Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Boehner Vows House Will 'Do Everything Possible to Stop' Iran Deal


Image: Boehner Vows House Will 'Do Everything Possible to Stop' Iran Deal
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images

House Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday the chamber's priorities are "the people's priorities," and that lawmakers will continue to fight the recent "bad deal" struck with Iran over its nuclear program.

"Here in the House, the people's priorities continue to be our priorities," Boehner said in a press conference, according to an emailed statement from his office.

"And while the president's Iran deal may have been applauded at the United Nations, I think he faces serious skepticism here at home. Let me just assure you that members of Congress will ask much tougher questions this afternoon when we meet with the president's team. Because a bad deal threatens the security of the American people — and we're going to do everything possible to stop it."

Most Republican lawmakers have long opposed the deal with Iran, which was announced last week. Congress now has 60 days to review the deal, after which it will vote either for or against it. 

If the latter happens, President Barack Obama can veto the rejection — which would then require two-thirds of lawmakers to veto that decision if Congress decides to press on.

According to Fox News, the White House sent Congress a copy of the entire agreement on Sunday.

Obama irked lawmakers this week by submitting the deal to the United Nations — which approved of the deal — before allowing Congress the time to read, vet, and vote on the agreement.

House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul took the criticism a step further, saying he would have liked to see the American people weigh in on the deal before it was placed in front of the United Nations Security Council.

The White House responded to the criticisms by saying rejecting the deal would let Iran off "scot-free." 


Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

Obama Admin Plans More Executive Action on Immigration

he Obama administration is moving forward with plans to expand a waiver program that will allow additional illegal aliens to remain in the country rather than apply for legal status from abroad.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a proposed rule on Tuesday that would make changes to a waiver program created by President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration in 2013. The action created a waiver that primarily allowed illegal immigrants with a U.S. citizen spouse or parent to stay in the country instead of having to leave the United States and be barred from returning for three or 10 years, if they proved their absence would create an “extreme hardship” for their spouse.
The new rule expands eligibility to a host of other categories of illegal immigrants beyond those with citizen spouses and parents.
“DHS proposes to expand the class of aliens who may be eligible for a provisional waiver beyond immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to aliens in all statutorily eligible immigrant visa categories,” the proposed rule stated. “Such aliens include family-sponsored immigrants, employment-based immigrants, certain special immigrants, and Diversity Visa program selectees, together with their derivative spouses and children.”
The waivers allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country while they await visas, and avoid a penalty under U.S. law that bars persons who entered the country illegally from returning for at least three years.
An illegal immigrant who lives in the country for less than a year and then leaves is barred from reentering the United States for three years. Any time spent illegally in the United States over one year results in the illegal immigrant being inadmissible for 10 years. The waiver program allowed individuals to remain in the country and avoid these penalties.
“It’s a very bad policy,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. “It makes it possible for illegal aliens to avoid the consequences established by Congress to deter people from settling here illegally and then laundering their status by adjusting to a green card.”
Vaughan, who has been following the issue for over two years, said the changes to the waiver program would increase fraud.
“It is a slap in the face to the many legal immigrants who abide by the law, follow the process, and wait their turn,” she said. “In addition, it will increase the likelihood of fraud in the marriage categories, which produce tens of thousands of new green cards each year.”
“Green cards are the golden ticket. Once you get a green cards you get welfare, you get tax credits, you get entitlements,” said a GOP Senate aide. “The U.S. hands out one million green cards every year, and these documents are bankrupting the country.”
DHS said it is proposing the rule based on its “broad authority” under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
The rule would also broaden the category of those whom an illegal alien can claim their absence from the United States would create an “extreme hardship.” Previously, the waiver only could be given if the illegal immigrant has a spouse or parent who is an American citizen.
“DHS also proposes to expand who may be considered a qualifying relative for purposes of the extreme hardship determination to include [legal permanent resident] LPR spouses and parents,” the proposed rule said.
The agency said the rule is intended to “prioritize the family reunification of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens over other categories of aliens.”
“The president should not be issuing executive actions that serve only to expedite the legalization process for those who have ignored our laws,” said Vaughan. “This legalization gimmick is undermining the integrity of our legal immigration system, and Congress should take steps to block it.”
The public will have 60 days to comment on the proposal.

Dunkin’ Donuts plans 26 new California locations

Dunkin’ Donuts will continue its California expansion by building 26 new locations in San Francisco and Fresno, the operator said Monday.
The Canton, Mass.-based quick-service chain announced two deals with franchisees to build the new California units.
Aharon Aminpour, who has a location in Encino, Calif., plans to develop 17 locations in Fresno and the surrounding areas, including Clovis, Visalia and Tulare. Aminpour had previously signed a deal to build 10 locations in the San Fernando Valley.
Shiva Developments has a deal to build nine locations in San Francisco. Shiva is owned by Nick Bhatt, who has a location in Springfield, Ill., and is heading west with his sister and brother-in-law, Disha and Yogesh Tivedi, to develop the locations.
The first restaurants under both of the deals are expected to open in 2017.
“We are thrilled these existing franchisees have chosen to expand their presence in the California market, and know these new restaurants will satisfy a growing consumer demand for Dunkin’ Donuts in the Fresno and San Francisco communities they will serve,” Grant Benson, vice president of global franchising and business development for Dunkin’ owner Dunkin’ Brands, said in a statement.
For Dunkin', the deals bring the number of locations the operator is planning to open in California to 275. California is a key market for the chain largely based on the East Coast.Dunkin' Donuts currently has California locations in Downey, Encino, Laguna Hills, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Modesto, Santa Ana, Santa Monica, Upland and Whittier.
The 65-year-old brand has more than 11,300 locations in 37 countries, including more than 8,000 units in the U.S., where it is the fourth largest restaurant chain based on unit count. Dunkin' Donuts has said that it could build as many as 17,000 locations in the U.S., but doing so will require it to continue to thrive in a place like California, where it says it can have as many as 1,000 locations.

Contact Jonathan Maze at jonathan.maze@penton.com

Follow him on Twitter: @jonathanmaze

Uber Crashes the Democratic Party

It is an axiom of modern American life: Offer a new service that is wildly popular with the public, and sooner or later you will find yourself labeled an enemy of the people.
The latest target is Uber, the app-based ride-sharing service that since its launch in San Francisco just five years ago has expanded to more than 300 cities across the globe. Here in New York, Uber is now locked in combat with the city’s progressive mayor, Bill de Blasio. In a Sunday op-ed for the Daily News, Mr. de Blasio said he aims to freeze Uber’s expansion until his regulators can figure out how best to block any attempts to “skirt vital protections and oversight.”
The mayor’s call to arms comes only days after Hillary Clinton used her big speech on economics to sound a similarly dismal note. Though she didn’t mention Uber by name, the Democratic Party’s leading contender for the 2016 presidential nomination fretted that while the “gig economy” may be “exciting” and “unleashing innovation,” “it is also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.”
Hard questions that Mrs. Clinton no doubt intends the government to answer, even if those answers end up making Uber and others like it less exciting and less innovative.
Republican presidential candidates are having fun with all this. Marco Rubio, who last year sided with Uber over regulators in Miami, accused Mrs. Clinton of trying to “regulate 21st-century industries with 20th-century ideas.” Jeb Bush pointedly traveled by Uber for his visit to Thumbtack, a Silicon Valley startup. Meanwhile, Rand Paul says he would like our government to adopt the Uber model—more information and customer ratings—while Ted Cruz says his campaign will be as disruptive of politics-as-usual as Uber is of old business models.
To Uber’s credit, the company is not backing down from the political offensive. In a clever jab at Mrs. Clinton (who has been invoking her status as a new grandmother), the company issued a news release touting how it is helping “aging Americans” get around. It also has launched a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign against Mr. de Blasio’s plan and even courted the Rev. Al Sharpton by making the case that Uber has done a good job bringing car service to previously underserved minority neighborhoods.
However these battles end, the attacks it faces are no accident. They have two chief causes: First, innovative new business models always threaten traditional constituencies, and many of these are Democratic. In New York, for example, Airbnb may be even more disruptive than Uber, because by providing a way for apartment dwellers to make some money by renting out their homes, it is also enabling visitors to make an end run around the high taxes and labor costs (think hotel unions) that help make a hotel room in the Big Apple so pricey.

United States President Surrenders Flag to Our Enemies!

We have watched President Obama honor plenty of fallen Americans, but the majority of them just happen to be crooks, thieves, illegal aliens or followers of Islam!  What happened to honoring our fallen Military? The men and women who fight for our freedoms. What happened to honoring our fallen citizens? The hard-working Americans who have been killed as a result of our own President’s failed policies or his refusal to follow our rule of law?

President Obama wasted no time in shining the rainbow lights on the White House, at taxpayer’s expense, after the Supreme Court ruled on Gay marriage. Yet crosses around the country are being torn down in the name of political correctness and personal feelings.  The confederate flag has been under attack by the left and the administration as a symbol of hatred, yet symbols celebrating Islam have become more prominent, while Islamic terrorists continue to behead, imprison, drown and burn innocents, while raping young girls, threatening to murder gays, Jews and Christians, setting dogs on fire and laughing while they torture and murder babies and children.  Does Islam not represent hatred and disdain for all citizens of the world? Then why does our President continue to celebrate it?

Not more than 24 hours after 4 Marines were slaughtered by an Islamic terrorist, the Empire State building lights up in celebration of an Islamic Holiday celebration. The end of a Holiday that demands a recommitment to Islam. However, for days after the attack, President Obama refused to fly our flag at half mast in honor of the five Americans gunned down by an Islamic Terrorist on US soil. After days of complaints and media scrutiny, President Obama finally succumbed to public pressure and decided to lower the flag.

However, Obama and Michelle did not hesitate to celebrate and announce their good wishes to all Muslims for a happy Ramadan, within hours of the slaughter of our Marines in Tennessee.

“Michelle and I would like to extend our warmest wishes to Muslims in the United States and around the world celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr. As Muslims mark the end of the month, they are reminded that Ramadan is a time to reflect spiritually, build communally, and aid those in need. While Eid marks the end of Ramadan, it marks a new beginning for each individual—a reason to celebrate and express gratitude on this holiday.”

The Administration also actually postponed the celebration of the United States Independence Day, our fourth of July, in order not to offend Muslims celebrating Ramadan.

Obama continues to make excuses for Islam, refuses to identify them as a source of terrorism,  and will not assist our strongest allies in the fight against ISIS/ISIL


Meanwhile, on the holiest day of Christians, Obama, at a prayer breakfast, reminds us of the brutality of Christians during the Crusades and the issuance of Jim Crow laws in the name of Jesus Christ, while suggesting Christians get off their high horse.

While countries around the world are stepping up in the face of Islamic terrorism and taking action against it, our President continues to make excuses for Islam, refuses to identify them as a source of terrorism,  and will not assist our strongest allies in the fight against ISIS/ISIL.


From Sea to Shining Sea: 5 Examples of Voter Fraud across America

Contrary to the assertions of many, voter fraud is not a myth.
It is a stark reality that exists nationwide, from the rural counties of Georgia to the urban centers of New York.
The Heritage Foundation has documented nearly 250 cases where nefarious citizens, officials, candidates and campaign operatives conspired to commit vote fraud, compromising the integrity of our elections to achieve their ideological goals.
That list is just a tiny sampling of voter fraud, and it keeps growing. In May, the Heritage Foundation highlighted several recent cases.
Here are some of the egregious new additions to the voter fraud database:
1. Kentucky
In eastern Kentucky, Ross Harris and Loren Glenn Turner funneled $41,000 to the 2002 county judgeship campaign of Doug Hays for what the defendants claimed was a lawful operation to pay more than 1,200 people $50 each to drive voters to the polls.
But a jury determined that this alleged vote-hauling program was just a disguise for what was in reality a vote-buying scheme. The punishment reflected the severity of the fraud: Hays was sentenced to six months behind bars, and Harris was hit with a $100,000 fine.
2. Mississippi
Not to be outdone, William Greg Eason of Tallahatchie County, Mississippibribed voters with beer and money to cast fraudulent absentee ballots for a district supervisor candidate in a 2003 run-off election. A jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to two years in prison, a punishment that also clearly reflected the severity of the offense.
3. West Virginia
Voter fraud and its ill effects are not limited to elections for local offices. On the contrary, voter fraud can and often does occur in connection with elections to the nation’s highest offices. In Lincoln County, West Virginia, Circuit Clerk Greg Stowers and five other Democrats were charged in 2005 with participating in a conspiracy to buy votes in congressional and presidential elections dating back to 1990.
The men paid for votes in liquor and cash (typically $20 per vote), handed out slates listing preferred candidates, and performed favors for supporters. All six eventually pleaded guilty to these charges in 2006, and Stowers was sentenced to six months in federal prison.
4. Georgia
A case out of Georgia shows that voter fraud has the power to steal an election from the rightful victor.
Tommy Raney, a 2007 candidate for a city council seat, and his campaign worker, Debra Brown, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit absentee ballot fraud.
Raney won the election against Larry Pickett by only 27 votes. Raney and Brown were fined $158,000 and $20,000, respectively. Despite the fraud, the election results were never officially overturned, and Raney did not resign his city council seat until nearly two years later, in September of 2009.
5. Iowa
Martia Yvonne Phillips and eight others in Iowa pleaded guilty to voting in the 2008 election despite being convicted felons who had not had their voting rights restored. Phillips voted while still on probation for a 2006 felony drug conviction. She was subsequently sentenced to five years in prison, a sentence that was suspended to two years’ probation.
Voter fraud clearly exists in many forms and in many places despite earnest efforts by some authorities to crack down hard on offenders. Moreover, voter fraud is easy to commit and tough to investigate after the fact, particularly when inadequate safeguards exist to detect the crime in the first place.
That is why it is important for state legislatures to enact commonsense legislation designed to combat voter fraud before it can distort an electoral result. Voter ID laws—which many liberals love to criticize, but which a majority of Americans across ideological lines support—are an answer to many types of voter fraud, including fraudulent use of absentee ballots.
But other measures are also needed, such as requiring proof of citizenship to register and verification of the accuracy of voter registration information.
Critics often argue that laws intended to uphold the integrity of elections are ineffective and unnecessary.
Voting Fraud Prevented
But take the case of Carol Hannah of Colorado. Hannah was registered to vote in Mohave County, Arizona and Adams County, Colorado and was convicted of voting in both states during the 2010 election. Hannah’s double-voting was detected by the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, a system that examines shared voter data from more than 25 states and checks for identical name and date-of-birth matches to ensure the accuracy of voter rolls and to ensure that individuals like Hannah cannot unlawfully double-dip.
In that case, the program did exactly what it was designed to do. Hannah was sentenced to three years of supervised probation and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.
Democracy is one of America’s finest traditions; voter fraud is not.
The implications of these cases are clear: election fraud exists, and it is neither isolated nor inconsequential. We can and must take steps to detect and deter this problem.

Obama Admin Plans More Executive Action on Immigration

The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to expand a waiver program that will allow additional illegal aliens to remain in the country rather than apply for legal status from abroad.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a proposed rule on Tuesday that would make changes to a waiver program created by President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration in 2013. The action created a waiver that primarily allowed illegal immigrants with a U.S. citizen spouse or parent to stay in the country instead of having to leave the United States and be barred from returning for three or 10 years, if they proved their absence would create an “extreme hardship” for their spouse.
The new rule expands eligibility to a host of other categories of illegal immigrants beyond those with citizen spouses and parents.
“DHS proposes to expand the class of aliens who may be eligible for a provisional waiver beyond immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to aliens in all statutorily eligible immigrant visa categories,” the proposed rule stated. “Such aliens include family-sponsored immigrants, employment-based immigrants, certain special immigrants, and Diversity Visa program selectees, together with their derivative spouses and children.”
The waivers allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country while they await visas, and avoid a penalty under U.S. law that bars persons who entered the country illegally from returning for at least three years.
An illegal immigrant who lives in the country for less than a year and then leaves is barred from reentering the United States for three years. Any time spent illegally in the United States over one year results in the illegal immigrant being inadmissible for 10 years. The waiver program allowed individuals to remain in the country and avoid these penalties.
“It’s a very bad policy,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. “It makes it possible for illegal aliens to avoid the consequences established by Congress to deter people from settling here illegally and then laundering their status by adjusting to a green card.”
Vaughan, who has been following the issue for over two years, said the changes to the waiver program would increase fraud.
“It is a slap in the face to the many legal immigrants who abide by the law, follow the process, and wait their turn,” she said. “In addition, it will increase the likelihood of fraud in the marriage categories, which produce tens of thousands of new green cards each year.”
“Green cards are the golden ticket. Once you get a green cards you get welfare, you get tax credits, you get entitlements,” said a GOP Senate aide. “The U.S. hands out one million green cards every year, and these documents are bankrupting the country.”
DHS said it is proposing the rule based on its “broad authority” under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
The rule would also broaden the category of those whom an illegal alien can claim their absence from the United States would create an “extreme hardship.” Previously, the waiver only could be given if the illegal immigrant has a spouse or parent who is an American citizen.
“DHS also proposes to expand who may be considered a qualifying relative for purposes of the extreme hardship determination to include [legal permanent resident] LPR spouses and parents,” the proposed rule said.
The agency said the rule is intended to “prioritize the family reunification of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens over other categories of aliens.”
“The president should not be issuing executive actions that serve only to expedite the legalization process for those who have ignored our laws,” said Vaughan. “This legalization gimmick is undermining the integrity of our legal immigration system, and Congress should take steps to block it.”
The public will have 60 days to comment on the proposal.

Americans Fleeing Pricey Cities as Foreigners Rush In

New York City, Los Angeles, Honolulu: They're all places you would think would be popular destinations for Americans. So it might come as a surprise that these are among the cities U.S. residents are fleeing in droves.

Twenty metropolitan areas among the 100 most populous in the United States lost the greatest share of local people to other parts of the country between July 2013 and July 2014, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. 


The New York City area ranked second, just behind  El Paso, Texas. New York lost about a net 163,000 U.S. residents, closely followed by a couple surrounding suburbs in Connecticut. Honolulu ranked fourth and Los Angeles ranked 14th.

Interestingly, these are also the cities with some of the highest net inflows of people from outside the country. That gives many of these cities a steadily growing population, despite the net exodus of people moving within the U.S. 

What's going on here?


Michael Stoll, a professor of public policy and urban planning at the University of California Los Angeles, has an idea. Soaring home prices are pushing local residents out and scaring away potential new ones from other parts of the country, he said.

As Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs. They are able to do so by living in what Stoll calls "creative housing arrangements" in which they pack six to eight individuals, or two to four families, into one apartment or home. It's an arrangement that most Americans just aren't willing to pursue, and even many immigrants decide it's not for them as time goes by, he said. 



In addition, the growing demand for high-skilled workers, especially in the technology industry, brought foreigners who possess those skills to the U.S.  They are compensated appropriately and can afford to live in these high-cost areas, just like Americans who hold similar positions. One example is Washington, D.C., which had a lot of people from abroad arriving to soak up jobs in the growing tech-hub, Stoll said. 

Via: Newsmax


Chattanooga Marines Reportedly Sacrificed Themselves to Protect Innocents

According to reporting from The New York Times, some of the Marines killed in the Chattanooga shooting were killed trying to draw the gunman’s fire away from another, larger group of innocent bystanders.
“Some of the Marines who were shot to death last week in Chattanooga, Tenn., effectively sacrificed themselves to save the lives of others, diverting the gunman away from a larger group of potential victims, according to a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation into the killings,” reports New York Times reporters Richard Pérez-Peña and Matt Apuzzo.
“This could have been a lot worse,” they quote the anonymous official as saying. “It could have been a horrible, horrible massacre — so much worse.” Officials are expected to give a fuller account of the shooting, perpetrated by Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, in a Wednesday press conference.

[VIDEO] FAMILIES OF LOVED ONES KILLED BY ILLEGAL ALIENS DEMAND AN END TO SANCTUARY CITIES

Several Americans who’ve had loved ones murdered by illegal aliens are calling on the Senate to end sanctuary cities and are recounting the agonizing losses they suffered thanks to lax immigration enforcement.

Witness Susan Oliver recounted, through tears, sheriff’s deputy Danny Paul Oliver’s violent murder. Oliver served in Sacramento County, a “sanctuary city” that protected the very illegals who killed him.
“He put himself into harm’s way every time he put his uniform on. And on Friday, October 24, 2014, my husband and father of two approached a car on his beat, but this time, it was the last time,” said Oliver. “The last thing my husband attempted to do as a POP [Problem-Oriented Policing] officer was to ask the man inside the car how his day was going. But he never made it to the driver’s window.”
“At about 10:30 a.m., that man was in the country illegal and armed with numerous illegal weapons. He aimed one out of the car from the parking lot of a Motel 6 at Sacramento and opened fire, killing my husband with a shot to the forehead,” she said with difficulty. “I can honestly say that not a day goes by where this has not effected me… Many people ask if I have gotten past that terrible day, and the answer is no.”
A twice-deported illegal alien from Mexico shot and killed two Sacramento officers, both Oliver and Sheriff Michael Davis Jr., while injuring another officer and innocent civilian during an October 2014 rampage.
He gave authorities a fake name when arrested, Marcelo Marquez, but U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement determined his real name was Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte. He had been deported back to Mexico in 1997 and 2001.

Medical Monsters vs. Life-Giving Angels by Michelle Malkin


Another week, another money-grubbing Planned Parenthood baby-parts harvester exposed.

In the second devastating installment of a three-year journalism investigation, the Center for Medical Progress on Monday released undercover video of another top abortion industry doctor haggling over the sale of "intact" unborn baby parts.

Last week, the Center for Medical Progress introduced us to wine-swilling Dr. Deborah Nucatola — a veritable Hannibal-ina Lecter who gushed about the growing demand for aborted baby hearts and livers as she jibed and imbibed.

This week's clip features stone-faced, bespectacled Dr. Mary Gatter — an Ice Queen who chillingly negotiated $100-per-specimen price tags for organs she promised would be high quality as a result of "less crunchy" methods of dismembering innocent human life. Gatter, the medical director of the abortion empire's Pasadena and San Gabriel offices in California, dryly joked that she wanted a "Lamborghini" for her troubles — after a prolonged session spouting obligatory talking points disclaiming a profit motive.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Butcherhood, issued a feckless apology last week for the "tone" of Nucatola's grisly business-lunch banter.

What will her excuse be for Gatter? Did the tone elves forget to fill her stocking, too?

The fundamental problem with these licensed medical providers, who greedily have turned the "primum non nocere" creed on its head under the guise of "reproductive services," is not their defective tenor. It's their defective souls.

With more barbaric video of the Planned Butcherhood racket undoubtedly yet to come, it is worth pausing from this avalanche of evil to remind the nation that there are thousands of miracle workers in the health care industry who value life and honor their professional oath to first do no harm.

I know this firsthand as the proud daughter of a neonatologist who dedicated his life to using his medical training to save lives, not destroy them. Nowhere is the sanctity of life more vividly illustrated than in a NICU. A father in Texas wrote me with his own personal story and wanted me to share his message:

"I read your piece (last week) regarding the monstrous doctor from Planned Parenthood. Though I have tried, I really cannot grasp the horror of the PP abattoirs or the blackness of the souls that labor within.

"I want to tell you about my family's encounter with another place that is the antithesis of the Planned Parenthood slaughterhouse.


CALIFORNIA: Bill Gives Illegal Immigrants Access to Medi-Cal

California Democrats have ramped up their push to extend health benefits to in-staters who immigrated unlawfully.

High-stakes legislation

Sacramento Democrats have advanced a piece of legislation, authored by State Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, that would grant access to Affordable Care Act benefits to unlawful immigrants. SB4, which would open up Medi-Cal enrollment, cleared the Assembly Health Committee on a party line vote, drawing a few dozen opponents at the bill’s hearing.
According to Lara’s website, some “three to four million people in the state will remain uninsured in spite of ACA, and almost a million of those will be undocumented residents eligible for coverage, save for their legal status.”
Last month, the state Senate voted to clear the bill, also known as the Health For All Act, with Lara describing the scheme as “a transformational and decisive step forward on the path to achieving health for all,” according to MSNBC. But Gov. Jerry Brown’s office already intervened once to scale back Democrats’ ambitions.
“The initial bill, which would have allowed all undocumented immigrants to sign up via Medi-Cal, was pared down after it was estimated to cost up to $740 million a year, a price tag Brown said was unacceptable. The governor has not indicated whether or not he’ll sign off on the latest legislation.”
Nevertheless, as Politico reported, Brown did sign off on spending “millions in state dollars to provide health care to undocumented children, mirroring similar efforts in a handful of other liberal states.”
Covered California, the state-run health care exchange, has become an Obamacare keystone, although its second-year enrollment numbers have fallen short of goals. Continued tension between Gov. Brown and state Democrats on the costs of expanding coverage could pose problems for the party on a national level.  “Republicans never trusted Democrats’ repeated assurances while the law was being drafted that the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t cover undocumented immigrants,” Politico noted. “That built up to Rep. Joe Wilson’s infamous ‘You lie!’ moment, when the South Carolina Republican interrupted President Barack Obama’s 2009 health care address to Congress.”

Popular Posts