NJ). "MacArthur," they wrote, "has singlehandedly kept the embers of the failed repeal-and-replace effort burning, huddling with the hard-line conservative Freedom Caucus to try to forge a deal. The negotiations have allowed the White House and GOP congressional leaders to insist that despite their embarrassing failure to pass health care legislation last month, they're still making progress. But the MacArthur-as-Republican health care savior narrative has bothered some GOP moderates, who say the New Jersey lawmaker is flying solo in negotiations with the Freedom Caucus. Though he's one of three co-chairs of the Tuesday Group-- a 50-member bloc of House Republican moderates-- MacArthur has negotiated without the group's blessing in his quest to keep the health care talks alive, other Tuesday Group members say."

Some in the group “are pretty hot about this thing right now,” said a Tuesday Group member. “MacArthur is kind of on his own.”

MacArthur acknowledged as much in an interview with The Hill, suggesting his effort to find compromise was not on behalf of the Tuesday Group.

As a result, it's not clear that any deal MacArthur strikes can actually deliver the votes of moderates that President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan need to get their legislation, dubbed the American Health Care Act, across the finish line. That's a dangerous dynamic that could sink the revived health care discussion just as Freedom Caucus members are warming to the bill.

So far, House moderates have remained quiet about reports of progress between MacArthur and the Freedom Caucus, chaired by North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows. The two were seen huddling daily in the back of the House chamber before lawmakers departed for their two-week Easter recess. But other Tuesday Group members have been wary of working with the Freedom Caucus, which came under fire from Trump and mainstream Republicans last month for rejecting the first iteration of the GOP health care plan.

At the time, Rep. Chris Collins, a Tuesday Group member and Trump ally, accused the Freedom Caucus of proposing negotiations simply to deflect blame for scuttling the first bill.

“The Tuesday Group will never meet with the Freedom Caucus. Capital N-E-V-E-R,” Collins said in late March.

As reports of a deal surfaced during the recess, moderates remained silent. Even MacArthur's Tuesday Group co-chairs-- Reps. Charlie Dent and Elise Stefanik of New York-- said they weren’t yet sold on the negotiations.

...[I]t's unclear whether MacArthur's efforts have moved any moderates closer to "yes" on the stalled health care bill. Politico reached out to the offices of more than two dozen moderate Republicans who had either signaled their opposition to the AHCA or hadn’t yet taken a position. Though many declined to respond, none said they had been swayed by the negotiations.

"The amendment doesn't address the things that I had concerns about-- the things I think are detrimental to the people I represent," said Rep. Dan Donovan, a centrist, who added that he learned about the proposal when details leaked to the press Friday.

...At the heart of the negotiations is a trade-off. Conservatives are seeking a proposal that would let states opt out of Obamacare's regulatory framework, including provisions intended to keep costs down for people with pre-existing conditions. In exchange, MacArthur negotiated to reinstate Obamacare's minimum coverage requirements and to require that any state choosing to opt out of the Obamacare regulations must set up a high-risk pool intended to help cover sick patients whose premiums might surge.

Freedom Caucus sources indicated these changes could win over at least some of their holdouts, putting the AHCA tantalizingly close to passage. House leaders are hopeful they can nudge just enough moderates to back the bill to send it to the Senate. With no Democrats expected to support the bill, Republicans must secure support from 216 members of the 238-member caucus to pass it.

Since talks collapsed last month, House leaders and President Donald Trump have indicated they were heartened by continued negotiations among lawmakers. Vice President Mike Pence and White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney continued shuttling to and from Capitol Hill in search of votes. Then, as Trump's 100-day mark in office approached, the White House began indicated it expected a vote on an amended health care package as soon as this week.

The Meadows-MacArthur talks were at the heart of it.

For MacArthur, the impromptu talks aren't just risky for the Republican agenda, they could imperil his own political future. He represents one of a few dozen swing districts. Though his district narrowly voted for Trump in November, it backed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. MacArthur's role in salvaging a health care plan that energized protesters on the left and drew poor marks across the political spectrum has only enhanced the target on his back for Democrats.

MacArthur's efforts have also put him on the president’s radar. Trump personally thanked MacArthur, a former insurance executive, the day before leaders pulled the legislation for lack of support.

But during the presidential campaign, MacArthur, 56, kept his distance from Trump, endorsing the GOP standard-bearer after his primary rivals quit the race. MacArthur survived his reelection campaign despite relentless efforts by Democrats to tie him to Trump.

In recent weeks, conservative and liberal activists squeezed MacArthur with attack ads in his district for his role in AHCA talks. But the conservative Club for Growth may help provide him some cover.

Keep in mind that the DCCC has already signaled that they will not be trying to unseat either Meadows or MacArthur in 2018. Yesterday the AP reported that Charlie Dent doesn't like what he's seeing of the MacArthur/Meadows "compromise," since it ignores his concerns that TrumpCare will "cut too deeply into the Medicaid program for the poor and leave many people unable to afford coverage."

Trump and the GOP's threats against the Affordable Care Act have created the kind of uncertainty for the insurance market that is forcing premiums up for millions of Americans.

Many experts have already warned that if Trump refuses to enforce the Affordable Care Act’s, or ACA’s, individual mandate or fund subsidies for low-income enrollees, consumers will see premiums skyrocket. But even without taking direct action, the Trump administration is still pushing insurers to raise premiums. Trump’s rhetoric creates a climate of uncertainty for health insurers that puts upward pressure on rates and discourages them from future participation in the exchanges.

We expect this generalized market uncertainty will itself raise premiums for 2018. If insurers raise rates by an additional 8.5 to 17 percent to account for a 25 to 50 percent risk that the Administration will undermine ACA subsidies and mandate enforcement, the average annual premium would rise by an extra $480 to $960 in 2018. While ACA subsidies will protect most enrollees from these uncertainty rate hikes, millions will see their premiums rise and taxpayers will foot the bill for increased subsidy costs.

The administration has already taken steps that will hurt the market and increase premiums, including halting outreach efforts at the end of the 2017 open enrollment period and drastically shortening the enrollment period for next year. The administration can prevent even larger premium hikes, but, given the widespread uncertainty that the president and congressional Republicans have already created, they need to act now. Trump and Congress must take concrete steps in the coming weeks to make clear that subsidy payments will be made on a permanent basis, that the individual mandate will be fully enforced, that the administration will conduct similar outreach and operational efforts as in past years to drive enrollment, and that they will stop their damaging efforts to repeal the ACA.

...Trump is already attempting to use millions of Americans’ health insurance as a bargaining chip for his own political gain. In an effort to force Democrats to negotiate with him on repealing the ACA, Trump threatened to hold hostage subsidies for low-income enrollees.

...A study by The Commonwealth Fund suggests that eliminating cost-sharing reductions payments could increase premiums by 14 percent, in addition to causing a large number of insurers to leave the exchanges. Other studies have suggested an even higher increase if the compensating premium increase occurs among silver plans alone, from 19 to 29 percent. Similar estimates have been put forward by insurers, actuaries, and insurance commissioners, as well as by hospitals, doctors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

To remove this uncertainty, President Trump and Congress must make clear that they will not play political games with people’s lives, that they will fulfill their obligations under the ACA, and they will fully fund cost-sharing reduction payments on a permanent basis.

The size of the uncertainty rate hike would vary by state, as shown in Table 2. If we assume an uncertainty rate hike of 8.5 percent above the normal increase, equivalent to insurers hedging against a 25 percent chance of loss of the mandate and cost-sharing reductions, the extra annual premium increase would range from $300 on average in Massachusetts to an average of $1,060 in Alaska. If insurers build in a 50 percent chance the administration takes both these major actions to undermine the exchanges, the average rate hike would be more than $1,000 in close to half the states.

UPDATE: Doctors Write To Congress

This is the letter that went to Congress Wednesday:

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi:

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Minority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Our organizations, which represent over 560,000 physicians and medical students, remain concerned with ongoing efforts that in our view could destabilize our nation’s health care system. We believe that pending legislation proposals would dramatically increase costs for older individuals, result in millions of people losing their health care coverage, and return to a system that allows for discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. We are especially concerned about the changes to Medicaid and Medicaid financing contained within AHCA.

Our members are the frontline physicians who provide physical and mental health care services to millions of men, women, and children each day. They provide care to children, the aged, those with chronic conditions, people battling substance use disorders, and the many individuals who are seeking prevention and wellness services in an attempt to be healthier. Our members see firsthand the important role that health care coverage and access to affordable, high quality care plays in people’s lives and their pursuit of better health and well-being. They also recall those days when patients faced discrimination based on their age, gender, or health conditions, and remember when those with mental and behavioral health needs were denied coverage.

This experience with the health care system is why our organizations strongly oppose the compromises that have been recently reported. These compromises are built on the flawed foundation of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which would result in millions of Americans and, according to the CBO, over 7 million with employer-sponsored insurance, losing their coverage.

Further, these compromises would allow individual states to obtain waivers to opt-out of important benefit and patient protection provisions in current law. Under the proposed “Limited Waiver” authority, insurers in such states would once again be allowed to charge unaffordable premiums to people with pre-existing conditions based on their individual health risks, and decline to cover ten categories of essential services including prescription drugs, physician and hospital visits, preventive services, and mental and behavioral health benefits. We are especially concerned that these changes would:

• Allow insures to deny millions of people facing addiction access to treatment and therapy, when such services are needed more than ever to address the opioid epidemic in the United States.

• Make health care even more expensive and further reduce access to care for millions, especially those over the age of 50;

• Force individuals with multiple chronic conditions into underfunded state-sponsored high risk pools, which have been proven ineffective numerous times;
• Allow for gender rating by enabling states to opt out of maternity care coverage.

We urge Congress to reject these “compromises” and instead focus on enacting policies that improve upon current law, thus ensuring that more people have access to affordable health care coverage. Our organizations have provided several recommendations on how current law could be improved to accomplish these goals. A few of those recommendations are:

• Ensure that coverage remains affordable by maintaining premium and cost-sharing subsidies available under current law.

• Stabilize the individual market.
• Take immediate action to provide long-term, adequate funding for the CHIP program.
• Identify and implement policies that make primary, preventive, and mental health more 
readily available to all Americans.

• Identify and implement policies that lower costs for individuals and families, especially 
the costs of pharmaceutical treatments.

•Reform our medical liability laws.
• Reduce the administrative and regulatory burdens that add costs and inefficiencies to 
our delivery and insurance systems, and take away valuable time for us to care for our patients.


We recognize that our health care system is not perfect and reforms are needed. Our organizations and our members stand ready to work with Congress and the Administration to improve our health care system. However, we urge Congress to reject the AHCA and instead focus on the implementation of policies that aim to improve our health care system versus those that seek to destabilize it and would make quality health care less available to millions of Americans.


Sincerely,

American Academy of Family Physicians

American Academy of Pediatrics

American College of Physicians

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists American Osteopathic Association

American Psychiatric Association

And the AARP added this to the debate this morning:

40% of older adults ages 50-64-- or about 25 million people in this age group-- could be denied health coverage because of a preexisting condition if they sought to buy an individual plan.

Is The GOP Obsession With Taking Away People's Health Insurance A Suicide Mission?

This morning, a new Quinnipiac poll found that only 36% of American voters say Republicans in Congress should try again to repeal and replace Obamacare, the 2010 Affordable Care Act, while 60% say the Republicans should "move on." What's more, voters disapprove 65-29% of the way Trump is handling health care. According to an earlier poll, just 17% of Americans supported Ryan's TrumpCare proposal. In fact, it was so unpopular that dozens of Republicans told the GOP House leadership they couldn't vote for it. So Ryan pulled the bill. At first, Trump was happy and said it was time to move on to "tax reform," meaning giving massive tax breaks to multimillionaires and billionaires. Then someone told Trump the money they would have saved by kicking 24 million people off health care was the money they needed for the tax breaks. So suddenly he was demanding Ryan go back to the drawing board and rework TrumpCare and get it passed. This week-- while Congress was on Easter break and Republicans were being booed and heckled at town hall meetings across the country-- "the GOP" came up with the "new" TrumpCare proposal. Short version: it's far worse than the original.

Freedom Caucus head-man Mark Meadows (R-NC), whose goal is to end government's role in healthcare entirely, and hapless New Jersey conservative Tom MacArthur worked out a "compromise." The stand-out provision is getting rid of protections for people with pre-existing conditions. These:

Matt Fuller and Jonathan Cohn pointed out in their HuffPo coverage that "with Republicans effectively going back on their repeated promises to guarantee coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the amendment could lose a number of Republicans who already supported the legislation. In short, even though the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus think they have a deal, Republicans writ large might have nothing."

Leadership is expected to discuss the amendment on a conference call this Saturday with GOP members, but public opinion might also affect the landscape. Republicans are trying to say their amendment will cover people with pre-existing conditions-- because, first, the legislation still claims those people can’t be denied coverage, and second, because there will be high-risk pools for those people if insurance costs dramatically go up for them.

The reality, however, is that insurers would be able to effectively deny coverage by pricing sick people out of the market.

“This effectively allows states to eliminate the ACA’s guarantee of access to insurance at a reasonable price for people with pre-existing conditions, in the interest of lowering premiums for people who are healthy,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, said upon seeing a description of the proposal. “It seems to tilt heavily towards what the Freedom Caucus has been looking for.”

Republicans argue that the high-risk pools would then cover those people, taking them out of the regular insurance pool and lowering prices for everyone else, but high-risk pools have traditionally been underfunded by states and the federal government, resulting in poor coverage and high costs for those who need insurance the most.

Those concerns may be significant enough that, even with MacArthur’s blessing, the deal does not win over moderates. The concessions also might not be enough for some conservatives, who have expressed issue with Republicans establishing an advance refundable tax credit to help pay for insurance.

Republicans need 216 votes to pass their health care bill, and based on statements from GOP members, even with the support of the entire Freedom Caucus for the amendment, there may be enough moderate hold-outs to prevent passage anyway. (MacArthur doesn’t count as a convert; he supported the last bill, albeit reluctantly.)

The amendment wouldn’t seem to address the big concerns moderates have expressed-- like raising the cap on how much insurers can charge seniors or cutting $880 billion from Medicaid. These changes are among the reasons that the Congressional Budget Office predicted the House health care legislation would increase the number of people without insurance by 24 million within a decade.

Many Republicans-- particularly in the Senate-- have said such deep cuts are not acceptable. Just this week, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said he couldn’t support a proposal that jeopardized coverage for the approximately 300,000 people in his state dependent on the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.

Public opinion has also shifted since the repeal effort began in earnest-- and it has shifted decisively against Republicans and their cause. The Affordable Care Act is more popular than ever, and in a recent Pew Research Center poll, 54 percent of Americans said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans on health care, while just 35 percent said they trusted Republicans more. That’s the biggest advantage for Democrats on health care since 2009.

In short, some leaders in the GOP conference might think they have a deal, but they also might have just found a way to make the bill even more unpalatable for Republicans, thus bringing Congress no closer at all.

This sour news came out on the same day that the Urban Institute reported that veterans too young for Medicare made tremendous gains in health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act. "[U]ninsurance among veterans," they report, "fell from 9.6 percent in 2013 to 5.9 percent in 2014, a nearly 40 percent drop. That's 429,000 veterans under the age of 65 who gained health insurance coverage during the first two years of ACA implementation, primarily through Medicaid expansion, privately purchased plans and marketplace coverage. Although expansion of coverage transcended all demographic lines, vets with the lowest incomes saw the greatest increase in coverage, especially in states that adopted Medicaid expansion. 20% of the uninsured vets live in Republican-controlled states like Texas and Florida that attempted to sabotage the Affordable Care Act by refusing to expand Medicaid. If TrumpCare is implemented these coverage advances would be wiped out, leaving hundreds of thousands of vets without coverage again.

MacArthur did a town hall for seniors this week. An airplane kept flying around the event

Meadows' very gerrymandered and very backward western North Carolina district voted for Trump overwhelmingly-- 63.2% to 34.0%. Even in a massive anti-Trump/anti-GOP tsunami, his seat would likely be safe. A 20 point swing away from the Republicans-- like KS-04 experienced last week-- would leave Meadows spewing his extremist claptrap in Congress in 2019. Not so in NJ-03, Tom MacArthur's South Jersey district. It voted for Trump as well-- but more narrowly: 51.4% to 45.2%. Even a 10% swing would leave MacArthur out in the cold, if the DCCC had a plausible candidate. In 2016 they didn't and they have signaled that they're not going to be targeting MacArthur in 2018. So far there is no candidate running against him.

Tom MacArthur makes a deal to screw vets out of healthcare

The Moderate Tag Is A Farce-- Meet New Jersey Congressman Tom MacArthur

-by Joshua Henne

The last time New Jersey voters sent a Republican to the U.S. Senate, Nixon was in the White House and The Godfather was in movie theaters. For a short while, at least on paper, Congressman Tom MacArthur seemed an attractive candidate to try and break this 45-year streak.

In 2014, the former insurance executive and mayor of Randolph, moved from Morris County down to South Jersey, plopped down $5 million of his own cash and garnered an open House seat. With an amiable personality and political ties throughout the state, MacArthur proved unafraid to dig deep into his piggy bank. With a seeming-centrist streak, he was sitting pretty and setting a nice table for a statewide run.

However, over the span of the past two months, MacArthur effectively torpedoed any shot for higher office with three sweeping, out-of-the-mainstream moves. First, he backed Trump’s racist travel ban. Then, he co-sponsored legislation bestowing other states’ residents the right to conceal and carry weapons here in New Jersey. And now he’s the lone Jersey representative supporting TrumpCare, which is mind-boggling on several levels.

In January, MacArthur was one of only nine Republicans nationwide to vote against a budget resolution aimed at greasing the Affordable Care Act’s repeal. New Jersey congressmen Rodney Frelinghuysen, Leonard Lance, Frank LoBiondo and Chris Smith all voted for it. But, sensing grave harm to constituents, these representatives simply couldn’t bring themselves to support TrumpCare, which started badly and just got worse. Passage would gut Medicaid and strip insurance from 24 million Americans-- including 500,000 New Jerseyans. LoBiondo said, “It’s not as good as or better than what we currently have.” Frelinghuysen called TrumpCare “unacceptable, as it would place significant new costs and barriers to care.”

Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone said it best: “The degree of hypocrisy throughout this process has been matched only by the recklessness shown by President Trump and Republican leaders in nearly destroying the American healthcare system overnight.” At least, with the exception of MacArthur, New Jersey’s congressional delegation didn’t support such a catastrophic policy push.

According to NJ Policy Perspective’s analysis of Census data and Medicaid statistics, TrumpCare would cause a 74 percent increase of uninsured in our five Republican congressional districts alone by 2020. Democratic Districts would see a 58% increase in the number of uninsured. The percentage is lower because Dem areas tend to be populated more by those living below the poverty line and who already had Medicaid coverage. But, still that’s over 340,000 people in those seven Democratic congressional districts who would lose insurance.

It’s worth noting that, as a percentage, MacArthur’s constituents suffer the most-- with 32,809 projected to lose insurance. That’s an eye-popping 94 percent uninsured spike. And this calculation came before amendments hardened the bill by cutting required benefits. Nonetheless, with such damning information causing congressional colleagues to come to their senses, MacArthur head-scratchingly switched support to TrumpCare.

And MacArthur’s still incredulously defending his actions. Even a few days after it failed, he was still rationalizing and claiming they “made dramatic improvements to the bill.” This is beyond laughable. Even worse is MacArthur saying he disagreed with CBO saying it would take away healthcare. This is gross incompetence and a stubbornness adherence to pushing alternate facts. Asking those who are scared and who benefit from the Affordable Care Act to “get past all the noise”… well, its not noise. It's the fact that folks are scared they’ll be stripped of healthcare.

With TrumpCare talk again bubbling up, MacArthur this week said, “There’s a lot of confusion, there’s a lot of misinformation, and I’m trying to be the person who makes the bill better. If that makes me more vulnerable then so be it. I didn’t come here just to decorate a chair.” Trust me, no one is mistaking MacArthur’s dangerous actions as decorative.

This comes on the heels of his embracing bigotry by backing Trump’s racist travel ban. MacArthur didn’t merely give vague lip-service about dangerous times demanding vigilance, but rather “applauded him for acting.” This isn’t just ignorant-- as the measure makes America markedly less secure. It’s also immoral. Trump’s Muslim prohibition splits families and stops children from life-saving surgeries. History will view it as dark a stain on America’s story as Jim Crow and Japanese internment camps. MacArthur claims it wouldn’t ban Muslims. But everyone knows full-well its intention, including the courts striking it down.

Turning away immigrants based on faith is decidedly un-American. It undermines our values. Even Dick Cheney said, "This whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in." Last summer, addressing New Jersey's delegation at the Republican National Convention, MacArthur declared, "Everybody for the most part is looking for the same things. People are just trying to better their lives. They're just trying to lift their families up. They're trying to get further than they started."

Apparently, this was hollow lip service, as Trump’s Muslim Ban smacks the very opposite of that lofty rhetoric.

A Farleigh Dickinson poll shows 53 perent of New Jerseyans believing Trump's foreign policy inexperience leaves America more vulnerable to those who wish to do us harm. Our representatives would be wise to listen to their constituents. In December, MacArthur heartwarmingly cut red tape so a soldier could formally adopt his gravely ill step-son, making the boy's Christmas wish come true. I only wish MacArthur showed the same compassion for immigrant families split apart and refugee children needing life-saving treatment. If only he'd look out for all military families by opposing measures making soldiers less safe.

As if carrying Trump’s water wasn’t enough, MacArthur is also doing the NRA’s bidding. He sponsored gun lobby legislation forcing New Jersey into recognizing concealed carry permits from states with significantly shoddier safety standards. Garden State gun-related deaths are half the national average, largely due to strict laws governing concealed weapons. But if MacArthur’s measure passes, even people mentally ill or on no-fly-lists would be allowed.

Perhaps it isn’t shocking that the moderate tag was a farce and MacArthur has thrown in with extremist ilk. Last summer, nearly all mainstream Republicans-- and the entire congressional delegation-- avoided Trump’s Cleveland Coronation like the plague. So, MacArthur being the only Garden State congressman to attend the RNC Convention should have been a hint. Today, it must be lonely out on that ledge-- not just outside New Jersey’s mainstream, but the state GOP’s as well.

The kindest thing to say about MacArthur’s constituent relations is they aren’t up to snuff. In person and online, his staff mocks, dismisses and even spews curses and vulgarities at those who dissent or disagree on policy. Like their boss, MacArthur personnel push “paid protester” fake news about “preventing local constituents from interacting with their congressman.” It’s all pretty gross.

After claiming “events are being hijacked by groups outside-the-district” MacArthur eventually relented and held a (lame) town hall. New Jersey’s 3rd District has some 732,000 people spread out among 53 communities across Ocean and Burlington Counties. After several weeks of constituents clamoring, MacArthur announced a town hall the following Monday via a Friday dump. It was held in Waretown-- a rural Pinelands town of less than 1,500-- far from public transportation and smack-dab in the district’s Southeastern-most portion, actually closer to many Smith and LoBiondo voters. Moreover, MacArthur’s 5:30 pm first-come, first-serve policy allowed him to stack the room with supporters. The hour-plus drive during the heart of rush-hour made it virtually impossible for Philadelphia suburb residents to attend. MacArthur knew full-well the wave of town-hall requests... that’s why he buckled after a month of ignoring. So, why cap 250 attendees at an out-of-the way, difficult-to-get-to location, while highlighting tight security, no signs and all bags checked? MacArthur’s public forum was a hair better than the tele-town halls he’d been hiding behind. But not by much.

Moreover, the way he’s brushed off folks’ legitimate fears and concerns doesn’t bode well for any ability to interact with real people outside his bubble.

MacArthur’s trifecta of malfeasance and malice-- health care, guns and racism-- takes a special level of incompetence. Marry these bad decisions with dreadful constituent outreach, poor communication and even worse ability to navigate political tea leaves, and MacArthur proved he isn’t ready for prime-time. In short order, his series of unforced errors didn’t solely provide a disservice to the state. It quickly proved any higher office attempt would be a moribund endeavor.

Joshua Henne, a Jersey-based Democratic strategist can be found on Twitter at @JoshuaHenne.

Democrats Overcome GOP Opposition To Medical Marijuana In Veterans Hospitals

The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll dug into how independent voters view the two parties. It's just a snapshot in time but 23% of independent voters saw the Democratic Party positively and 37% saw them negatively. Pretty horrible. But it was far worse for the Republicans. Only 8% of independent voters have a positive view of the GOP, while a staggering 52% see the Republicans negatively. Knee-jerk, systemic Republican congressional obstructionism helps explain the numbers.

Voters see the inability of the Republicans to deal with even things as basic as voting on a Supreme Court vacancy or protecting the citizenry from the spread of the Zika virus in a very negative way. If Americans-- or even just independents-- voted on those feelings, there would be just a small handful of Republicans left in Congress.

It isn't even just on the big matters of state where the GOP seems deranged and filled with destructive hatred. They can be counted on to be wrong on almost everything. When I was a teenager I used to smoke pot. It's what teenagers were doing in the 1960s. By the 70s, I had stopped completely. I had zero interest in marijuana for 4 decades until I started feeling the effects of chemotherapy. I still didn't want to use marijuana... until I was persuaded it would help me to survive; and it did. That was over a year ago. I have plenty of the stuff left but now that I'm well, I have no use for it and no interest in it. It saved my life though, so... I respect it. It's lucky for me that I live in California, where medical marijuana is legal.

Last Thursday, Congress moved towards making medical marijuana legal everywhere. The House voted 233-189 by an amendment by Oregon's Earl Blumenauer to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act that will "prohibit use of funds to implement, administer, or enforce any Veterans Health Administration Directive relating to the prohibition on VA providers from completing forms seeking recommendations on opinions regarding a veteran's participation in a state marijuana program." It was widely seen among Members of Congress for what it is: a step towards medical marijuana legalization.

Only 5 Democrats, led by reactionary anti-pot psychopaths Dan Lipinksi (IL) and Henry Cuellar (TX)-- 2 Blue Dog throw-backs-- opposed it. Even anti-marijuana crusader Debbie Wasserman Schultz voted yes! And so did 57 Republicans! Of course-- and this helps explain why independents have such negative feelings about the Republican Party-- 184 Republicans voted NO! The Senate passed a companion amendment with several senators from both parties noting that it would help veterans avoid using dangerous and addictive opiates. Tuesday, California Republican Dana Rohrabacher, who has been a major advocate for legalization in Congress, told marijuana activists he has been using a marijuana-rub to relieve the pain of arthritis.

Among the Republicans voting against the amendment was the ridiculously placed chairman of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas-- Austin no less!-- who's living (and legislating) in a different era. No medical marijuana relief for veterans living in Austin, San Antonio, New Braunfels, San Marcos or the Texas Hill country! This morning we contacted a military veteran and winner of the TX-21 Democratic congressional primary, Tom Wakely, who had a very different perspective than Lamar Smith's. "It seems par for the course that Congressman Smith, who refused to provide a hearing on Ron Paul and Barney Frank's resolution to end the federal prohibition of marijuana, would try to make it more difficult for veterans to get access to legal medication in their home state. The constituents of our district favor medical marijuana. San Antonio is a military town and I can guarantee the veterans of this district are just as confused as I am on why Republicans seemingly favor our 10th Amendment except in the case of a proven, harmless drug. I stand with the majority of House Democrats and the few Republicans who recognized this was a common sense vote. Personally, I'd like us to go further and put an end to the federal prohibition of marijuana, allowing the drug be turned over to the states for regulation. By definition that's supposed to be the conservative viewpoint. Then again, it's becoming harder and harder to define the platform of the modern Republican party."

Mario Diaz Balart joined the reactionary Republicans voting against the amendment, the only South Florida congressman to do so. Every Florida Democrat plus Florida Republicans Carlos Curbelo, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Tom Rooney voted in favor of the amendment but, for some reason, Diaz-Balart decided that veterans in Miami-Dade, Collier and Hendry counties, whose doctors want to prescribe marijuana for pain, sleep or to help with appetite will just have to do without. This morning we contacted the progressive Democratic physician running for the seat Diaz-Balart is sitting in, Alina Valdes, who has a very different perspective than Diaz-Balart, one based on science and humanity. "I have been practicing medicine for over 30 years," she told us, "and that time has been spent in physician shortage areas where people feel disenfranchised because they do not have the resources to make their voices heard especially after the Citizen's United and Corporate Personhood decisions. Many have given up on the political system which does not care about them and their needs. This vote on the use of marijuana to relieve pain and suffering is wrong as many studies have shown the benefits to neurological and musculoskeletal conditions, which many of our vets suffer. To insist that they use traditional opioid BigPharma medications to relieve their symptoms is causing further suffering. Many patients have expressed the desire to be pain free without needing to feel like a zombie while also risking an unintended overdose due to tolerance that is known to develop with these narcotic medications. Many of them use street marijuana and risk arrest and imprisonment because it helps them feel both physically and therefore mentally better.  This is a natural weed with medicinal benefits and is available to many living in states that allow physicians to write these prescriptions. As a general internist, I took an oath to serve, heal, and relieve pain and suffering in so doing. I would personally have no problems prescribing medical marijuana under the appropriate circumstances. To continue to classify marijuana as a class I controlled substance in the same category as heroin and peyote makes no rational sense. It just feeds the inhumane thinking of profits over people in both the pharmaceutical and private prison industries. Our vets especially deserve better than this and it is time for Congress to educate themselves rather than allow their votes to be swayed by big corporate interests funding their re-election campaigns."

And then there was backward Republican multimillionaire and Chris Christie's puppet-congressman Tom MacArthur. He voted against the amendment too, even though every New Jersey Democrat plus New Jersey Republicans Frank LoBiondo and Scott Garrett voted to give the vets a break. MacArthur thinks he has the right to override physicians who want veterans in Burlington and Ocean coutnies to have the opportunity to use medical marijuana if it will help their conditions. This morning we contacted the progressive Democrat running against MacArthur, Jim Keady. "This issue shows a clear difference between myself and my GOP opponent. I believe that we need to make marijuana legal for both medicinal and recreational use at the federal level. We then can regulate it, tax it and use the revenues for tax relief or for a range of social programs," said Keady. "Specific to our Veterans, I was just listening to two Vets who were at my family's tavern the other night; both of them wanted to be able to use marijuana to deal with PTSD. They should be able to do this, legally, anywhere in the United States."

Isn't it time to retire these Republican wastes and replace them with more forward-thinking progressives? Please consider contributing to the grassroots congressional campaigns of Tom Wakely, Alina Valdes and Jim Keady, progressive Democrats in Texas, Florida and New Jersey.