Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 13, 2026

Fareed Zakaria’s Failed Take on California’s Failed Governance

 


In June 2026, former Newsweek and Time Magazine editor (and one-time plagiarist), now current CNN host Fareed Zakaria made a stunning admission about the Golden State: “How California became a study in failed governance.” To his credit, Zakaria has not been afraid to discuss issues which the Left hides and the Democratic Party runs from, like the strong connection between Muslims majorities and rising terrorism.

On October 2nd, 2026, CNN’s Elex Michelson interviewed his colleague about this article, whose subject was timely with the current election season in California.

Yes, Zakaria has argued the obvious. If you want to see what failure in the face of opportunity and plenty looks like, look at California. The more compelling aspect of his admission is that a liberal pundit in the national media is willing to state the obvious. We all agree: California is dysfunction writ large. There is more to the story, but at least Fareed states what his colleagues won’t acknowledge.

To his detriment, however, Zakaria outlines a bunch of solutions that miss the mark and cover up the real reasons for California’s precipitous and public decline.

At the outset of his interview, he claims that California projects and programs have come to a standstill and can accomplish nothing because of “vetocracy” throughout the state government, i.e., some apparatus or decision-maker or rule frustrates any effort for reform, growth, or change. For this term, he properly credited social scientist (and Trump-hater) Francis Fukuyama.

Explaining his argument, Zakaria points out that the bullet train approved by California voters in 2008 would have been built by now, but for the constant environmental challenges. Homelessness could have been solved if local leaders had cooperated with the state and left-wing homeless advocates wouldn’t block enforcement measures with endless lawsuits. Reforms to improve public safety, road repairs, and education could all take place if there wasn’t the relentless interest-group hustle that stopped everything.

On the surface, this “vetocracy” argument makes little sense. The California Democratic Party hegemon running the state legislation has held veto-proof supermajorities since 2016. Republican opposition can only show up, speak up, and vote “No!” on the worst stuff (sometimes, they vote with the rest of the supermajority on bad stuff!), then cash their checks and campaign for another two years to do the same rigmarole over and over. The Democrats have carte blanche power to do whatever they want. They could pass laws to streamline the bureaucracy, expedite change, enact better reforms, and fire the executives responsible for accomplishing those tasks.

But they don’t.

Zakaria’s larger theme that California Democratic leaders want to do the right thing, but can’t, is completely out of touch with reality. As a lifelong California resident, I have no idea what Zakaria is talking about, and why should he? He resides on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, another bubble of the uber-rich and well-connected, a well of Deep Blue political arrogance detached from the concerns and consequences of Democratic policy.  He loves California, but how many times has he visited? Has he ever lived there?

Regardless of California’s constant struggle, endless delays and frustrations to get anything done, the problem isn’t that everyone wants to work together but fails because of the bureaucracy. The supermajority Democratic powers that be love the red tape, the litigation, the delays, the incompetence, the virtue-signaling without virtue. They play into the will and wishes of their major donors: labor unions, left-wing interest groups, and the endless brigade of bureaucrats who consistently vote Democrat.

Performative politics among California leaders is the rule, not the exception. Picture lame-duck (and long-shot no-chance Presidential aspirant) Governor Gavin Newsom posing for well-timed photos in front of big media journalists (in reality, propagandists) while picking up some trash along the 405 freeway. Thanks, Gav, you picked up some garbage. How about enforcing the vagrancy laws on state property so that illegal homeless encampments don’t pollute our roads? Some twisted statistics, empty comparisons, and some jabs at President Trump dominate Democratic pols attempting to make a difference.

There are other problems with Zakaria’s take on California’s failed politics, or rather politics of failure, including his fawning treatment of liberal voters. Zakaria claimed that somewhat educated people vote for Democrats. They can’t be educated in any meaningful fashion if they are voting against their own interests. Failed public safety measures (including lack of coordination among departments) led to the Pacific Palisades inferno. The other issues (homelessness, year-round wildfires, rising crime) grow worse year by year, yet those educated keep voting for the same politicians who never fix the problem. That’s insanity.

When Michaelson asked why the voters keep voting for the same failed party leadership, Zakaria dodged their bad thinking and smeared Republicans, particularly President Trump. He faulted their lack of “openness” to diversity, immigration, and trade. He claimed that Republicans are “not friendly to market economics.” What does he think of Democrats, then?

Zakaria won’t accept that the Democrats own the failures, and Trump’s ascendancy in the Republican Party does not absolve them. Towards the end of his interview, Zakaria actually claimed that the Democratic Party’s heart is in the right place. Are you kidding me? If they have a heart, it’s dedicated to the rich getting richer off government cronyism and cash (how do “public servants” like Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom get so rich having served most of their adult lives in government?), pandering to diabolical identity politics (LGBT celebrations, transgender sanctuary state laws, reparations for African Americans in a state which entered the union as a Free State), and non-stop Trump bashing. That’s former AG and current gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra’s favorite sport, by the way, but at least his Republican opponent ridiculed him for such weak answers in the face of California’s growing problems.

Adding insult to his failed policy prescription, Zakaria praised recently-elected San Francisco mayor Dan Lurie as a “cry for help” from the voters in The City fed up with the broad array of failures. Crime rates have dropped, homelessness has decreased, and a more moderate, pro-Lurie board of supervisors has taken power. However, the open-air drug markets persist, major conferences are not returning, and small businesses have not bounced back. Lurie is moderate compared to the Democratic Socialists of America, but simply dialing down the dysfunction should not be the best standard for better governance.

Worst of all, Zakaria actually praised DSA New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani. The former CNN contributor can identify all the problems with California he can find, but to suggest that a vile, communist, anti-Semitic perennial college student turned big-city mayor is focused on basic issues is preposterous: the rise in hate crimes, onerous tax policies, government-run grocery stores, failed rent-control policies, and hands-off approaches to the police department all reveal a boy mayor trying to fill shoes he cannot fit.

Democratic powerbrokers from Sacramento to San Diego follow the Mamdani model, generating failure and incompetence due to their “progressive” vision, all while ignoring reality, diminishing losses, and hiding the truth about the plagued state, but at least they feel good about themselves. Their vision is right, reality be damned.

When a political class celebrates such failure as success, why would they change it?

 

 


Friday, October 25, 2019

Open Letter to Freeport Memorial Library: Remove LGBT Indoctrination Cartoon Video


Mr. Bellafiore of the Freeport Memorial Library:

My name is Arthur Schaper, and I am the Organization Director for MassResistance. We are the international pro-family group that makes the difference.

Pastor Monk contacted our main office regarding some content which had been made available in the children's section of your library:

"Freedom Fighters: The Ray"



This so-called children's program included adult content, specifically homosexual interactions among different main characters in the DVD program.

Such content should not be permitted around children, and indeed it should have never been permitted in the library.

Furthermore, the library's decision to move this DVD to the adult, or general DVD section is inadequate.

This kind of material simply has no place in a library. It's basically pushing "homosexual evangelism", as though such behaviors are normal and acceptable.

In fact, they are deviant and destructive. 

No content should be allowed in the library that has such deceptive marketing.

On behalf of Pastor Monk and New York MassResistance, we demand that this DVD "Freedom Fighters: The Ray" be removed from the library immediately.

I expect to hear from you on this matter soon.

Mr. Ken Bellafiore
hates children, promotes LGBT perversion


NB: Our New York State activists, especially residents in Suffolk and Nassau Counties will be contacting you shortly.

Team, the librarian's email address is: kbellafiore@freeportlibrary.info
The Freeport Memorial phone number is (516) 379-3274 

The next Board Meeting is Wed. Nov. 20 at  7:30 p.m

Sincerely,

Arthur Schaper, Organization Director
Website: MassResistance.org
Email: arthur@massresistance.org
(781) 890-6001
@MassResistance
@CAMassResistanc


Thursday, September 6, 2018

Roll Call: The Five States to Watch for Election 2018 (Reflection)


Roll Call is another left-leaning political news rag, based in Washington DC.

The publication graces a number of desks and waiting rooms throughout Washington DC, especially in the House Offices.



For Election 2018, these articles are worth looking over to get a picture of how the press is evaluating the targeted House seats going forward.



With a growing number of vulnerable House districts, there might be too much to watch for on election night. But by focusing on just a handful of states, you can get a pretty good idea of whether Democrats are having a good enough night to gain the 23 seats necessary to win back the majority.



Minnesota

Competitive races: 5

Target Democratic gain for a majority: 1

The Land of 10,000 Lakes is home to five competitive House races, which is remarkable considering there are only eight congressional districts total in Minnesota.

Netting one seat might not sound like a steep climb for Democrats (who are technically part of the state’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party), but it would be a significant feat considering they are defending three districts that President Donald Trump carried in 2016.

DFL Rep. Collin C. Peterson is likely to win re-election in the 7th District (rated Likely Democratic), but holding the open 1st and 8th districts (left behind by gubernatorial nominee Rep. Tim Walz and retiring Rep. Rick Nolan, respectively) will be more difficult. Both are rated Toss-ups at this stage, but Democrats might be fortunate to lose just one.

If they lose bot, this is YUGE news for us. Republicans are positioned in many ways to do very well in Minnesota. President Trump's MAGA Agenda has been essential to Minnesotans, troubled not just by higher crime and bad trade deals, but the refugee crisis of open borders and illegal immigration.

On their offensive map, Democrats are probably struggling to reach a majority if they can’t defeat Republican Rep. Jason Lewis in the 2nd District (Toss-up). But if they can knock off Lewis and GOP Rep. Erik Paulsen in the 3rd District (Tilts Republican), they’ll probably be able to gain a seat out of the state.

Minnesota bottom line: Democrats probably need to gain at least a seat, while breaking even would be a disappointment.'

Very happy to hear about this. I believe that this will be the year that Minnesota goes from blue state to red state, and for good. The Democratic Party no longer cares about farmers and laborers. The Republican Party does, and Trump has brought that working class bonhomie back!



California

Competitive races: 9

Target Democratic gain for a majority: 5

Unlike Minnesota, it’s virtually all upside for Democrats in the Golden State. There are at least nine legitimately vulnerable GOP districts, while the Republican takeover opportunities have either faded or have yet to develop.

I have to call "BullSh--t" on this one. No matter how pumped up the Democratic Party may feel about the races in this state, the incumbents whom they are targeting are not as week as pundits may think.

Dana Rohrabacher is facing a steep set of challenges, sure. However, local and national political sites have often listed Rohrabacher's seat as a toss-up, but he has continued to win his seat handily without serious problem or incident.

The most likely to flip right now is the 49th District (Tilts Democratic), which opened after GOP Rep. Darrell Issa decided against seeking re-election. Democrats are also optimistic about winning Rep. Ed Royce’s open seat in the 39th District (Toss-up), although Republicans, who are confident about their nominee, have a very different view of the race. Democrats also believe they’re likely to defeat GOP Dana Rohrabacher in the 48th (Toss-up). Losing any of those seats — especially the open seats in districts that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016 — would be a punch in the gut for Democrats.

Gil Cisneros, who is running for CD-39 to replace Ed Royce, is a under an ethical and criminal cloud for sexual misconduct. He is part of the #MeToo madness which has overwhelmed the Democratic Party. Young Kim served as Congressman Ed Royce's district director for 20 years before she ran for state assembly in 2014 and won. She lost her re-election bid, then sought a seat on the Orange County Board of Supervisors. She switched to Royce's seat

But the party also has good takeover opportunities against Reps. Jeff Denham (10th District), Steve Knight (25th District), and Mimi Walters (45th District). The three races are currently rated Tilts Republican, but winning at least one of them is reasonable for Democrats under reasonably good electoral conditions.

Denham is going to be fine. The Democrats have been pushing this line for the last four years. They are not going to dislodge Denham. He is too well-known in the district. Central Valley politicians hold virtually the same positions, whether Democrat or Republican. They form the best relationships with all interested parties in the region, and no one can get rid of them.

Reps. Tom McClintock (4th District), David Valadao (21st District), and Duncan Hunter (50th District) are all vulnerable, albeit for different reasons. Their races are rated Likely Republican. Valadao has been a particularly elusive target for Democrats, and defeating him would be as symbolic of the cycle as it would be important for the majority.

Tom McClintock should not be on this list. Period. This is a total joke.

As for David Valadao, see Jeff Denham, and then add another element: the Democrat running against him is a total left-wing progressive whose San Francisco values simply cannot connect with the Central Valley constituency which Valadao has represented since his days in the state legislature.

Valadao is going to be fine.

Steve Knight? Same thing. His challenger, Katie Hill, is essentially another Los Angeles liberal completely out of place in the Antelope Valley/Simi Valley region. They are way too left-wing for districts where the incumbents are well-know by name and legislative legacy.

California bottom line: Democrats need to gain five seats here, but could theoretically get close to half of the overall gains they need for a majority if they sweep the California races.

Verdict. Only one seat may be lost: CD-49, although very likely that election will not be decided until two weeks after the election. Democrats are not going to net five seats. Not going to happen.



New York
Competitive races: 5

Target Democratic gain for a majority: 2

When it comes to New York, Democrats need a takeover state of mind, but none of the vulnerable Republican seats are easy or guaranteed. If Democrats fail to oust Reps. Claudia Tenney (22nd District) and John J. Faso (19th District), it’s going to be a long night for the party. Both seats are currently Toss-ups, but both incumbents are polling in the low- to mid-40s in most surveys.

Incumbency is almost as long-lasting as reigning monarchy, especially in New York. Faso is a liberal-leaning Republican, anyway

GOP Rep. John Katko consistently turns potentially competitive races into laughers, but Democrats haven’t given up hope in the 24th District this year. Even though former Rep. Michael G. Grimm didn’t win the Republican primary in the 11th District, Democrats still have a credible challenger to Rep. Dan Donovan. And Rep. Chris Collins’ indictment for insider trading opens the door for Democrats in the open 27th District. All are rated as Likely Republican, and wins here would be indicators of a good night for Democrats.

The 27th will stay in Republican hands. A new candidate will ensure a higher turnout, though.

New York bottom line: Democrats have a handful of opportunities and probably need to gain at least two for a majority. If they win more, and races such as the 1st District against Rep. Lee Zeldin truly come into play, Democrats are having a great night.

Zeldin has been very attentive to the concerns of his constituents, and his legislative record has demonstrated enough independence to ensure that he is sold on Trump's issues, even if he is not solidly on the Trump train.



Pennsylvania
Competitive races: 9

Target Democratic gain for a majority: 4

Democrats had a handful of targets in the Keystone State before the new congressional map was put in place. Now, with a combination of new district lines and open seats, Democrats have at least seven takeover opportunities.

Pennsylvania is the state which has given me the greatest pause. The districts were strictly gerrymandered, and even then one of the seats which had been solidly Republican for decades suddenly fell into Democratic hands. Is it possible that Connor Lamb could get ousted when the requisite number of Republican voters finally show up to the polls?

The 5th and 6th districts (Likely Democratic), left open by GOP Reps. Patrick Meehan and Ryan A. Costello, are ripe for the picking for Democrats. Former GOP Rep. Charlie Dent left behind a seat (now the new 7th District), which is vulnerable (Tilts Democratic), probably more so now that the GOP candidate had to spend time fending off a misconduct allegation. And new Democratic Rep. Conor Lamb has an excellent chance of knocking off GOP Rep. Keith Rothfus in the 17th District (Leans Democratic).

Democrats are also excited about their chances in the 1st District (Tilts Republican) against GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick and have longer-shot chances against Scott Perry (10th District) and Mike Kelly (16th District), with both races rated Likely Republican.

Democrats are likely to lose the 14th District, which constitutes a majority of the territory where Lamb won his special election. But Lamb lives — and is running — in the newly drawn 17th. So Democrats will have to subtract at least one from any gains elsewhere. Republicans also have a credible challenger against Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright in the 8th District (Leans Democratic), but it’s still too early to know if the congressman is in real trouble.

Pennsylvania bottom line: Democrats have a plethora of opportunities but will take at least one hit to their gains. They probably need to net at least four seats here.

They might get those four seats in Pennsylvania. One can only hope that Trump's victory in Erie County, which has never happened for a Republican, can intimate that Republican turnout will improve across the state on Election Night.



Illinois
Competitive races: 3

Target Democratic gain for a majority: 2

Illinois is on the list because Republicans' last greatest hope, Bruce Rauner, turned into the biggest failure, the most massive disappointment. He betrayed the Republicans and the conservative base he had pledged to work with on one issue after another.

Illinois has become a lost cause, and there is little else to blame besides Rauner.

There aren’t a ton of competitive races in Illinois, but they could be symptomatic of races around the country.

GOP Rep. Peter Roskam hasn’t had a competitive race in years, but he’s vulnerable in his 6th District (Toss-up), in part because of Trump’s unpopularity in the Chicago suburbs. Downstate, Trump carried the 12th District (Tilts Republican) handily by 15 points, but GOP Rep. Mike Bost is vulnerable, in part because Democrats recruited a strong challenger.

Bost is going to be fine. Roskam could be gone.

GOP Rep. Rodney Davis is also vulnerable in the 13th District (Leans Republican) and could suffer from increased college student turnout against the president. But the congressman isn’t in as bad of a shape right now as Roskam and Bost. If Rep. Randy Hultgren ends up in a neck-and-neck race in the 14th District, Democrats are having a solid night. His race is rated Solid Republican for now. Trump carried the 14th District — drawn to elect a Republican after the last census — by nearly 4 points, but the congressman hasn’t had a real race in years.

Congressman will do better than Presidents sometimes. The incumbency of being Congressman helps.

Illinois bottom line: Democrats need to gain two seats here for numerical and symbolic reasons. The party needs the numbers to get back to the majority, but winning in the suburbs is key (6th District), and seeing their top recruits succeed (12th District) would be good for morale as well.

Looking over the three seats analyzed by Roll Call, I think that Democrats are wasting their time on these incumbents. They won't win big in this state.

The article suggests that California has a lot of flip opportunities. I sincerely doubt that. The biggest chances of victory for Democrats will run through Pennsylvania.

Democrats have to win a net 23 house seats. They lost the special election for the Ohio race. They will win at least two seats in Minnesota, and perhaps two in Pennsylvania. That brings the number of seats which Democrats must clip to 27. Despite all the money they are spending in "swing" districts in California, the fact that Hillary Clinton supposedly "won" certain districts in California does not mean that a Democratic contender will knock out a Republican incumbent. The two races operate on different dynamics. Many Democrats were motivated to turn out for Hillary Clinton in California. 



Republicans up and down the state, however, were getting different messages from party leaders at the state and national levels. Trump fired up the base, but much of the political establishment did everything possible to minimize Trump and their connection to him. Some candidates openly defied their identification with Trump, refusing to endorse or even vote for him--and they lost. I also believe that their lack of enthusiasm for the national contender hurt the turnout for lower ballot races.

Sunday, January 21, 2018

#SchumerShutdown: Cryin' Chuck Cries Over Shutdown He Created

Cryin' Chuck Schumer has issued a press release on his official government website, telling everyone that he can't answer constituent phone calls because of the government shutdown, the very shutdown which he created.

Here is his statement:

Thank you for visiting Senator Schumer's website.
Unfortunately, as of 12:01am on Saturday January 20, 2018, there has been a lapse in federal appropriations, which means that the federal government is temporarily shutdown. Because of this, we are sorry to inform you that Senator Schumer's office will no longer be able to perform certain functions. Below is a list of information on how the government shutdown will affect the services that Senator Schumer's office normally provides.
Phones
During the government shutdown, Senator Schumer's offices, both in Washington D.C. and across New York State, won't be able to receive phone calls or faxes like we normally do. For emergencies, please call 1-212-486-1438 and we will do our best to get back to you.
Mail
Mail delivery in the United States Senate has stopped. If you sent Senator Schumer a letter prior to the shutdown and it has not yet arrived at our office, this mail will be held at a sorting facility until the government re-opens. Mail that was sent and delivered to Senator Schumer's office before the shutdown has been sorted and will be replied to once the government shutdown is over.
E-Mail
Senator Schumer will be able to receive email during the government shutdown but we will be unable to respond until the government reopens.
Help with a Federal Agency
Unfortunately, during the government shutdown, work on any outstanding help with a federal agency that Senator Schumer's office may be assisting you with is suspended. This includes, but is not limited to: problems with your Social Security, Passports, Visas, Medicare Assistance and Veterans Assistance. Work on these problems will continue immediately after the government re-opens. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. If you have an emergency related to a federal agency, please call 212-486-1438 and we will do our best to try to help you.

This is the most shameful display of political self-aggrandizement I have ever seen.

Chuck Schumer is putting illegal aliens, foreign nationals who are undermining our country ahead of the American citizens, particularly the military which defends our borders and our interests around the world.

The Democratic Party will lose numbers, will lose elections, and will lose hegemony in Washington and around the country if they can't get more foreign nationals into the country to vote for more government, more statism, and more dependence.

We cannot allow the Communist-Democratic Party to undermine this great country because they want votes.

It's crystal clear where Cryin' Chuck's allegiances truly stand:



Call Senator's Schumer's office, and demand that he stop holding our government, our military, our national security hostage:

322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6542
Fax:  (202) 228-3027
Get Directions

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Tax Reform Passes the House, and The Dirty Dozen Who Voted "No"

Congress is about to hand President Trump and the country a huge policy, legislative, and political victory. Tax Reform has just passed the House of Representatives.

The sausage-making that goes into legislation can be a real turn-off. Yet for the first time in recent memory, it has become much easier for men and women to know what our representatives are doing in Washington DC, so even if we don't like some of the things that enter the process, we can also pressure our House Reps and US Senators to do more of the right thing.



To the best of my knowledge, as of the writing of this post, there will be no DACA fix, no amnesty, no anything else going on regarding amnesty in any further bills passing out of Congress this week and before the Christmas recess. The House and the Senate need to focus on building the wall, funding all enforcement operations of the federal government to stop amnesty, protect Americans, and ensure the quality and sovereignty of the United States from foreign invaders and domestic enemies.



Tax reform has passed, and may get another vote based on a few reports that the House bill needs to remove some parts which cannot pass based on budget reconciliation rules in the United States Senate.

At any rate, there were 12 House Republicans who voted against the tax reform.

Who are they?

  • Dana Rohrabacher of California
  • Darrell Issa of California
  • Walter B. Jones of North Carolina
  • Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey
  • Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey
  • Leonard Lance of New Jersey
  • Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey
  • Lee Zeldin of New York
  • Peter T. King of New York
  • Dan Donovan of New York
  • John J. Faso of New York
  • Elise Stefanik of New York

This is an old discussion, although there are fewer Republicans than last time. Tom McClintock of Northern California did vote for the final bill this time, most likely because the revised legislation out of conference.

The three states represented are high tax states, except for Walter Jones of North Carolina. He has continued his opposition to the bill because of deficits. The high tax states depend on SALT deductions, but why should the rest of the country foot the bill for these states' high tax profligacy?

My response to their opposition: Let the economy roll, and watch the extra funding come into the national coffers and make up for any of the deficits. This bill is definitely worth voting for, and worth ensuring that Republicans in both chambers stand a strong chance of retaining the majorities and continuing the MAGA Agenda.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

The Notorious 20 House GOP Who Voted Against AHCA


Republicans did vote against the latest American Health Care Act.

EEK!

Who were these people?!

Here are their names (from Heavy.com):
  • Andy Biggs (Arizona) – Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona felt that the American Health Care Act does not go far enough in repealing Obamacare. “I have opposed the AHCA from the very beginning because it is not a clean repeal of Obamacare,” he said in a statement. “While I applaud all the hard work of the House Freedom Caucus, which has made every effort in recent weeks to improve this legislation, the final bill unfortunately does not meet the promises I made to my constituents.”
OK. It's not perfect. Neither was the reconciliation bill from 2015.

Biggs is one of the Freedom Caucus members, I believe. He wanted something better than nothing. His steps are pretty well-known, and Republicans in Arizona have had to deal with a diverse and undermining coalition of liberal-leaning Republicans who combine with Democrats to get more moderate-liberal leaning speakers in the past.

There's always more work to be done, though, no doubt.
  • Mike Coffman (Colorado) – Congressman Coffman said he opposed the bill because it does not do enough to protect those with pre-existing conditions. “I worry that, under the current language, a small percentage of those with preexisting conditions may not be adequately protected,” he said in a statement. “If House Leadership will work to tighten protections for those with preexisting conditions, I’m a yes on sending this bill to the Senate for further consideration. If not, I’m a no, and we’ll go back to the drawing board to clean up the mess created by the Affordable Care Act.” Clearly, he did not feel the House ended up doing enough to protect people with pre-existing conditions.
Coffman is in a swing district in Colorado, where the Democratic registration exceeds Republican registration by about two-three points. Rocky Mountain Republicans need to work harder and get their act together. Colorado was a reliable Republican strong holder until eight years ago. Get it together!


  • Barbara Comstock (Virginia) – Congresswoman Barbara Comstock of Virginia says that Obamacare is in a death spiral, but she’s not convinced that the American Health Care Act will actually lower costs. “While this bill addressed important principles like covering pre-existing conditions and not having lifetime limits imposed on the sick, and reducing costs and increasing choices for many working families, the uncertainties in the current version of the bill caused me not to be able to support it today,” she said in a statement.
She's in a swing district, too, actually, and she is still getting targeted.
  • Ryan A. Costello (Pennsylvania) – Congressman Ryan Costello of Pennsylvania said that the AHCA doesn’t do enough to protect people with pre-existing conditions. “Protections for those with pre-existing conditions without contingency and affordable access to coverage for every American remain my priorities for advancing healthcare reform, and this bill does not satisfy those benchmarks for me,” he said in a statement. “I do believe substantial reforms need to be made to our healthcare system. I will review any future modifications or legislation with these principles in mind, but I remain a no vote on this bill in its current form.”
  • Charlie Dent (Pennsylvania) – Congressman Charlie Deny of Pennsylvania said that the AHCA will leave too many people uninsured. “Too many people are going to be losing coverage,” he told CNN. “…Those are my underlying concerns. The new revised version does not address those concerns and that’s why I’m opposed to the bill.”
  • Dan Donovan (New York) – Congressman Dan Donovan of New York was not a fan of the fact that the bill exempts New York State counties from contributing to the state’s Medicaid coffers but does not include New York City in that exemption. “The provision excludes New York City, putting an unfair and disproportionate burden on City residents to cover the state’s exorbitant Medicaid expenses,” he said in a statement. “We need healthcare reform – including promised Medicaid reform in New York where we spend more than Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania combined – but it shouldn’t be done on the backs of already overburdened City residents who will undoubtedly have a tax increase forced on them to pay for this eminently unfair policy.”
I am scratching my head as I look at this.

1. He represents a part of New York City. That's a miracal in itself.

2. He wants to make nice with liberal New Yorkers. UGH!
  • Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania) – Congressman Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania said that the bill does not adequately address the opioid epidemic. “I have many concerns with this bill, and first among them is the impact on the single most important issue plaguing Bucks and Montgomery Counties, and the issue that I have made my priority in Congress: opioid abuse prevention, treatment and recovery,” he said in a statement.
  • Jaime Herrera Beutler (Washington) – Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington said that the bill does not provide an adequate safety net for kids who depend on Medicaid. “While I appreciate this week’s effort by Speaker Ryan and his leadership team to better protect older Americans from health care cost increases, the difficulties this bill would create for millions of children were left unaddressed,” she said in a statement. “I’m disappointed that it appears my amendment to strengthen the Medicaid safety net for the kids who depend on it for their health care will not be considered. Protecting vulnerable children is a core purpose of the Medicaid program and when the program fails to do so, it fails entirely. I will not vote to let those kids fall through the cracks.”
"It's about the children!" No, it's about holding onto his house seat. Washingotn State is not a red state. YET.
  • Will Hurd (Texas) – Congressman Hurd said in a statement, “Since the implementation of Obamacare, I’ve told my constituents that the only meaningful metric when it comes to healthcare is actual access to quality, affordable care – not just health insurance. While the goal of Obamacare was to make healthcare more accessible and more affordable, it has done just the opposite. Likewise, while the goal of the American Health Care Act was to combat the skyrocketing premiums and outrageous deductibles millions of Americans face, it too, falls short.”
But why, Will, why?
  • Walter B. Jones (North Carolina) – Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina said that the bill was rushed and highly flawed, and he added that he has heard loud and clear from his constituents that they don’t like it. “It’s time to scrap this flawed bill and start over,” he said in a statement. “Go out across the country, gather people’s input, and use an open, public process to thoughtfully craft a bill that delivers the relief the American people need.”
Do the right thing, no matter how many constituents scream of yell.
  • David Joyce (Ohio) – Congressman Joyce said, “I’m eager to support legislation that doesn’t reduce funding in the Medicare trust fund and actually helps lower healthcare costs for the more than 465,000 people in my district who obtain their health insurance via their employer. Those individuals, who make up 65 percent of the district, have seen nothing but higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher co-pays. We need to find solutions to help them and their families. The middle class cannot keep bearing the brunt of everything.”


Obamacare already reduced Medicare funding. Do we reallly want to hold onto what is already holding on for dear life? At all?!
  • John Katko (New York) – Congressman John Katko said that he felt the AHCA penalizes states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. He also said he was not convinced it will lower costs. “I’m not going to vote for a bill where I don’t know what it looks like until it’s done,” he said, according to Syracuse.com.
Very liberal Republica. Nuff said.
  • Leonard Lance (New Jersey) – Congressman Leonard Lance of New Jersey said that the AHCA will not lower costs. “I do not think that it lowers premiums, and I do not think that it covers enough people,” he told NPR. “And I read the CBO report, and I think that we have to move forward in a more bipartisan capacity. For example, I would like to see legislation passed that says we can purchase policy across state lines. That of course will require support from Democratic colleagues. And I challenge Democratic colleagues to come to the table and help repair the ACA.”
Katko.
  • Frank A. LoBiondo (New Jersey) – Congressman LoBiondo of New Jersey said that his constituents who rely on Medicare would be harmed under the AHCA. “Under the current proposal, many South Jersey residents would be left with financial hardship or without the coverage they now receive,” he said in a statement. “Our seniors on Medicare already struggle to make each dollar stretch. Three South Jersey counties have more than 30 percent of their residents receiving Medicaid assistance. Medical professionals – our hospitals, doctors, nurses – are opposed.”
See Katko.
  • Thomas Massie (Kentucky) – Congressman Massie of Kentucky was very much opposed to the American Health Care Act to the point that he actually said in an interview that it’s worse than Obamacare. According to Politico, he said that the bill relies on “replacing mandates, subsidies and penalties with mandates, subsidies and penalties.” In late March, he jokingly tweeted that he was changing his vote from “No” to “Hell No.”
Very principled freedom fighter. I respect his decision to reject AHCA. Interestingly enough, though, Justin Amash supported it.
  • Patrick Meehan (Pennsylvania) – Congressman Meehan of Pennsylvania said in a statement that the AHCA “threatens to send premiums skyrocketing for people with pre-existing conditions,” adding that it will “make coverage more expensive for for older Americans as they near retirement.”
What is it with Pennsylvania? Three of the PA delegation rejected the latest AHCA interation. Hmm...
  • Dave Reichert (Washington) – Congressman Reichert just recently announced that he would be voting against the AHCA. “This bill although a good attempt falls short,” he told a reporter on Thursday.
  • Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Florida) – Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement, “I will not support a bill that has the potential to severely harm the health and lives of people in South Florida and therefore I remain steadfast in my commitment to vote NO on the AHCA. The recent addition of further funds to high risk pools continues to be inadequate and fails to cover those who need it most. If enacted, the older and poorer South Floridians will be worse off and will find it more difficult to obtain quality healthcare. My constituents should not have to take a step backward in their ability to obtain treatment for any illness and thus, I will vote NO.”
She's worried about the senior citizens rising up against her, especially the liberal ones from New England who migrate and retire in the Sunshine State.
  • Christopher H. Smith (New Jersey) – Congressman Smith said that he opposed the bill because of its cuts to Medicaid. “The overriding concern I have is the Medicaid expansion being significantly altered,” Smith told the Asbury Park Press. “It affects so many of our disabled individuals and families, and the working poor.”
Katko Part III.
  • Michael R. Turner (Ohio) – Congressman Turner of Ohio simply said in a statement that the AHCA would cause many of his constituents to lose coverage. “After numerous discussions with the White House and the Speaker’s office, in an attempt to improve this bill, including discussions today, I could not support the bill in its current form,” he said in a statement. “This legislation will result in people in my community losing health care coverage. Therefore, I could not support it.”
Sell-out. Who needs him. Get rid of him.