dailysignal--2020-09-24--Trump Says His Order Covers Preexisting Conditions, Surprise Medical Billings

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday aimed at protecting Americans with preexisting health conditions , after delivering remarks on his administration ’ s health care vision in Charlotte , North Carolina .
“ Under the America First health care plan , we will ensure the highest standard of care anywhere in the world , cutting edge treatments , state-of- the-art medicines , groundbreaking cures , and true health security for you and your loved ones , ” Trump told his audience in Charlotte .
The president also talked about actions his administration has taken to reduce the cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ health care , expanding insurance options , and allowing terminally ill patients the opportunity to try lifesaving drugs that have not gotten final government approval .
“ The historic action I ’ m taking today includes the first-ever executive order to affirm it is the official policy of the United States government to protect patients with preexisting conditions , ” Trump said .
“ So , we are making that official .
We are putting it down in a stamp , because our opponents , the Democrats , like to constantly talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposes ] , and yet preexisting conditions are much safer with us than with them .
And now we have it affirmed.
” Trump ’ s order also calls for Congress to pass legislation to prevent “ surprise ” medical bills .
If Congress doesn ’ t act by Jan. 1 , the president will take executive action , senior administration officials said .
“ The president is declaring that it is the policy of the United States to provide protections to ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions are protected regardless of whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its protections for preexisting conditions invalidated , ” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told reporters in a conference call before Trump ’ s North Carolina event .
The Trump administration supports a lawsuit by 18 Republican state attorneys general who sued to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act , popularly known as Obamacare , after Congress dropped the individual mandate from the law in 2017 .
The Supreme Court ’ s 5-4 ruling in 2012 to uphold Obamacare was based in part on its interpreting the individual mandate–which requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a constitutionally imposed tax .
“ The ACA failed to provide sufficient protections for Americans with preexisting conditions , ” Azar said of the Affordable Care Act .
“ They may have the ability to purchase a [ health insurance ] plan , but it may be utterly unaffordable given that premiums more than doubled in the four years following the ACA ’ s implementation.
” Elaborating , Azar said that providing those protections for Americans with a preexisting condition might involve legislation from Congress .
“ If you are a couple , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ] making $ 70,000 a year , Obamacare is going to cost you $ 30,000 in premiums and have a $ 12,000 deductible , ” he said .
“ I ’ m sorry .
That is not affordable coverage of your preexisting condition .
That is an insurance card that you can ’ t actually use to take care of your preexisting condition.
” The health and human services secretary said the Trump administration will first seek a congressional remedy for “ surprise medical bills , ” meaning when a health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the full cost of care until after it is given .
“ The president will direct me as secretary to work with Congress [ to pass ] legislation … that will protect patients against surprise medical bills , ” Azar said , “ and if some legislation is not passed by Jan. 1 , then he will instruct me to investigate executive action and regulator action that we can take to ensure that patients are nonetheless protected against surprise medical bills .
”

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday aimed at protecting Americans with preexisting health conditions, after delivering remarks on his administration’s health care vision in Charlotte, North Carolina.
“Under the America First health care plan, we will ensure the highest standard of care anywhere in the world, cutting edge treatments, state-of- the-art medicines, groundbreaking cures, and true health security for you and your loved ones,” Trump told his audience in Charlotte.
The president also talked about actions his administration has taken to reduce the cost of prescriptions, increasing accountability for veterans’ health care, expanding insurance options, and allowing terminally ill patients the opportunity to try lifesaving drugs that have not gotten final government approval.
“The historic action I’m taking today includes the first-ever executive order to affirm it is the official policy of the United States government to protect patients with preexisting conditions,” Trump said. “So, we are making that official. We are putting it down in a stamp, because our opponents, the Democrats, like to constantly talk about it [as something the administration opposes], and yet preexisting conditions are much safer with us than with them. And now we have it affirmed.”
Trump’s order also calls for Congress to pass legislation to prevent “surprise” medical bills. If Congress doesn’t act by Jan. 1, the president will take executive action, senior administration officials said.
“The president is declaring that it is the policy of the United States to provide protections to ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions are protected regardless of whether the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and its protections for preexisting conditions invalidated,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told reporters in a conference call before Trump’s North Carolina event.
The Trump administration supports a lawsuit by 18 Republican state attorneys general who sued to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, after Congress dropped the individual mandate from the law in 2017.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in 2012 to uphold Obamacare was based in part on its interpreting the individual mandate—which requires most American adults to purchase health insurance—as a constitutionally imposed tax.
“The ACA failed to provide sufficient protections for Americans with preexisting conditions,” Azar said of the Affordable Care Act. “They may have the ability to purchase a [health insurance] plan, but it may be utterly unaffordable given that premiums more than doubled in the four years following the ACA’s implementation.”
Elaborating, Azar said that providing those protections for Americans with a preexisting condition might involve legislation from Congress.
“If you are a couple, age 55, living in Missouri [and] making $70,000 a year, Obamacare is going to cost you $30,000 in premiums and have a $12,000 deductible,” he said. “I’m sorry. That is not affordable coverage of your preexisting condition. That is an insurance card that you can’t actually use to take care of your preexisting condition.”
Azar continued:
If the Supreme Court strikes down all or a large part of the Affordable Care Act, what the president is making clear in this executive order is that it is the policy of the United States that people who suffer from preexisting conditions will be protected. We will work with Congress or otherwise to ensure they are protected.
The health and human services secretary said the Trump administration will first seek a congressional remedy for “surprise medical bills,” meaning when a health care provider doesn’t inform a patient about the full cost of care until after it is given.
“The president will direct me as secretary to work with Congress [to pass] legislation … that will protect patients against surprise medical bills,” Azar said, “and if some legislation is not passed by Jan. 1, then he will instruct me to investigate executive action and regulator action that we can take to ensure that patients are nonetheless protected against surprise medical bills.”


dailysignal--2020-09-25--In COVID-19 Restrictions Ruling, Judge Holds Pennsylvania Governor to the Constitution

A federal district court judge ruled last week that several of Pennsylvania ’ s COVID-19 restrictions were unconstitutional—and for good reason .
Judge William Stickman IV ’ s development of the factual record , and his journeyman approach to the opinion , is a model for other judges to follow .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Stickman ’ s opinion is a must-read , as he exposed the arbitrary and capricious nature of Pennsylvania Gov .
Tom Wolf ’ s power grab , which has affected the lives of every Pennsylvanian , and he distilled his reasoning with crystal clarity .
That was no easy feat because , as Stickman noted throughout his opinion , the capacious nature of the government ’ s actions is a first in our country ’ s history .
As such , the judge had to apply constitutional law and precedent to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this novelty , it ’ s unclear whether or how much of Stickman ’ s order will be upheld on appeal , but even if it ’ s reversed , he has provided Pennsylvanians a valuable service by reminding Wolf that , even in unprecedented times , laws must be neutral , fair , and not arbitrary .
Wolf ’ s assorted COVID-19 restrictions failed all of those requirements .
The plaintiffs in the case were a group of Pennsylvania counties , politicians , and businesses , all of whom were adversely affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wolf and state Secretary of Health Rachel Levine .
The plaintiffs argued that Pennsylvania ’ s numerical limits on gatherings—25 people for indoor gatherings , 250 for outdoor gatherings , and up to 75 % of maximum occupancy for certain businesses or exempted events—violated the First Amendment .
They also argued that the stay-at-home order violated the Due Process Clause , and that the order shutting down so-called non-life-sustaining businesses violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause .
Stickman agreed on all counts , but dismissed the counties from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , therefore , they lacked constitutional rights .
The first question Stickman had to answer was what level of scrutiny he should apply to the plaintiffs ’ claims .
The Supreme Court has set out several “ tiers of scrutiny ” that govern how deferential courts should be when reviewing government actions .
The defendants , Wolf and Levine , argued that their orders should be exempt from that whole framework .
Relying on a 115-year-old case , Jacobson v. Massachusetts , that predates the creation of the tiers of scrutiny , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rein to combat the COVID-19 pandemic as they see fit .
In essence , they argued that due to the fact that this pandemic was an unprecedented emergency , their actions should not be subject to any legal scrutiny—or , at most , highly deferential judicial scrutiny .
Stickman disagreed .
He noted that even that 1905 case “ did not hold that deference is limitless.
” What ’ s more , as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito explained in a concurring opinion from this year , “ a public health emergency does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists.
” Reviewing the record , which included voluminous testimony from Pennsylvania officials , Stickman found that the governor and his aides view their COVID-19 restrictions as the “ new normal.
” To simply give them unfettered discretion forever , therefore , “ risks subordinating the guarantees of the Constitution , guarantees which are the patrimony of every citizen , to the immediate need for an expedient solution.
” That risk is ever higher , Stickman explained , where—as in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiat outside the normal legislative or administrative processes .
Applying the relevant framework , Stickman found that Wolf ’ s maximum occupancy orders violated the First Amendment .
The plain language of the order made no exceptions for protests or other expressive gatherings .
The judge dryly noted that the governor participated in one protest that violated his own statewide order and , furthermore , did not comply with mask-wearing or social distancing requirements .
Wolf and Levine countered that they had made certain comments—outside of the order—saying that protests were permitted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stickman , because “ [ d ] efendants can not govern by comment … they are bound by the language of their orders.
” The orders are not , he explained , reciting the legal standard , “ narrowly tailored.
” For one thing , capping expressive gatherings at a fixed number—25 for indoors , 250 for outdoors—while allowing commercial gatherings as a percentage of occupancy “ creates a topsy-turvy world , where Plaintiffs are more restricted in areas traditionally protected by the First Amendment than in areas which usually receive far less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge noted that an auto show and flea market could host 20,000 people—an exception granted by the government—while a protest was capped at 250 .
What ’ s more , Wolf and Levine failed to offer any evidence that the specific numbers chosen were anything other than purely arbitrary .
The occupancy limits did not account for the varying needs of Pennsylvania ’ s 67 counties , some of which are dense and urban , while others are sparse and rural .
Accordingly , the occupancy limit violated the First Amendment .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severely restricted when and for what purposes Pennsylvanians could leave their homes , violated the Due Process Clause .
Stickman noted at the outset that this is not a quarantine , which has been used in past pandemics .
Rather , it ’ s a broad “ population lockdown ” that has “ never been used in response to any other disease in our history.
” Even during the much deadlier Spanish flu 100 years ago , “ nothing remotely approximating lockdowns were imposed.
” Again , applying the relevant legal framework , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution because it dramatically restricts the freedom of movement for an indefinite period of time , carves out arbitrary exceptions , and is much more draconian than other tools recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Lastly , Stickman concluded that Pennsylvania ’ s business shutdown orders , which closed “ non-life-sustaining ” businesses , violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses .
Central to that conclusion was the protection that these clauses afford against arbitrary and irrational rules .
After scouring the factual record , Stickman found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses “ life-sustaining , ” and others not , was purely arbitrary .
The team tasked by Wolf to make those determinations had no set policy for doing so and never even bothered to define the terms “ life-sustaining ” and “ non-life-sustaining.
” It met in secret , kept no notes , never held recorded votes on key decisions , and none of the secret group—all of whom worked for the governor ’ s staff—was a doctor or public health official .
That led to absurd results , such as where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R.W .
McDonald & Sons , while allowing large ones , like Lowes and Home Depot , to stay open .
In other words , the business shutdown order amounted to “ an arbitrary , ad hoc , process ” with the government , noted the judge , simply “ picking winners and losers , ” something the Constitution plainly forbids .
The factual record developed by the judge will be difficult to explain on appeal .
Wolf is challenging Stickman ’ s comprehensive 66-page decision , but regardless of whether it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done the people of Pennsylvania a great service and provided the rest of us an important reminder : Even in emergencies—or , to our minds , especially in emergencies—the Constitution still applies , and government officials must follow it .

A federal district court judge ruled last week that several of Pennsylvania’s COVID-19 restrictions were unconstitutional—and for good reason.
Judge William Stickman IV’s development of the factual record, and his journeyman approach to the opinion, is a model for other judges to follow.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Stickman’s opinion is a must-read, as he exposed the arbitrary and capricious nature of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s power grab, which has affected the lives of every Pennsylvanian, and he distilled his reasoning with crystal clarity.
That was no easy feat because, as Stickman noted throughout his opinion, the capacious nature of the government’s actions is a first in our country’s history.
As such, the judge had to apply constitutional law and precedent to a novel application of executive power.
Given this novelty, it’s unclear whether or how much of Stickman’s order will be upheld on appeal, but even if it’s reversed, he has provided Pennsylvanians a valuable service by reminding Wolf that, even in unprecedented times, laws must be neutral, fair, and not arbitrary.
Wolf’s assorted COVID-19 restrictions failed all of those requirements.
The plaintiffs in the case were a group of Pennsylvania counties, politicians, and businesses, all of whom were adversely affected by the draconian COVID-19 restriction orders of Wolf and state Secretary of Health Rachel Levine.
The plaintiffs argued that Pennsylvania’s numerical limits on gatherings—25 people for indoor gatherings, 250 for outdoor gatherings, and up to 75% of maximum occupancy for certain businesses or exempted events—violated the First Amendment.
They also argued that the stay-at-home order violated the Due Process Clause, and that the order shutting down so-called non-life-sustaining businesses violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
Stickman agreed on all counts, but dismissed the counties from the case because they are not persons and, therefore, they lacked constitutional rights.
The first question Stickman had to answer was what level of scrutiny he should apply to the plaintiffs’ claims. The Supreme Court has set out several “tiers of scrutiny” that govern how deferential courts should be when reviewing government actions.
The defendants, Wolf and Levine, argued that their orders should be exempt from that whole framework. Relying on a 115-year-old case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, that predates the creation of the tiers of scrutiny, they argued that they should have essentially free rein to combat the COVID-19 pandemic as they see fit.
In essence, they argued that due to the fact that this pandemic was an unprecedented emergency, their actions should not be subject to any legal scrutiny—or, at most, highly deferential judicial scrutiny.
Stickman disagreed. He noted that even that 1905 case “did not hold that deference is limitless.” What’s more, as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito explained in a concurring opinion from this year, “a public health emergency does not give Governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists.”
Reviewing the record, which included voluminous testimony from Pennsylvania officials, Stickman found that the governor and his aides view their COVID-19 restrictions as the “new normal.” To simply give them unfettered discretion forever, therefore, “risks subordinating the guarantees of the Constitution, guarantees which are the patrimony of every citizen, to the immediate need for an expedient solution.”
That risk is ever higher, Stickman explained, where—as in Pennsylvania—the COVID-19 restrictions were implemented by executive fiat outside the normal legislative or administrative processes.
Maximum Occupancy Orders Are Unconstitutional
Applying the relevant framework, Stickman found that Wolf’s maximum occupancy orders violated the First Amendment.
The plain language of the order made no exceptions for protests or other expressive gatherings. The judge dryly noted that the governor participated in one protest that violated his own statewide order and, furthermore, did not comply with mask-wearing or social distancing requirements.
Wolf and Levine countered that they had made certain comments—outside of the order—saying that protests were permitted. That didn’t fly, explained Stickman, because “[d]efendants cannot govern by comment … they are bound by the language of their orders.”
The orders are not, he explained, reciting the legal standard, “narrowly tailored.” For one thing, capping expressive gatherings at a fixed number—25 for indoors, 250 for outdoors—while allowing commercial gatherings as a percentage of occupancy “creates a topsy-turvy world, where Plaintiffs are more restricted in areas traditionally protected by the First Amendment than in areas which usually receive far less, if any, protection.”
The judge noted that an auto show and flea market could host 20,000 people—an exception granted by the government—while a protest was capped at 250.
What’s more, Wolf and Levine failed to offer any evidence that the specific numbers chosen were anything other than purely arbitrary.
The occupancy limits did not account for the varying needs of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, some of which are dense and urban, while others are sparse and rural. Accordingly, the occupancy limit violated the First Amendment.
Stay-at-Home Orders Are Unconstitutional
The governor’s stay-at-home order, which severely restricted when and for what purposes Pennsylvanians could leave their homes, violated the Due Process Clause.
Stickman noted at the outset that this is not a quarantine, which has been used in past pandemics. Rather, it’s a broad “population lockdown” that has “never been used in response to any other disease in our history.” Even during the much deadlier Spanish flu 100 years ago, “nothing remotely approximating lockdowns were imposed.”
Again, applying the relevant legal framework, Stickman found that the lockdown violated the Constitution because it dramatically restricts the freedom of movement for an indefinite period of time, carves out arbitrary exceptions, and is much more draconian than other tools recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Business Shutdown Orders Are Unconstitutional
Lastly, Stickman concluded that Pennsylvania’s business shutdown orders, which closed “non-life-sustaining” businesses, violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Central to that conclusion was the protection that these clauses afford against arbitrary and irrational rules.
After scouring the factual record, Stickman found that Pennsylvania’s labeling of some businesses “life-sustaining,” and others not, was purely arbitrary.
The team tasked by Wolf to make those determinations had no set policy for doing so and never even bothered to define the terms “life-sustaining” and “non-life-sustaining.” It met in secret, kept no notes, never held recorded votes on key decisions, and none of the secret group—all of whom worked for the governor’s staff—was a doctor or public health official.
That led to absurd results, such as where the government shuttered mom-and-pop hardware stores, like R.W. McDonald & Sons, while allowing large ones, like Lowes and Home Depot, to stay open. In other words, the business shutdown order amounted to “an arbitrary, ad hoc, process” with the government, noted the judge, simply “picking winners and losers,” something the Constitution plainly forbids.
The factual record developed by the judge will be difficult to explain on appeal.
Wolf is challenging Stickman’s comprehensive 66-page decision, but regardless of whether it’s upheld or reversed, Stickman has done the people of Pennsylvania a great service and provided the rest of us an important reminder: Even in emergencies—or, to our minds, especially in emergencies—the Constitution still applies, and government officials must follow it.


dailysignal--2020-09-29--8 Memorable Moments From Past Presidential Debates

In what has been an unusual election year because of the COVID-19 pandemic—fewer big rallies and no giant conventions—President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday night will do something that ’ s more typical of a presidential campaign .
They ’ ll debate .
The impact of presidential debates has varied at these quadrennial confrontations , and has in some cases even been defining .
Here ’ s a look at some big presidential debate moments .
1 .
Nixon vs. Kennedy : The Role of TV ( 1960 ) The face-off between Vice President Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic opponent , Sen. John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts , isn ’ t remembered for any major lines , but more as a point in presidential election history .
The four debates between the two were best remembered for being the first televised presidential debates .
They would be the last until 1976 , when debates became a regular quadrennial occurrence .
The political story is that Nixon scored points in the debate itself , but couldn ’ t match the photogenic Kennedy on TV .
It ’ s frequently been said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won , but those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won .
However , there wasn ’ t instant polling at the time to back that up .
Kennedy , 43 , was running to become the youngest elected president in history .
Then-Vice President Theodore Roosevelt , 42 , was younger when he assumed the office after President William McKinley ’ s assassination in September 1901 .
Nixon , though only five years older than Kennedy , was vice president for eight years under a popular president , Dwight Eisenhower .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ elevated Kennedy ’ s stature .
Given the closeness of the race ( Kennedy won by 112,827 votes out of 68,329,141 cast ) , the debate likely had some impact on its outcome .
It wasn ’ t until 16 years after the Nixon-Kennedy contest that the next debate took place , in an election that would similarly be won by a razor-thin margin .
President Gerald Ford ’ s foreign-policy gaffe became a major problem as the Republican president was fending off a challenge from Democrat Jimmy Carter , a former Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe , and there never will be under the Ford administration.
’ ’ Ford had been lagging in the polls , but they were beginning to tighten .
The remark was particularly problematic , since the GOP stressed Carter ’ s lack of experience on the world stage and sought to depict the party as tougher in standing up to the Soviet Union in the Cold War than the Democrats .
The questioner to Ford followed up , “ Did I understand you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence ?
” Even given another chance , Ford doubled down .
“ I don ’ t believe that the Romanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union .
I don ’ t believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union , ” Ford said .
Carter rebutted , “ I ’ d like to see Mr. Ford convince Polish-Americans and Czech-Americans and Hungarian-Americans that those countries don ’ t live under the supervision and control of the Soviet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carter won a close race , with 50.1 % of the vote and 297 electoral votes .
The Ford debate gaffe might have been responsible at least in part for Carter ’ s margin of victory .
The 1980 polls were very tight between Carter , then the incumbent president , and his challenger , former California Gov .
Ronald Reagan , the Republican nominee .
Although there was significant dissatisfaction with Carter ’ s job performance , Democrats sought to cast Reagan as too conservative and out of the mainstream .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominated .
( Reagan had a separate debate with an independent candidate , Rep. John Anderson , R-Ill. , which Carter declined to be a part of . )
In the debate that mattered , Carter was aggressive against his challenger , accusing him of seeking to dismantle the social safety net .
Reagan fended off each attack and managed to completely disarm Carter by responding : “ There you go again.
” The defining line was Reagan asking Americans : “ Are you better off than you were four years ago ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ landslide victory with 44 states .
With a victory that comprehensive , it ’ s likely neither the debate , nor any one other factor , decided the election .
But , in the debate , Reagan was able to turn back concerns that he was somehow out of the mainstream and a threat to America .
The 1980s have been called the age of Reagan , in that he brought a conservative revolution to the United States .
But in 1984 , his Democratic opponent Walter Mondale , who had served as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use Reagan ’ s age as a campaign issue .
Reagan was , at the time , the oldest elected president in American history .
When he ran for reelection , he was 73 .
Democrats raised the issue of whether he was up to the job at his age .
In the first debate , Mondale seemed to best Reagan , whose performance was rather slower than expected—particularly after his strong showing in the debate four years earlier .
However , in the second debate , Reagan defused the issue with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not make age an issue of this campaign , ” the president said .
“ I am not going to exploit , for political purposes , my opponent ’ s youth and inexperience.
” Mondale , then 56 , could do little else but laugh at the line during the debate , and age was rarely mentioned again .
Reagan went on to win in a 49-state landslide , and lost only Mondale ’ s home state of Minnesota by a mere 3,761 votes out of 2,084,449 ballots cast .
In 1988 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the vice presidential contest between Sen. Dan Quayle , a Republican from Indiana , and Sen. Lloyd Bentsen , a Democrat from Texas .
The Democratic presidential nominee , Massachusetts Gov .
Michael Dukakis , tapped Bentsen for his experience and hopes of carrying Texas .
Republican presidential nominee Vice President George H.W .
Bush surprised many with his choice of Quayle , tapped for being a conservative senator and in the belief he would appeal to younger voters .
Bentsen was a grizzled Senate veteran , while Quayle was considered inexperienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his experience in serving in the Senate was comparable to that of John F. Kennedy before he ran for president .
Bentsen famously shot back , “ I served with Jack Kennedy .
I knew Jack Kennedy .
Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine .
Senator , you ’ re no Jack Kennedy.
” Even so , the Bush-Quayle ticket walloped Dukakis-Bentsen in a third consecutive Republican landslide , winning 40 states .
Nevertheless , the line contributed heavily to a narrative that dogged Quayle throughout his time as vice president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Checking the Time ( 1992 ) Incumbent presidents are said to not always do so well in debates because they ’ re not used to sharing the stage .
In 1992 , Bush had to share the stage with two challengers , Arkansas Gov .
Bill Clinton , who was the Democratic nominee , and Texas businessman Ross Perot , who ran as an independent .
This was the first town hall-style debate format that allowed a group of undecided voters to ask questions of the candidates .
The mainstream media that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular Americans and awkward , whereas Clinton was depicted as empathetic and could “ feel your pain.
” As he was about to take an awkwardly worded question from an audience member , Bush checked his watch .
That simple action prompted media speculation that he was somehow bored with the debate process and couldn ’ t connect .
7 .
Gore vs. Bush : The Sigh Heard Around the World ( 2000 ) In what was something of a role reversal from eight years earlier , Clinton ’ s vice president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than his opponent , the more affable George W. Bush , the Republican Texas governor and son of the former president .
During a debate , Gore was heard with audible sighs while Bush was speaking .
Similarly , it was during the town-hall debate that Gore seemed to reinforce how his opponents sought to caricature him .
Gore seemingly walked right up to Bush from behind in what was seen as a move to try to intimidate him .
Bush simply turned around , nodded , and continued speaking .
After the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed four Americans on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks in the United States , the administration of President Barack Obama said the attack was inspired by protests against an anti-Muslim video .
The day after the attack , before attending a political fundraiser , Obama passively referenced it as an “ act of terror.
” However , then-U.N .
Ambassador Susan Rice went on a round of Sunday news-talk shows , where she blamed the American-made video for spawning protests that spiraled out of control and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a planned terrorist attack .
During a town hall-style debate between Obama , a Democrat , and Mitt Romney , a former Republican governor of Massachusetts , Romney criticized the administration ’ s characterizing it as a protest , rather than as a terrorist attack .
“ For 14 days , he refused to call it an act of terror , ” Romney said .
Obama told CNN ’ s Candy Crowley , who was moderating the debate , to “ check the transcript.
” Crowley obliged the president ’ s request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did in fact , sir , call it an act of terror.
” Crowley offered what appeared to be a definitive fact-check to what was at best a nuanced question .
Obama had been campaigning asserting that the threat of terrorism was waning , so the Benghazi attack occurring so close to the election was damaging .
However , Crowley ’ s save likely helped him , and the administration weather the storm .

In what has been an unusual election year because of the COVID-19 pandemic—fewer big rallies and no giant conventions—President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday night will do something that’s more typical of a presidential campaign. They’ll debate.
The impact of presidential debates has varied at these quadrennial confrontations, and has in some cases even been defining.
Here’s a look at some big presidential debate moments.
1. Nixon vs. Kennedy: The Role of TV (1960)
The face-off between Vice President Richard Nixon, a Republican, and his Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, isn’t remembered for any major lines, but more as a point in presidential election history.
The four debates between the two were best remembered for being the first televised presidential debates. They would be the last until 1976, when debates became a regular quadrennial occurrence.
The political story is that Nixon scored points in the debate itself, but couldn’t match the photogenic Kennedy on TV. It’s frequently been said that those who listened on radio thought Nixon won, but those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won. However, there wasn’t instant polling at the time to back that up.
Kennedy, 43, was running to become the youngest elected president in history. Then-Vice President Theodore Roosevelt, 42, was younger when he assumed the office after President William McKinley’s assassination in September 1901.
Nixon, though only five years older than Kennedy, was vice president for eight years under a popular president, Dwight Eisenhower. As such, even having the debate elevated Kennedy’s stature.
Given the closeness of the race (Kennedy won by 112,827 votes out of 68,329,141 cast), the debate likely had some impact on its outcome.
2. Ford vs. Carter: ‘Soviet Domination’ (1976)
It wasn’t until 16 years after the Nixon-Kennedy contest that the next debate took place, in an election that would similarly be won by a razor-thin margin.
President Gerald Ford’s foreign policy gaffe became a major problem as the Republican president was fending off a challenge from Democrat Jimmy Carter, a former Georgia governor.
During the debate, Ford said, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under the Ford administration.’’
Ford had been lagging in the polls, but they were beginning to tighten. The remark was particularly problematic, since the GOP stressed Carter’s lack of experience on the world stage and sought to depict the party as tougher in standing up to the Soviet Union in the Cold War than the Democrats.
The questioner to Ford followed up, “Did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence?”
Even given another chance, Ford doubled down.
“I don’t believe that the Romanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don’t believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union,” Ford said.
Carter rebutted, “I’d like to see Mr. Ford convince Polish-Americans and Czech-Americans and Hungarian-Americans that those countries don’t live under the supervision and control of the Soviet Union behind the Iron Curtain.’’
Carter won a close race, with 50.1% of the vote and 297 electoral votes. The Ford debate gaffe might have been responsible at least in part for Carter’s margin of victory.
3. Carter vs. Reagan: ‘Better Off?’ (1980)
The 1980 polls were very tight between Carter, then the incumbent president, and his challenger, former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, the Republican nominee.
Although there was significant dissatisfaction with Carter’s job performance, Democrats sought to cast Reagan as too conservative and out of the mainstream.
The two candidates had only one debate—which Reagan dominated. (Reagan had a separate debate with an independent candidate, Rep. John Anderson, R-Ill., which Carter declined to be a part of.)
In the debate that mattered, Carter was aggressive against his challenger, accusing him of seeking to dismantle the social safety net. Reagan fended off each attack and managed to completely disarm Carter by responding: “There you go again.”
The defining line was Reagan asking Americans: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
Reagan went on to win a landslide victory with 44 states. With a victory that comprehensive, it’s likely neither the debate, nor any one other factor, decided the election.
But, in the debate, Reagan was able to turn back concerns that he was somehow out of the mainstream and a threat to America.
4. Reagan vs. Mondale: Age and ‘Youth’ (1984)
The 1980s have been called the age of Reagan, in that he brought a conservative revolution to the United States. But in 1984, his Democratic opponent Walter Mondale, who had served as Carter’s vice president, sought to use Reagan’s age as a campaign issue.
Reagan was, at the time, the oldest elected president in American history. When he ran for reelection, he was 73. Democrats raised the issue of whether he was up to the job at his age.
In the first debate, Mondale seemed to best Reagan, whose performance was rather slower than expected—particularly after his strong showing in the debate four years earlier.
However, in the second debate, Reagan defused the issue with his trademark self-deprecating humor.
“I will not make age an issue of this campaign,” the president said. “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
Mondale, then 56, could do little else but laugh at the line during the debate, and age was rarely mentioned again.
Reagan went on to win in a 49-state landslide, and lost only Mondale’s home state of Minnesota by a mere 3,761 votes out of 2,084,449 ballots cast.
5. Quayle vs. Bentsen: ‘No Jack Kennedy’ (1988)
In 1988, the most memorable debate moment came in the vice presidential contest between Sen. Dan Quayle, a Republican from Indiana, and Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, a Democrat from Texas.
The Democratic presidential nominee, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, tapped Bentsen for his experience and hopes of carrying Texas. Republican presidential nominee Vice President George H.W. Bush surprised many with his choice of Quayle, tapped for being a conservative senator and in the belief he would appeal to younger voters.
Bentsen was a grizzled Senate veteran, while Quayle was considered inexperienced. During the debate, Quayle explained his experience in serving in the Senate was comparable to that of John F. Kennedy before he ran for president.
Bentsen famously shot back, “I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
Even so, the Bush-Quayle ticket walloped Dukakis-Bentsen in a third consecutive Republican landslide, winning 40 states.
Nevertheless, the line contributed heavily to a narrative that dogged Quayle throughout his time as vice president.
6. Bush vs. Clinton vs. Perot: Checking the Time (1992)
Incumbent presidents are said to not always do so well in debates because they’re not used to sharing the stage. In 1992, Bush had to share the stage with two challengers, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who was the Democratic nominee, and Texas businessman Ross Perot, who ran as an independent.
This was the first town hall-style debate format that allowed a group of undecided voters to ask questions of the candidates.
The mainstream media that year frequently cast Bush as detached from regular Americans and awkward, whereas Clinton was depicted as empathetic and could “feel your pain.”
As he was about to take an awkwardly worded question from an audience member, Bush checked his watch. That simple action prompted media speculation that he was somehow bored with the debate process and couldn’t connect.
7. Gore vs. Bush: The Sigh Heard Around the World (2000)
In what was something of a role reversal from eight years earlier, Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, often seemed more aloof than his opponent, the more affable George W. Bush, the Republican Texas governor and son of the former president.
During a debate, Gore was heard with audible sighs while Bush was speaking.
Similarly, it was during the town hall debate that Gore seemed to reinforce how his opponents sought to caricature him.
Gore seemingly walked right up to Bush from behind in what was seen as a move to try to intimidate him. Bush simply turned around, nodded, and continued speaking.
8. Obama vs. Romney: Questionable Fact Check (2012)
After the Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack that killed four Americans on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the administration of President Barack Obama said the attack was inspired by protests against an anti-Muslim video.
The day after the attack, before attending a political fundraiser, Obama passively referenced it as an “act of terror.” However, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on a round of Sunday news talk shows, where she blamed the American-made video for spawning protests that spiraled out of control and turned violent. Later information showed it was a planned terrorist attack.
During a town hall-style debate between Obama, a Democrat, and Mitt Romney, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, Romney criticized the administration’s characterizing it as a protest, rather than as a terrorist attack.
“For 14 days, he refused to call it an act of terror,” Romney said. Obama told CNN’s Candy Crowley, who was moderating the debate, to “check the transcript.” Crowley obliged the president’s request, and told Romney, “He did in fact, sir, call it an act of terror.”
Crowley offered what appeared to be a definitive fact check to what was at best a nuanced question.
Obama had been campaigning asserting that the threat of terrorism was waning, so the Benghazi attack occurring so close to the election was damaging. However, Crowley’s save likely helped him and the administration weather the storm.


dailysignal--2020-09-29--Why House Republicans, and Maybe Some Democrats, Want to Remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Conservatives who make up the House Freedom Caucus last week forced a meeting of the House ’ s entire Republican conference to discuss a motion “ to vacate the chair , ” which is a push to force Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , to step down .
The Freedom Caucus has worked on this effort to remove Pelosi since July .
What was the deciding factor in going ahead now ?
How does the motion to vacate work , especially given the House ’ s Democrat majority ?
Rep. Andy Biggs , R-Ariz. , chairman of the Freedom Caucus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to discuss .
We also cover these stories : • The New York Times publishes an article detailing President Donald Trump ’ s income tax returns .
• Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham says confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will begin Oct. 12 .
• Chris Wallace , host of “ Fox News Sunday , ” will moderate tonight ’ s first presidential debate tonight , but doesn ’ t plan to fact-check either Donald Trump or Joe Biden .
“ The Daily Signal Podcast ” is available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Google Play , and Stitcher .
All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts .
If you like what you hear , please leave a review .
You also may leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [ email protected ] om .
Enjoy the show !
Rachel del Guidice : I ’ m joined today on “ The Daily Signal Podcast ” by Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona , who is also the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus .
Congressman Biggs , it ’ s always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daily Signal Podcast.
” Rep. Andy Biggs : Thanks , Rachel .
Good to be with you .
Del Guidice : Thanks for making the time to be with us .
Well , on Wednesday , the House Freedom Caucus forced a meeting of the entire House Republican Conference to discuss the motion to vacate the chair , which is a push to get House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step down .
Can you tell us about what ’ s going on here ?
Biggs : Yes .
When Nancy Pelosi became speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she changed the rules to make it very , very difficult to remove the speaker .
Wonder why ?
This is not a coincidence .
One of the things that we have to do is we have to get our minority leader , Kevin McCarthy , to make the motion .
In order for him to make the motion , we have to go through the rules of our body , and so we were able to , the House Freedom Caucus , get enough signatures on board of people who want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force the debate .
So , we had the debate last Wednesday that Speaker Pelosi should be removed .
We know that .
We all know that .
The question is , was the timing appropriate ?
And we had a very good discussion within conference .
Del Guidice : The House Freedom Caucus has been working on this effort since July .
Can you talk about what was the deciding factor to go ahead with this right now ?
Biggs : Well , we ’ ve been pushing it , as you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a draft of a resolution to remove her done , but what really pushed everybody over the limit is this notion that she would even allow the suggestion of impeachment of the president for engaging in his constitutional prerogative , not just prerogative , but his obligation .
I mean , the American people elected him to be the president of the United States for a full four years , and part of his duty is to fill Supreme Court vacancies .
And so , this notion that you would impeach him for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just a step too far , and then her rhetoric in the recent couple of weeks has just been absolutely abysmal and demeaning to the institution .
So , that was the last straw .
Del Guidice : Well , Congressman , that was actually one of my next questions , just talking about how Pelosi is threatening to , again , impeach the president for the second time this year for doing his job , as you highlighted , which is nominating a justice to fill the vacancy that was created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , what is her motivation here when he is just trying to fulfill the dictates of his role ?
Biggs : Well , what she said is that they want to do anything , and the Democrats in the Senate have said the same thing .
They will do anything to stop this nomination .
That ’ s an outrageous statement in and of itself .
I mean , you have a really , really qualified individual , but what she ’ s wanting to do is even though the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the advice and consent , we just are observers , … she said it , basically , that she wanted to create a distraction , a distraction for this administration .
So , while they ’ re in a very contentious confirmation process , she wanted to tie down everybody that she possibly could in the White House by impeaching the president .
Then secondarily , she ’ s also said she wants to impeach the attorney general , Bill Barr .
So , when you hear that type of thing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raw abuse of power , and it can ’ t stand.
” We ’ re a majoritarian country , but the rights of the minority , which in this case would be Republicans in the House , need to be protected .
And so , that was one of our goals , is to say , “ Look , she needs to be removed.
” … In fact , I would tell you that there ’ s largely consensus in the body that she needs to be removed .
And if she actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this , the minority leader has said that he will make that motion posthaste , which is a privileged motion .
So , it would get immediate attention .
It ’ s despicable that they would attempt to use impeachment .
I mean , what they did last time was impeachment because they don ’ t like the president .
This time , they would use it as a distraction , because they don ’ t like the fact that he got to appoint [ Judge ] Amy Coney Barrett .
Del @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit about how the motion to vacate works , especially given the Democrat majority in the House ?
Biggs : The way it works is the minority leader would file the motion with the clerk and bring it up immediately when we were on the floor and they would have to recognize they can not not recognize him , they must recognize him , and he would make a privileged motion to vacate , which means to remove the speaker .
What would happen at that point is that we anticipate any ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or to set that motion to vacate aside , and we would then have a motion on that .
That would be the telling motion .
That would be effectively saying you support Pelosi or you don ’ t support Pelosi , you support the removal or you don ’ t support the removal , all in that motion to table .
We anticipate that there could be as many as 15 or 20 Democrats that would cross over and vote with the Republicans .
If that were the case , then you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removing Nancy Pelosi .
Del Guidice : I was actually going to ask you too , are there any in her own party , and you did allude to this in your answer , mentioning that you think 10 or 15 Democrats might cross over and vote to remove her , but do you think there are those in her own party who are frustrated by her leadership ?
Biggs : Oh , absolutely .
Absolutely , they are .
They ’ re quiet publicly about it .
I know that they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but moreover , some of my colleagues who are friends from the other side have expressed to me their frustration with her .
Some believe that she ’ s not far enough left , others believe that the more Marxist side of the Democrats have co-opted her speakership .
But what she has , Rachel , and this is important for everyone to understand , is she raises just bucket loads of money .
And so , she ’ s so effective at keeping her conference together because she does raise an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : A we look at the situation , and potentially … the House removing her , who would you all want to replace Pelosi with ?
Biggs : Well , there ’ s so many people that I think would probably do a job of being fair , but it wouldn ’ t surprise me if somebody like a [ Rep. James ] Clyburn would come into play because I think that he would have the support of a fairly broad number of the Democratic Conference .
I think that he would also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think that he would ram this stuff down our throats .
I think that he would also encourage his chairman instead of to violate the rules , to follow the rules .
… I mean , to violate the rules when you ’ re the majority is silly because you always have the votes , you know you always have the votes .
And so , when you try to prevent the members of at least one of the committees I sit on from actually raising a point of order or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing is you ’ re saying , “ You know what , not only do we have the majority , but we ’ re not going to follow the rules .
We ’ re not going to have decorum here .
We ’ re not going to allow you to even have your say and represent your district here.
” That ’ s what ’ s happened here , and that ’ s how this whole body has been denigrated , because the speaker has allowed that to go on .
Del Guidice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , last week , you had a special order on the House to find out about who ’ s been funding the recent riots we ’ ve seen all across this country .
Can you tell us a little bit about that ?
Biggs : Yeah .
We ’ re able to control the floor for an hour and bring in people , many from the Freedom Caucus , but others from around the body as well , to come in and talk about a couple of things .
No .
1 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No .
2 , even Democrats who run some of these cities have acknowledged that these riots are coordinated .
And so , if you have coordination , then you know you ’ ve got organization .
The RICO Statutes , for instance , are very , very broad and allow for prosecution of a RICO , a civil RICO case , just on a conspiracy type of issue .
And so , we wanted to forward the questions about the organizations , who ’ s out there ?
Who is coordinating these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material ?
Over the last week , you ’ ve seen U-Hauls coming to some of these locations , filled with tools of rioting and causing mayhem .
Somebody is organizing , and with somebody organizing , we need some people to come in and investigate , make arrests , and prosecute .
And the best place to do that , and which we ’ re all very frustrated about , is not necessarily Congress , which has some authority and some power to investigate , but is the Federal Bureau of Investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducting these investigations .
We ’ re not seeing that , and it ’ s been very , very frustrating to us .
And so , that ’ s why we did the special order last week .
Del Guidice : On that note , Heritage Foundation and senior fellow Mike Gonzalez recently did some investigative reporting himself , and in an exclusive commentary he did last week for The Daily Signal , he wrote that Alicia Garza , who ’ s one of the three founders of the Black Lives Matter organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francisco group that ’ s known to carry water for China , which is the Chinese Progressive Association .
I ’ m just curious , did you happen to see this ?
And what is your perspective ?
I mean , we just talked about the FBI .
Should Congress get involved ?
Who should investigate this ?
What should happen ?
Biggs : Yes , Rachel , I did see the piece , and I saw several other what I would call more attenuated discussions of something similar , but the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it also begs the question of , when will we see the Federal Bureau of Investigation ?
Again , I used that term .
That ’ s what they ’ re supposed to be doing , investigating these people and bringing them to bear .
We leave that there .
That ’ s the executive branch arm that ’ s supposed to be doing that .
But Congress also has a duty and an ability to conduct investigations .
The problem that we have , Rachel , without getting political , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side controls and the other side doesn ’ t want to have investigations .
You have to understand that my colleagues across the aisle , they don ’ t even want to acknowledge that these are not peaceful protests .
A lot of reporters just stand in front of burning buildings and say these are peaceful protests , or mostly peaceful protests , and that they ’ d been co-opted .
Well , who ’ s co-opting them ?
They don ’ t want to find out who ’ s co-opting these ostensible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committees .
That Judiciary Committee is uniquely set up to conduct some of these investigations .
Homeless Security could , Government Reform could , even Intelligence could , if those chairmen were willing and interested in getting to the bottom of this and bringing order and stability and security and safety back into our country , but they ’ re not interested in that .
They ’ re very comfortable with the discord that ’ s going on because they have a political agenda .
And it ’ s a shame to me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , because Congress should be doing that , we should be bringing these people in , we should be helping get to the bottom of this and forwarding what information we obtained through our investigations to the Department of Justice .
And that ’ s simply not going to happen under a Pelosi regime .
Del Guidice : I know we talked a little bit about this at the beginning , but I did want to circle back to this at the end , I realize all the action in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thoughts on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and how you hope the Senate proceeds as we ramp up to confirmation hearings .
Biggs : Well , first thing I ’ ll tell you is I hope the Senate proceeds with alacrity .
They need to move swiftly on this .
I think they ’ ve committed to doing that .
The good news is a lot of the Democrats don ’ t want to even meet with Amy Coney Barrett .
That ’ s fantastic .
That ’ ll make the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quick confirmation would be good for the country and be good for Amy Coney Barrett personally .
That ’ d be good for the United States Supreme Court .
She is a marvelous pick .
… Before [ Brett Kavanaugh ] was appointed and she was on the list , I looked very carefully to her opinions , at her writings or speeches .
I looked at her character .
She is a person with an unassailable personal character .
She is a person of integrity and compassion , and she is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can attack her on that , but she ’ s also unbelievably qualified .
They can attack her on her qualifications .
She graduated summa cum laude , she ’ s a graduate , she ’ s No .
1 in her class , she is published , she gives speeches , she ’ s consistent , her opinions are well-reasoned , she ’ s applying the law , she is an originalist , she is an exceptional person and jurist , and she worked at a highly rated law firm .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been a top rated law professor type .
This is a uniquely , highly qualified individual .
And so , by golly , if you ’ re going to be objective about it , you would say , “ We need to vote for her .
… Advice and consent of the Senate would be to confirm.
” I don ’ t think you ’ ll see that .
I think already we ’ ve seen that they ’ ve attacked her Catholic faith last week .
Rep. [ Steve ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ Donald ] Trump ’ s appointed too many Catholics .
That ’ s despicable .
How despicable is that ?
There is no religious test , constitutionally , either .
So , that bigotry is awful .
They ’ ve attacked her for that .
They ’ ve attacked her for adopting children of color from Haiti , for Pete ’ s sake .
How despicable is that ?
I mean , it ’ s just outrageous .
Then when they find anything with her legal background to attack or her character @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maher that just basically throws ad hominem attacks filled with expletives in it .
Really what it boils down to , the question really is more , is Bill Maher capable of expressing himself without expletives and without ad hominem attacks on somebody who is an excellent pick for justice ?
That is where we are today , Rachel .
I ’ m sad to say , we ’ ve reached a point where somebody who is incredibly well-qualified is going to be attacked personally for simply not having any personal defects that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s going to be a real hellacious battle , but I think it will be swift .
Then I think she ’ ll be confirmed , and then she ’ ll go on to have a stellar career for many , many years , hopefully several decades , as a Supreme Court justice .
Del Guidice : Well , Congressman Biggs , thank you so much for joining us today on “ The Daily Signal Podcast.
” It ’ s great to have you .
Biggs : Thank you very much @ @ @ @ @ @

Conservatives who make up the House Freedom Caucus last week forced a meeting of the House’s entire Republican conference to discuss a motion “to vacate the chair,” which is a push to force Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to step down.
The Freedom Caucus has worked on this effort to remove Pelosi since July. What was the deciding factor in going ahead now? How does the motion to vacate work, especially given the House’s Democrat majority? Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., chairman of the Freedom Caucus, joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss.
We also cover these stories:
The New York Times publishes an article detailing President Donald Trump’s income tax returns.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham says confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will begin Oct. 12.
Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday,” will moderate tonight’s first presidential debate tonight, but doesn’t plan to fact-check either Donald Trump or Joe Biden.
“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also may leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
Rachel del Guidice: I’m joined today on “The Daily Signal Podcast” by Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona, who is also the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. Congressman Biggs, it’s always great to have you on “The Daily Signal Podcast.”
Rep. Andy Biggs: Thanks, Rachel. Good to be with you.
Del Guidice: Thanks for making the time to be with us. Well, on Wednesday, the House Freedom Caucus forced a meeting of the entire House Republican Conference to discuss the motion to vacate the chair, which is a push to get House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step down. Can you tell us about what’s going on here?
Biggs: Yes. When Nancy Pelosi became speaker, because she had the majority, she changed the rules to make it very, very difficult to remove the speaker.
Wonder why? This is not a coincidence. One of the things that we have to do is we have to get our minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, to make the motion. In order for him to make the motion, we have to go through the rules of our body, and so we were able to, the House Freedom Caucus, get enough signatures on board of people who want to see a change in the speaker to force the debate.
So, we had the debate last Wednesday that Speaker Pelosi should be removed. We know that. We all know that. The question is, was the timing appropriate? And we had a very good discussion within conference.
Del Guidice: The House Freedom Caucus has been working on this effort since July. Can you talk about what was the deciding factor to go ahead with this right now?
Biggs: Well, we’ve been pushing it, as you say, for months, even with a draft of a resolution to remove her done, but what really pushed everybody over the limit is this notion that she would even allow the suggestion of impeachment of the president for engaging in his constitutional prerogative, not just prerogative, but his obligation.
I mean, the American people elected him to be the president of the United States for a full four years, and part of his duty is to fill Supreme Court vacancies. And so, this notion that you would impeach him for doing a constitutionally required duty, which is just a step too far, and then her rhetoric in the recent couple of weeks has just been absolutely abysmal and demeaning to the institution. So, that was the last straw.
Del Guidice: Well, Congressman, that was actually one of my next questions, just talking about how Pelosi is threatening to, again, impeach the president for the second time this year for doing his job, as you highlighted, which is nominating a justice to fill the vacancy that was created by Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg.
So, what is her motivation here when he is just trying to fulfill the dictates of his role?
Biggs: Well, what she said is that they want to do anything, and the Democrats in the Senate have said the same thing. They will do anything to stop this nomination. That’s an outrageous statement in and of itself.
I mean, you have a really, really qualified individual, but what she’s wanting to do is even though the House has, virtually, nothing to do with the advice and consent, we just are observers, … she said it, basically, that she wanted to create a distraction, a distraction for this administration.
So, while they’re in a very contentious confirmation process, she wanted to tie down everybody that she possibly could in the White House by impeaching the president. Then secondarily, she’s also said she wants to impeach the attorney general, Bill Barr. So, when you hear that type of thing, you say, “This is a raw abuse of power, and it can’t stand.”
We’re a majoritarian country, but the rights of the minority, which in this case would be Republicans in the House, need to be protected. And so, that was one of our goals, is to say, “Look, she needs to be removed.” …
In fact, I would tell you that there’s largely consensus in the body that she needs to be removed. And if she actually does try to go through with any of this, the minority leader has said that he will make that motion posthaste, which is a privileged motion. So, it would get immediate attention.
It’s despicable that they would attempt to use impeachment. I mean, what they did last time was impeachment because they don’t like the president. This time, they would use it as a distraction, because they don’t like the fact that he got to appoint [Judge] Amy Coney Barrett.
Del Guidice: Can you talk a little bit about how the motion to vacate works, especially given the Democrat majority in the House?
Biggs: The way it works is the minority leader would file the motion with the clerk and bring it up immediately when we were on the floor and they would have to recognize they cannot not recognize him, they must recognize him, and he would make a privileged motion to vacate, which means to remove the speaker.
What would happen at that point is that we anticipate any ways that the Democrats would move to table or to set that motion to vacate aside, and we would then have a motion on that. That would be the telling motion. That would be effectively saying you support Pelosi or you don’t support Pelosi, you support the removal or you don’t support the removal, all in that motion to table.
We anticipate that there could be as many as 15 or 20 Democrats that would cross over and vote with the Republicans. If that were the case, then you would have a good chance of actually removing Nancy Pelosi.
Del Guidice: I was actually going to ask you too, are there any in her own party, and you did allude to this in your answer, mentioning that you think 10 or 15 Democrats might cross over and vote to remove her, but do you think there are those in her own party who are frustrated by her leadership?
Biggs: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely, they are. They’re quiet publicly about it. I know that they’ve had some very contentious conference meetings, but moreover, some of my colleagues who are friends from the other side have expressed to me their frustration with her.
Some believe that she’s not far enough left, others believe that the more Marxist side of the Democrats have co-opted her speakership.
But what she has, Rachel, and this is important for everyone to understand, is she raises just bucket loads of money. And so, she’s so effective at keeping her conference together because she does raise an awful lot of money.
Del Guidice: A we look at the situation, and potentially … the House removing her, who would you all want to replace Pelosi with?
Biggs: Well, there’s so many people that I think would probably do a job of being fair, but it wouldn’t surprise me if somebody like a [Rep. James] Clyburn would come into play because I think that he would have the support of a fairly broad number of the Democratic Conference.
I think that he would also be a fair broker. I don’t think that he would ram this stuff down our throats. I think that he would also encourage his chairman instead of to violate the rules, to follow the rules. …
I mean, to violate the rules when you’re the majority is silly because you always have the votes, you know you always have the votes.
And so, when you try to prevent the members of at least one of the committees I sit on from actually raising a point of order or discussing issues, what you’re doing is you’re saying, “You know what, not only do we have the majority, but we’re not going to follow the rules. We’re not going to have decorum here. We’re not going to allow you to even have your say and represent your district here.”
That’s what’s happened here, and that’s how this whole body has been denigrated, because the speaker has allowed that to go on.
Del Guidice: Switching gears just a bit here, last week, you had a special order on the House to find out about who’s been funding the recent riots we’ve seen all across this country. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
Biggs: Yeah. We’re able to control the floor for an hour and bring in people, many from the Freedom Caucus, but others from around the body as well, to come in and talk about a couple of things.
No. 1, the police have been mercilessly attacked. No. 2, even Democrats who run some of these cities have acknowledged that these riots are coordinated. And so, if you have coordination, then you know you’ve got organization.
The RICO Statutes, for instance, are very, very broad and allow for prosecution of a RICO, a civil RICO case, just on a conspiracy type of issue. And so, we wanted to forward the questions about the organizations, who’s out there? Who is coordinating these riots? Who is coordinating and giving material?
Over the last week, you’ve seen U-Hauls coming to some of these locations, filled with tools of rioting and causing mayhem. Somebody is organizing, and with somebody organizing, we need some people to come in and investigate, make arrests, and prosecute.
And the best place to do that, and which we’re all very frustrated about, is not necessarily Congress, which has some authority and some power to investigate, but is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That’s who should be conducting these investigations. We’re not seeing that, and it’s been very, very frustrating to us. And so, that’s why we did the special order last week.
Del Guidice: On that note, Heritage Foundation and senior fellow Mike Gonzalez recently did some investigative reporting himself, and in an exclusive commentary he did last week for The Daily Signal, he wrote that Alicia Garza, who’s one of the three founders of the Black Lives Matter organization, had partnered with the left-wing San Francisco group that’s known to carry water for China, which is the Chinese Progressive Association.
I’m just curious, did you happen to see this? And what is your perspective? I mean, we just talked about the FBI. Should Congress get involved? Who should investigate this? What should happen?
Biggs: Yes, Rachel, I did see the piece, and I saw several other what I would call more attenuated discussions of something similar, but the point is it was a great piece, but it also begs the question of, when will we see the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Again, I used that term. That’s what they’re supposed to be doing, investigating these people and bringing them to bear. We leave that there. That’s the executive branch arm that’s supposed to be doing that.
But Congress also has a duty and an ability to conduct investigations. The problem that we have, Rachel, without getting political, I’ll just say that the other side controls and the other side doesn’t want to have investigations.
You have to understand that my colleagues across the aisle, they don’t even want to acknowledge that these are not peaceful protests. A lot of reporters just stand in front of burning buildings and say these are peaceful protests, or mostly peaceful protests, and that they’d been co-opted.
Well, who’s co-opting them? They don’t want to find out who’s co-opting these ostensible peaceful protests, and Congress does have committees. That Judiciary Committee is uniquely set up to conduct some of these investigations. Homeless Security could, Government Reform could, even Intelligence could, if those chairmen were willing and interested in getting to the bottom of this and bringing order and stability and security and safety back into our country, but they’re not interested in that.
They’re very comfortable with the discord that’s going on because they have a political agenda. And it’s a shame to me, that’s a shame to me, because Congress should be doing that, we should be bringing these people in, we should be helping get to the bottom of this and forwarding what information we obtained through our investigations to the Department of Justice. And that’s simply not going to happen under a Pelosi regime.
Del Guidice: I know we talked a little bit about this at the beginning, but I did want to circle back to this at the end, I realize all the action in the Senate, but I wanted to get your thoughts on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and how you hope the Senate proceeds as we ramp up to confirmation hearings.
Biggs: Well, first thing I’ll tell you is I hope the Senate proceeds with alacrity. They need to move swiftly on this. I think they’ve committed to doing that.
The good news is a lot of the Democrats don’t want to even meet with Amy Coney Barrett. That’s fantastic. That’ll make the process go a lot swifter, and a quick confirmation would be good for the country and be good for Amy Coney Barrett personally. That’d be good for the United States Supreme Court. She is a marvelous pick.
… Before [Brett Kavanaugh] was appointed and she was on the list, I looked very carefully to her opinions, at her writings or speeches. I looked at her character. She is a person with an unassailable personal character. She is a person of integrity and compassion, and she is a great human being, … the left can attack her on that, but she’s also unbelievably qualified. They can attack her on her qualifications.
She graduated summa cum laude, she’s a graduate, she’s No. 1 in her class, she is published, she gives speeches, she’s consistent, her opinions are well-reasoned, she’s applying the law, she is an originalist, she is an exceptional person and jurist, and she worked at a highly rated law firm. She’s an excellent lawyer, she’s been a top rated law professor type. This is a uniquely, highly qualified individual.
And so, by golly, if you’re going to be objective about it, you would say, “We need to vote for her. … Advice and consent of the Senate would be to confirm.”
I don’t think you’ll see that. I think already we’ve seen that they’ve attacked her Catholic faith last week. Rep. [Steve] Cohen from Tennessee basically intimated that President [Donald] Trump’s appointed too many Catholics. That’s despicable. How despicable is that?
There is no religious test, constitutionally, either. So, that bigotry is awful. They’ve attacked her for that. They’ve attacked her for adopting children of color from Haiti, for Pete’s sake. How despicable is that? I mean, it’s just outrageous.
Then when they find anything with her legal background to attack or her character to attack, then you have Bill Maher that just basically throws ad hominem attacks filled with expletives in it. Really what it boils down to, the question really is more, is Bill Maher capable of expressing himself without expletives and without ad hominem attacks on somebody who is an excellent pick for justice?
That is where we are today, Rachel. I’m sad to say, we’ve reached a point where somebody who is incredibly well-qualified is going to be attacked personally for simply not having any personal defects that would prohibit her from being confirmed.
It’s going to be a real hellacious battle, but I think it will be swift. Then I think she’ll be confirmed, and then she’ll go on to have a stellar career for many, many years, hopefully several decades, as a Supreme Court justice.
Del Guidice: Well, Congressman Biggs, thank you so much for joining us today on “The Daily Signal Podcast.” It’s great to have you.
Biggs: Thank you very much. Thanks for having me.


dailysignal--2020-09-29--Liberals’ Complaints About the Coming Supreme Court Vote Don’t Pass the Smell Test

In case you didn ’ t notice , our country is completely falling apart .
There are so many problems that they are hard to list out at this point , but the biggest , by far , is the increasing animosity between Americans of different political persuasions .
People think those on the other side are evil and need to be destroyed .
There have always been views like that on the fringes , but the fringes have made huge advances and are now dominating our discourse .
And it ’ s not just discourse .
We are seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen since the late 1960s .
Most Americans my age have never imagined our country in a state of civil war , but can you honestly say that idea is as ludicrous today as it was 10 years ago ?
We are sliding fast in a bad direction , and it ’ s time for people of goodwill to come together to put it to an end .
The Supreme Court question before us has the potential to take things even further .
For many decades , the Senate required a 60-vote supermajority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant the system would not work without some level of consensus .
That ’ s not always fun for the side that doesn ’ t get its way , but it adds a level of stability that helps our country ride out the waves of our political emotions .
Former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was the first to begin to erode our current system .
Reid decided it was too hard to get his judges through with a supermajority requirement , so he and his fellow Democrats unilaterally changed the rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to the appellate court level on a 51-vote majority basis .
This worked to get Reid ’ s judges through .
It also marked the end of our consensus system in the Senate and the start of our pure power politics system .
What followed was predictable .
Republicans took power back in the Senate , and they not only followed Reid ’ s example but also expanded it to include Supreme Court votes .
This , of course , enraged the left and added to the cycle of extreme partisanship we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic senators have indicated they may favor getting rid of the filibuster altogether in the Senate , if they take power next year .
This means that instead of needing 60 votes for tough legislation , absolutely everything could be passed with a simple majority .
The top leaders are indicating that if they are elected and can ’ t implement their agenda with a 60-vote requirement , they will kill the filibuster altogether .
The actions they are talking about taking include truly radical concepts such as the Green New Deal and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their own judges to effectively neuter another supposedly coequal branch of our government .
In the face of this insanity , we are now presented with the sudden and tragic death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg close to our coming election .
Many of the same Democrats who were just talking about killing the filibuster to push through a radical agenda are now sending out talking points about how tradition requires that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hold off on a vote to let the next president decide on our new nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want it both ways .
But we are either operating under pure party politics or we are sticking with comity , tradition , and stability .
I would love another conservative justice , but , more importantly , I ’ d like a country that begins to heal and doesn ’ t swing back and forth every two years from the partisan agenda of one side to the partisan agenda of the other .
Given how split our country is , with the voters in the middle swinging back and forth every few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should expect .
But based on their own actions , how can Democrats expect McConnell and President Donald Trump to do anything short of using every ounce of political power at their disposal to usher in a new conservative Supreme Court justice ?
As Democrats scream about this , they should pause to consider their own role in how we got here .
Democrats followed up Reid ’ s destruction of the filibuster for judges with a truly brutal and underhanded attack on Brett Kavanaugh , an honorable family man forced to fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restore his reputation after the most salacious and evidence-free charges from the likes of sham artists such as Michael Avenatti ( remember him ? )
, who peddled made-up gang rape stories .
The moderate Republicans that Democrats are now hoping will break with Trump and McConnell were outraged by this behavior and by the fact that mainstream Democratic politicians joined the character assassination .
Republicans have not treated Democratic nominees this way and , in fact , have given most Democratic nominees substantial bipartisan votes for confirmation .
This is the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are screaming about it now need to look in the mirror and ask how anyone should take them seriously as they hop back and forth from the most brutal partisan politics to calls for civility and tradition as the moment suits their interests .
Wonder how McConnell is able to keep moderates like Sen. Mitt Romney on board for a vote ?
He should thank the Democrats now complaining most .
They made his job a lot easier .

In case you didn’t notice, our country is completely falling apart. There are so many problems that they are hard to list out at this point, but the biggest, by far, is the increasing animosity between Americans of different political persuasions.
People think those on the other side are evil and need to be destroyed. There have always been views like that on the fringes, but the fringes have made huge advances and are now dominating our discourse. And it’s not just discourse. We are seeing actual political violence on a scale not seen since the late 1960s.
Most Americans my age have never imagined our country in a state of civil war, but can you honestly say that idea is as ludicrous today as it was 10 years ago? We are sliding fast in a bad direction, and it’s time for people of goodwill to come together to put it to an end.
The Supreme Court question before us has the potential to take things even further.
For many decades, the Senate required a 60-vote supermajority to confirm judges. This Senate rule meant the system would not work without some level of consensus. That’s not always fun for the side that doesn’t get its way, but it adds a level of stability that helps our country ride out the waves of our political emotions.
Former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was the first to begin to erode our current system. Reid decided it was too hard to get his judges through with a supermajority requirement, so he and his fellow Democrats unilaterally changed the rules to allow them to ram through judges up to the appellate court level on a 51-vote majority basis.
This worked to get Reid’s judges through. It also marked the end of our consensus system in the Senate and the start of our pure power politics system.
What followed was predictable. Republicans took power back in the Senate, and they not only followed Reid’s example but also expanded it to include Supreme Court votes. This, of course, enraged the left and added to the cycle of extreme partisanship we are still experiencing.
Now even moderate Democratic senators have indicated they may favor getting rid of the filibuster altogether in the Senate, if they take power next year. This means that instead of needing 60 votes for tough legislation, absolutely everything could be passed with a simple majority.
The top leaders are indicating that if they are elected and can’t implement their agenda with a 60-vote requirement, they will kill the filibuster altogether.
The actions they are talking about taking include truly radical concepts such as the Green New Deal and expanding the Supreme Court and packing it with their own judges to effectively neuter another supposedly coequal branch of our government.
In the face of this insanity, we are now presented with the sudden and tragic death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg close to our coming election. Many of the same Democrats who were just talking about killing the filibuster to push through a radical agenda are now sending out talking points about how tradition requires that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hold off on a vote to let the next president decide on our new nominee after the election.
Democrats seem to want it both ways. But we are either operating under pure party politics or we are sticking with comity, tradition, and stability.
I would love another conservative justice, but, more importantly, I’d like a country that begins to heal and doesn’t swing back and forth every two years from the partisan agenda of one side to the partisan agenda of the other.
Given how split our country is, with the voters in the middle swinging back and forth every few years, this is exactly what we should expect. But based on their own actions, how can Democrats expect McConnell and President Donald Trump to do anything short of using every ounce of political power at their disposal to usher in a new conservative Supreme Court justice?
As Democrats scream about this, they should pause to consider their own role in how we got here.
Democrats followed up Reid’s destruction of the filibuster for judges with a truly brutal and underhanded attack on Brett Kavanaugh, an honorable family man forced to fight with every ounce of his being to restore his reputation after the most salacious and evidence-free charges from the likes of sham artists such as Michael Avenatti (remember him?), who peddled made-up gang rape stories.
The moderate Republicans that Democrats are now hoping will break with Trump and McConnell were outraged by this behavior and by the fact that mainstream Democratic politicians joined the character assassination.
Republicans have not treated Democratic nominees this way and, in fact, have given most Democratic nominees substantial bipartisan votes for confirmation. This is the way the system should work.
Democrats who are screaming about it now need to look in the mirror and ask how anyone should take them seriously as they hop back and forth from the most brutal partisan politics to calls for civility and tradition as the moment suits their interests.
Wonder how McConnell is able to keep moderates like Sen. Mitt Romney on board for a vote? He should thank the Democrats now complaining most. They made his job a lot easier.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-09-29--Trump Doesn’t Need Price Controls to Lower Prescription Drug Costs

By making full use of his executive authority , President Donald Trump has helped to reduce health care costs by increasing choice and competition .
But his recent executive order to base Medicare drug prices on rates set by foreign governments is a misstep .
Instead of importing price controls , the Trump administration should pursue bipartisan Medicare reforms that would cap seniors ’ out-of-pocket spending on prescription medicines and save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars .
Technically , two Medicare drug programs exist .
The first ( Medicare Part B ) pays for medicines that are usually administered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The second ( Medicare Part D ) covers prescription medicines that beneficiaries typically pick up at neighborhood pharmacies .
Although Trump ’ s executive order provides little in the way of detail—a job that will fall to bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—it calls for linking drug prices under both Parts B and D to those paid by selected foreign governments .
Imposing price controls would be a mistake with both programs , but their application to Part D would be doubly unfortunate .
Part D represents the leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides income-related subsidies to seniors , who shop for the private drug coverage that best meets their own needs .
Drugmakers and pharmacy benefit managers negotiate price discounts on drugs , just as they do for employer-sponsored coverage or individual health insurance .
This is a marked difference from the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program , which relies on a highly politicized , bureaucratized , and fundamentally corrupt government rate-setting process .
Consumer choice and competition have made Part D the rarest of government programs , one in which spending has not spiraled out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actuaries report that federal general revenue spending on the program was $ 70.2 billion in 2019 .
That is less than federal Part D spending in 2016 ( $ 82.4 billion ) .
Beneficiary premiums help pay the program ’ s costs .
Because those costs have grown only moderately , premiums remain low .
In 2021 , the program ’ s 16th year , premiums will average $ 30.50 .
That ’ s less than government actuaries ( erroneously ) projected for 2006 , the program ’ s first year ( $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premiums for drug coverage , the Part D program has reduced Medicare spending on doctors and hospitals .
Some drugs are expensive , but they cost less than hospital stays .
Chris Pope of the Manhattan Institute estimated that $ 100 in Medicare Part D drug spending reduces Medicare spending on other covered services by $ 95 .
The Part D program isn ’ t perfect .
In recent years , spending on costly medicines known as “ specialty drugs ” has risen sharply .
That is in part because the program ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pharmacy benefit managers to push a beneficiary ’ s spending into the highest benefit tier , where taxpayers pick up 80 % of drug costs .
Congress last year developed bipartisan reforms to realign these incentives .
The legislation would have required drugmakers and pharmacy benefit managers to bear the lion ’ s share of costs in the catastrophic tier , giving them strong incentives to negotiate better prices on the costliest medicines .
It also capped the amount a senior would have to spend in any year on their prescriptions .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation that would have reduced drug spending for beneficiaries , while saving taxpayers tens of billions of dollars .
Instead , some members of Congress , including those who supported the Part D reform , refused to back those reforms unless they were coupled with sweeping price controls .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , jammed a partisan price control bill through the House , dooming Part D changes that most members support .
Faced with the prospects of accomplishing little on drug pricing , the Trump administration settled for an executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s frustration with partisan inaction on Medicare reform is understandable .
Its decision to impose poorly conceived and constitutionally dubious regulations is not .
Price controls employed by foreign governments have no place in the U.S. Countries that impose them limit generic competition , stifle innovation , and deny their citizens access to many newer medicines .
For example , while Americans have access to 96 % of breakthrough cancer treatments introduced between 2011 and 2018 , Canadians have access to only 59 % , the Swiss to 62 % , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government should not adopt policies that threaten Americans ’ access to the newest and best medical treatments .
Nor should it discourage pharmaceutical innovation , particularly at a time when we are relying on the industry to develop COVID-19 vaccines and treatments .
The president ’ s executive order would damage the Medicare Part D program , which is generally working well for taxpayers and seniors .
The administration should advocate reforming Medicare Part D through bipartisan congressional action , not deforming it with foreign price controls .

By making full use of his executive authority, President Donald Trump has helped to reduce health care costs by increasing choice and competition.
But his recent executive order to base Medicare drug prices on rates set by foreign governments is a misstep.
Instead of importing price controls, the Trump administration should pursue bipartisan Medicare reforms that would cap seniors’ out-of-pocket spending on prescription medicines and save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
Here’s why.
Technically, two Medicare drug programs exist. The first (Medicare Part B) pays for medicines that are usually administered by doctors, such as chemotherapy infusions. The second (Medicare Part D) covers prescription medicines that beneficiaries typically pick up at neighborhood pharmacies.
Although Trump’s executive order provides little in the way of detail—a job that will fall to bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—it calls for linking drug prices under both Parts B and D to those paid by selected foreign governments.
Imposing price controls would be a mistake with both programs, but their application to Part D would be doubly unfortunate.
Part D represents the leading edge of Medicare reform. The government provides income-related subsidies to seniors, who shop for the private drug coverage that best meets their own needs.
Drugmakers and pharmacy benefit managers negotiate price discounts on drugs, just as they do for employer-sponsored coverage or individual health insurance. This is a marked difference from the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program, which relies on a highly politicized, bureaucratized, and fundamentally corrupt government rate-setting process.
Consumer choice and competition have made Part D the rarest of government programs, one in which spending has not spiraled out of control. In fact, government actuaries report that federal general revenue spending on the program was $70.2 billion in 2019. That is less than federal Part D spending in 2016 ($82.4 billion).
Beneficiary premiums help pay the program’s costs. Because those costs have grown only moderately, premiums remain low. In 2021, the program’s 16th year, premiums will average $30.50. That’s less than government actuaries (erroneously) projected for 2006, the program’s first year ($35).
By providing seniors low premiums for drug coverage, the Part D program has reduced Medicare spending on doctors and hospitals. Some drugs are expensive, but they cost less than hospital stays. Chris Pope of the Manhattan Institute estimated that $100 in Medicare Part D drug spending reduces Medicare spending on other covered services by $95.
The Part D program isn’t perfect. In recent years, spending on costly medicines known as “specialty drugs” has risen sharply. That is in part because the program’s complex benefit structure incentivizes drugmakers and pharmacy benefit managers to push a beneficiary’s spending into the highest benefit tier, where taxpayers pick up 80% of drug costs.
Congress last year developed bipartisan reforms to realign these incentives. The legislation would have required drugmakers and pharmacy benefit managers to bear the lion’s share of costs in the catastrophic tier, giving them strong incentives to negotiate better prices on the costliest medicines. It also capped the amount a senior would have to spend in any year on their prescriptions.
These reforms can serve as the centerpiece for legislation that would have reduced drug spending for beneficiaries, while saving taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
Instead, some members of Congress, including those who supported the Part D reform, refused to back those reforms unless they were coupled with sweeping price controls. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., jammed a partisan price control bill through the House, dooming Part D changes that most members support.
Faced with the prospects of accomplishing little on drug pricing, the Trump administration settled for an executive order advocating price controls.
The administration’s frustration with partisan inaction on Medicare reform is understandable. Its decision to impose poorly conceived and constitutionally dubious regulations is not.
Price controls employed by foreign governments have no place in the U.S. Countries that impose them limit generic competition, stifle innovation, and deny their citizens access to many newer medicines.
For example, while Americans have access to 96% of breakthrough cancer treatments introduced between 2011 and 2018, Canadians have access to only 59%, the Swiss to 62%, and the French to 66%.
The government should not adopt policies that threaten Americans’ access to the newest and best medical treatments. Nor should it discourage pharmaceutical innovation, particularly at a time when we are relying on the industry to develop COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.
The president’s executive order would damage the Medicare Part D program, which is generally working well for taxpayers and seniors.
The administration should advocate reforming Medicare Part D through bipartisan congressional action, not deforming it with foreign price controls.