Let's get one thing straight and out of the way:
There Are No "Moderate" Republicans.
There are Republican officeholders who, on occasion but not because of "principles," will vote against the rotted out party's agenda. It's generally based on some calculation involving re-election or extorting some legislative favor (refer back to "re-election"), but not on consistent application of "principles." If that were the case, neither the House nor Senate Republican wealthfare bill would have been drafted, since they grossly violate the Republican "principle" of reducing the debt -- a "principle" which only comes into play when a Democrat is in the White House. But "moderate Republicans?" Please.
The latest example of this, shall we say, ethical "fluidity" is Maine's Republican
Senator Susan Collins, who either just fell off the turnip truck or is willing to believe a number of promises made by notable truth- teller and policy genius Donald "Rump" Trump (
via TPM):
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) walked out of a lunch meeting Tuesday with President Trump and Senate Republicans with a broad smile on her face, telling reporters that promises from the president to support two separate health care bills left her “encouraged” and more amenable to voting to repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate—something just weeks ago she warned would devastate the middle class. [snip]
Collins insisted Tuesday that she secured support from Trump for two bills she says would mitigate the damage of repealing the mandate—one to restore government subsidies to insurance companies that Trump defunded earlier this year and the other to set up a federal reinsurance program.
Health policy experts are not so sure.
“The Alexander-Murray bill—while good policy on its own—would come nowhere close to undoing the damage from individual mandate repeal. The same is true of the Collins-Nelson proposal,” writes Aviva Aron-Dine, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a former senior counselor at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Aron-Dine says the reinsurance funding in the Collins-Nelson bill, about $2.25 billion per year for just two years, falls far short of the $10 billion per year in permanent funding needed to prevent premiums from rising. She added that repealing the mandate is also likely to be the final straw that pushes insurers to flee the market entirely.
Collins can't be unaware of the implications of passing the Senate wealthcare bill, and she also can't be unaware that "promises" from Rump are worth the same as a certificate from Trump University. So, the most reasonable explanation is that now that she's running for re- election, she needs to rejoin the tribe and get with the program, and this is her "get back in the fold" card.
Others not subject to re- election like Sen. Corker of Tennessee and Sens. Flake and McCain of Arizona, have expressed "concerns" over various aspects of the bill, the former focusing on its ballooning the deficit, the latter more for "regular order" issues. Don't expect their objections to last the week, however. They're posturing for various reasons, none of which will exist once the roll call begins.
Finally, as a fig leaf for her shriveled conscience, Collins is taking refuge in some magical thinking:
Though Collins said earlier this month that she would need these bills passed into law before voting on the Senate tax and mandate repeal bill, she moved the goalpost on Tuesday.
“I’m pushing to make sure they are passed and signed into law prior to the conference report coming back,” she said, “So I would know for certain that we’re going to be able to mitigate the impact of repealing the individual mandate.”
When reporters pointed out the possibility that there will be no conference committee, that the House just passes the bill as-is, Collins waved away that fear. “Everything I’m hearing is that there is going to be a conference committee,” she said.
Will she act indignant for the folks back home when the individual mandate repeal ends up in the bill Rump signs and her constituents lose their health insurance? Or when her low- and moderate- income constituents see their taxes go up? Why, of course she will. But only "moderately" indignant.
Former Reagan official
Bruce Bartlett explains why these sociopaths need to pass this wealthfare atrocity now (found via
NMMNB):
If Democrats get control of one or both houses of Congress next year — a good bet — then obviously the tax cutting will end. That’s why Republicans are working at breakneck speed to get their tax cut enacted ASAP. They will use any lie, any tactic, no matter how underhanded, to achieve their goal.
Republican deficit hawks, who are now AWOL, will suddenly reappear the moment Trump signs the tax cut. The media will be filled with reports from leading authorities about how the deficit endangers the country in a variety of ways, arguing that action must be taken immediately.
But taxes will be off the table because of the tax pledge. Therefore, all deficit reduction must come from spending cuts. And of course, defense cuts will be off the table. Therefore, the bulk of cuts will have to come from so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare because that’s all that will be left.
Condensed down: afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable.
Remember on what side those "moderate Republicans" come down. Then we need to vote immoderately.
BONUS:
Another "moderate" rolls over.
(
Photo: Sen. Susan Collins - um, no.)
