Senate rejects Obamacare repeal in blow for Trump

Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 9.56.40 AM

The US Senate has not supported a “skinny” repeal of the previous administration’s healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), widely known as Obamacare.

*

The repeal failed by a narrow margin of 49 – 51. At least three Republicans voted “no,” including John McCain, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski. It was GOP Senator John McCain who cast the decisive vote, killing the repeal.

Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 10.00.01 AM

The “no” vote followed long Senate debates on the controversial Health Care Freedom Act.

Trump took to Twitter to show his dissatisfaction with the result, saying those who voted “no” let down Americans.

Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 10.01.41 AM

Earlier, Republicans expressed concern that the “skinny” bill wasn’t ready to become law without further conferencing with the House. The bill suggested repealing Obamacare’s employer mandate until 2025 and cutting funding to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood for one year.

READ MORE: 15mn Americans would opt out of Obamacare if they could – CBO

A total of 16 million Americans could have been left uninsured if the lawmakers had passed the plan, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates.

The controversial replacement of the healthcare bill has long been debated in the Senate. However, Republicans – who hold the majority – had to delay the vote due to McCain’s illness.

Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 10.03.38 AM

MсCain, who has voiced his opposition to the existing healthcare law, believes the proposed “skinny repeal” failed to meet the goals of replacement, including increasing competition, lowering costs, and improving care.

“We must now return to the correct way of legislating and send the bill back to committee, hold hearings, receive input from both sides of aisle, heed the recommendations of nation’s governors, and produce a bill that finally delivers affordable health care for the American people,” the senator said in a statement.

Some have taken to Twitter to slam the Senate vote, with one person calling McCain a “traitor.”

Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 10.05.00 AM

Others celebrated the defeat of the “skinny repeal” and lauded the Republicans who made it possible by going against their fellow party members.

Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 10.06.38 AM

It is unclear what the Trump administration plans to do in order to repeal the previous administration’s healthcare law. The US president is a strong critic of Obamacare, and its replacement was one of his key campaign promises.

Medicaid Enrollees Set to Climb 40 Million Under Obamacare…

Capture

By Terence P. Jeffrey | July 24, 2017 | 5:37 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) – Under current law—including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)—there will be 112,000,000 people who enroll in Medicaid at some time during fiscal 2027, according to the latest baseline estimate published by the Congressional Budget Office.

That would be an increase of 40,000,000 from fiscal 2013, the last year before Obamacare’s expansion of the Medicaid program went into effect.

In fiscal 2013, according to CBO, there were 72,000,000 enrolled in Medicaid at some point during the year.

Capture

At 112,000,000, enrollees in the U.S. Medicaid program would outnumber the 2016 Census Bureau regional population estimates for the American West (76,657,000); the Midwest (67,941,429); and the Northeast (56,209,510). Only the South—with a Census Bureau-estimated population of 122,319,574 in 2016—had more people living in it last year than the CBO expects will be enrolled in Medicaid at some point in fiscal 2027.

The CBO’s baseline estimates for Medicaid enrollment list two different annual numbers for the program. One is the “average monthly enrollment” and the other is the “total” enrollment.

The “average monthly enrollment” numbers, CBO explained in its latest baseline, “represent the number of beneficiaries, with full and partial benefits, who are enrolled on an average monthly basis.” The “total” enrollment is the “total number of individuals enrolled in Medicaid at any point during the fiscal year.”

The Medicaid baseline projections that the CBO published in April 2014, shortly after the Obamacare Medicaid expansion started to take effect, said that in fiscal 2013 (which had ended on Sept. 30, 2013), there had been a total of 72 million people enrolled in Medicaid and that the average monthly enrollment had been 58 million.

The CBO’s most recent Medicaid baseline projection, published in January 2017, said there was a total of 97 million people enrolled in Medicaid in fiscal 2016 and that the average monthly enrollment for 2016 was 76 million.

That means total annual Medicaid enrollment, according to CBO’s numbers, had increased by 25 million from fiscal 2013 to fiscal 2016 (rising from 72 million to 97 million) and that average monthly enrollment had increased by 18 million (rising from 58 million to 76 million).

The CBO’s January 2017 baseline projection for Medicaid estimates that by fiscal 2027 average monthly enrollment in Medicaid will climb to 87 million and total enrollment will climb to 112 million.

If the CBO projection is correct, that means that from fiscal 2013, the year before Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion took effect, to fiscal 2027, the average monthly enrollment in Medicaid will increase by 29 million (rising from 58 million to 87 million) and total enrollment will increase by 40 million (rising from 72 million to 112 million).

“Historically, Medicaid eligibility has generally been limited to certain low-income children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities; however, as of January 1, 2014, states have the option to extend Medicaid coverage to most nonelderly, low-income individuals,” the Congressional Research Service explained in a report on the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148 as amended) established 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL) (effectively 138% of FPL with an income disregard of 5% of FPL) as the new mandatory minimum Medicaid income eligibility level for most nonelderly individuals,” said CRS.

“If a state accepts the ACA Medicaid expansion funds, it must abide by the expansion coverage rules,” said CRS.

 

Dobbs To Ryan – Get With President Trump’s Agenda Or Get Out Of The Way

By Rick Wells

Lou Dobbs offers his “few thoughts on now on House leadership and the deep darkness that has descended on Capitol Hill when it comes to Obamacare, it’s repeal and replacement. The Republicans choking off now light and truth while secreting the repeal and replacement of Obamacare.”

Dobbs continues, “Speaker Ryan today joining Vice President Pence and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price in Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, WI, where he vowed an Obamacare replacement is coming soon. The Speaker also responded to some criticism that the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare is being done in the dark behind closed doors.”

He plays a clip of Ryan “getting defensive” on the Bret Baier program just a few moments earlier, when his methods were compared to the way Democrats shove things down the throats of the American people in the dark of night. Ryan said, indignantly, “Are you kidding me, Bret? Give me a break. Seriously?”

Dobbs has his take on that selective feigned outrage, asking, “Are you kidding me, Mr. Speaker? Yet one member of the committee that decided to require lawmakers go to a designated room to see the bill, Congressman Michael Burgess, said he would have chosen against the cloak and dagger approach.”

He says, “And as for Ryan’s so-called better way, yes, we heard it again from Speaker Ryan instead of the President’s agenda, this fiction that exists in his mind principally, and not on the Internet in a profound way. Republicans in both the House and the Senate are disgusted with Ryan’s fascistic refusal to follow regular order, to hold public hearings that are relevant and timely, to provide for debate and amendment in both the Senate and the House.”

Dobbs point out, “Ryan’s conditions are more suitable for growing mushrooms than crafting legislation in the public interest.” He goes on to highlight the growing dissent and bubbling rebellion in Congress, saying, “House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows earlier this week told me Americans didn’t vote for a partial repeal and Congressman Jim Jordan also slamming the GOP leadership’s proposal.”

“The Chairman of the Republican Study Committee,” notes Dobbs, “Congressman Mark Walker also slamming the dark proceedings and Ryancare or, if you will, Obamacare lite, saying he would vote against the proposal.”

Dobbs says, “Speaker Ryan may be pleasing his masters on “K” Street and, oh yes, “H” Street as well, but he is without question arrogantly defying his conference, the Senate and yes, the President of the United States. After all, he does represent, the President does, the will of the American people. “

Dobbs adds, “If I may suggest to the Speaker, get on with the President’s agenda or get out of the way.”

 

LAWSUIT: OBAMA ROBBED PRIVATE INVESTORS TO FUND OBAMACARE

Private investments seized to save Obamacare

| Infowars.com – FEBRUARY 28, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Two lawsuits proceeding through the federal courts threaten to expose and disrupt a scheme the Obama administration concocted in 2012 to confiscate all the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac – the government’s two mortgage giants – with a plan to divert billions of dollars to pay essential Obamacare insurance subsidies that Congress had refused to fund.

On July 9, 2013, Fairholme Funds, Inc., a mutual fund that held preferred stock issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac,” filed suit against the U.S. government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment for their property when the Obama administration, in the so-called “Net Worth Sweep” of 2012, confiscated all Fannie and Freddie profits.

In 2008, when the economy went into recession over the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, HERA, to save Fannie and Freddie by a federal bailout that placed the two Government Sponsored Entities, GSEs, into government conservatorship, with the U.S. Treasury recapitalizing Fannie and Freddie by issuing to the GSEs $187.5 billion in senior preferred stock with a 10% dividend designed to repay the U.S. Treasury over time.

But in 2012, when Fannie and Freddie became profitable, as the mortgage market returned with rigorous credit underwriting and a zero-interest rate environment maintained by the Federal Reserve, the Obama administration initiated a “Net Worth Sweep,” designed to confiscate 100% of the profits generated by Fannie and Freddie.

The result was that private shareholders like Fairholme Funds were paid nothing on their Fannie and Freddie stock.

In August 2012, the Obama administration engineered an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements creating a variable dividend that allowed the U.S. Treasury to grab all Fannie and Freddie profits, regardless how large Fannie and Freddie’s earnings might be.

In 2016, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, ruled the Department of Health and Human Services could not use taxpayer dollars to pay Obamacare insurance subsidies Congress refused to fund.

To solve this problem, the Obama administration defied the District Court by diverting profits confiscated from Fannie and Freddie to pay the Obamacare insurance subsidies Congress had refused to fund.

To block the progress of the Fairholme lawsuit, the Obama administration asserted executive privilege, seeking to withhold some 77,945 documents from the public view, including some 12,251 documents the government wanted completely withheld (even from the federal court).

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit asserted the government’s purpose in seeking to keep the documents secret was to conceal the government’s motives in seizing from private and institutional shareholders their stock dividends in Fannie and Freddie the government wanted to seize.

“The government has asserted the information could be ‘disruptive to markets.’ However, it is difficult to imagine how discussions by officials as far back as eight years ago and emails on matters as mundane as daily press clips could impact today’s markets, which, by definition operate on the very latest information,” wrote constitutional law scholar John Yoo. “Executive privilege is available for presidents to use in highly sensitive matters, and its use is constrained by specific procedures.”

“In the pending litigation on the Net Worth Sweep, the government has applied this privilege in an overly broad and unjustified manner,” Yoo continued. “Either federal officials are trying to cover up something they know is illegal, or we are witnessing an unprecedented and disturbing obsession with secrecy.”

On Oct. 4, 2016, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., gave her first order demanding the release of some of the documents that the government sought to withhold – documents the New York Times reported reached “the highest levels of the Obama administration.”

The New York Times further reported the government initially had argued that in seizing Fannie and Freddie, it had acted to protect taxpayers from future losses because the companies were in “a death spiral” and taxpayers needed protection from future losses.

But documents Judge Sweeney forced to be released made clear the government moved to seize all earnings of Fannie and Freddie just before the two mortgage giants were about to become profitable.

Fairholme and the other plaintiffs in the case had asked Judge Sweeney to review a sample of 56 documents in the case to determine if the government had a legitimate argument to seal the documents.

After her review, Judge Sweeney ruled that the documents should be released because Fairholme had an “overwhelming” need for the documents and no other source of available evidence “would similarly inform their understanding” of the events surrounding the profit sweep.

On Jan. 30, 2017  a three-judge panel for of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the federal circuit ruled unanimously that 48 of the 56 documents were not privileged, but should be released to the plaintiffs.

In writing their order, the three-judge panel expressed sympathy for the plaintiffs’ argument that the documents the government sought to seal would reveal (if made public) that Fannie and Freddie were not in a threat of a “death spiral” to insolvency when the Net Worth Sweep was ordered by the government in 2012.

Instead, the three-judge panel suggested the respondents should have access to the 48 documents in their attempt to prove the GSEs were reporting substantial profits at the time that were more than sufficient to cover the Treasury’s original 10% dividend guarantee and potentially to pay dividends to the other shareholders as well.

At issue was the plaintiff’s argument the Treasury appropriated the stock held by private investors to generate what the Treasury knew would be a massive return on the investment to the government.

FannieFreddieSecrets.org, a website created to make easily readable the documents Judge Sweeney through a series of rulings starting in October 2016, has revealed public archives and a deposition from Susan McFarland, Fannie’s former chief financial officer, from July 2015.

In her deposition, McFarland refuted projections made by Grant Thornton, the accounting firm the government had hired to do a financial analysis on Fannie and Freddie, speculating that Fannie Mae was going to lose $13 billion in 2012, the year in which the Obama administration decided to start confiscating Fannie and Freddie earnings.

McFarland revealed in the deposition that she had told high-level officials at the Treasury on Aug. 8, 2012, that the company (Fannie Mae) was “now in a sustainable profitability, that we would be able to deliver sustainable profits over time.”  McFarland added that while Fannie was “not there yet,” she as financial officer “could see positive things occurring.”

A letter from then Secretary of the Treasury Jacob L. Lew, addressed to then House Speaker John Boehner dated May 17, 2013, also rejects the government contention the Fannie and Freddy were in “a death spiral” at the time of government confiscation.

In the letter, written at a time when the Treasury was preparing to engage in “extraordinary measures” because Congress had not yet authorized an increase in the statutory debt limit, Lew explained to then-House Speaker Boehner that Treasury had just learned “last week” that it was anticipating a payment of $60 billion from Fannie Mae to be delivered on June 28, 2013.

In another document unsealed by Judge Sweeney, a Grant Thornton, purportedly showing Freddie Mac’s deteriorating financial condition, contained a marginal note handwritten by an unidentified Grant Thornton employee, saying: “3 yrs. of cum. profits, you start to think about releasing the valuation allow. The valuation allow. When probably 2013, 2014.”

In the second case, originally filed as Perry Capital LLC vs. Lew (now, Perry Capital LLC, for and on behalf of Investment Funds for which it acts as investment manager, Appellant v. Steven T. Mncuhin, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Et Al., Appellees) the investment manager Perry Capital LLC sued the Treasury Department over the decision made in the “Net Worth Sweep” of 2012, and specifically the decision made on August 17, 2012, through which the Obama administration succeeded in engineering an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements that resulted in the private and institutional shareholders of Fannie and Freddie being shut off from receiving future dividends on their Fannie and Freddie stock.

On Feb. 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the Obama administration had acted within its authority under HERA.

While this decision was widely viewed as a victory for the government, the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals was very narrow, arguing only that the statutory claims of Perry Capital LLC were barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review.

Instead of dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, the Circuit Court remanded the case to the lower District Court to litigate contract-based claims regarding their rights as shareholders to have received Fannie and Freddie dividends.

Translated into ordinary English, the Circuit Court punted, sending the case back to the District Court where the Perry’s contractual claims regarding the rights of shareholders to receive dividends could be properly litigated at trial.

In what has become a complicated case, legal analysts still maintain that at the District Court level, Perry LLC stands an excellent chance to force the Treasury “to return the money, which it had no right to receive in the first place.”

EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA ILLEGALLY ROBBED FANNIE, FREDDIE TO FUND OBAMACARE

capture

Obama diverted money from low-income housing to keep Obamacare alive

Jerome R. Corsi | Infowars.com – FEBRUARY 27, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Will this be the final nail in the coffin for the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare?”

Federal court litigation provides evidence the Obama administration illegally diverted taxpayer funds that had not been appropriated by Congress in an unconstitutional scheme to keep Obamacare from imploding.

In 2016, a U.S. District judge caught the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department acting unconstitutionally and therefore put an end to the illegal diversion of taxpayer funds, but the Obama administration didn’t stop there.

capture

The Obama administration instead turned to the nation’s two government-sponsored mortgage giants – the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac” – to invent a new diversion of funds in a desperate attempt to keep Obamacare from collapsing.

A key date is May 12, 2016. That was the day when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), ruled against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

Judge Collyer decided HHS Secretary Burwell had no constitutional authority to divert funds Congress appropriated to one section of the ACA to fund Obamacare subsidy payments to insurers under another section of the ACA, Section 1402 – the clause defining the insurer subsidies – when Congress specifically declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.

“Paying out Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” Judge Collyer concluded. “Congress authorized reduced cost sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget or since.”

“Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”

The U.S. District court in this ruling entered judgment in favor of the House of Representatives, barring HHS from using unappropriated money to pay insurers under Section 1402.

What was at issue in Section 1402 was the Obamacare provision that capped the amount of federal subsidies under Section 1402 that lower-income families could use to pay for insurance purchased on state insurance exchanges, particularly the difference between the capped maximum based on a person or family’s income in relation to the federal poverty level.

Congress had refused to pass an appropriation to fund Section 1402 – the section of the ACA that called for making the insurance subsidy payments.

In a report issued in March 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost for providing Section 1402 subsidies over the next ten years (2016-2026) was estimated to be $130 billion.

Forbidden by Judge Collyer’s decision from diverting money Congress appropriated for other ACA provisions to pay Section 1402 subsidies, the Obama administration faced the prospect that the government could not pay subsidies to permit lower-income persons and families to buy the amount of health insurance Obamacare was written to provide them.

Either this, or insurers would be forced to charge middle and high income-persons and families such outrageous amounts for their insurance coverage (to subsidize the poor under ACA) that only the wealthiest could afford to buy health insurance.

In other words, Obamacare was dead in the water if the Obama administration could not find a way to circumvent the District Court’s decision U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell to fund Section 1402 despite the fact Congress had refused to do so.

Determined to keep Obamacare alive, the Obama administration decided to find a way around Judge Collyer’s ruling.

The fix involved the Obama administration redefining the terms of the 2008 conservatorship agreements which advanced funds to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from a 10% dividend on moneys borrowed to the federal government’s confiscation of 100% of the future and imminent profits of these Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

Miraculously, the Freddie and Fannie “pot of gold” turned out to be almost exactly the amount the Obama administration needed to meet the anticipated insurance company subsidies required to keep Section 1402 in business.

So, how did Fannie and Freddie get this pot of gold, given that only a few years earlier both GSEs were bankrupt?

In 2008, in the midst of the financial crisis caused in part by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, the federal government decided to seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at the time were two shareholder-owned companies.

In passing the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), the U.S. Congress had fixed the regulatory issues at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, creating a mechanism for them to be placed into conservatorship at federal government’s discretion AND providing up to $187.5 billion in funds that could be advanced to the GSEs through a purchase of senior preferred stock paying a ten percent dividend.

In deciding to bail them out, the federal government took control of the two giant mortgage GSEs, with Fannie and Freddie effectively put into government “conservatorship.”

As part of the conservatorship, the federal government effectively acquired warrants, convertible at a nominal price, which allowed the federal government to acquire 79% of the GSE’s common stock.

This resulted in causing dilution in the percentage of Fannie and Freddie common stock ownership that was left in the hands of private and institutional investors.

Congress’ intent was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay back the Treasury as the mortgage giants returned to profitability.

But after the Treasury was paid back, the terms of HERA anticipated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay appropriate dividends to stockholders, including the federal government, leaving enough funds within Freddie and Fannie to “conserve and preserve” the assets of the two GSEs, anticipating their eventual return to a “safe and solvent” operating condition.

In 2012, the Obama administration unilaterally decided to change the terms of HERA by sweeping all the profits of Fannie and Freddie into the Treasury’s general fund.

The Obama administration took this action, the so-called “Net Worth Sweep,” without any Congressional authority to do so.

The result was that the U.S. Treasury “found” a way to sweep 100% of Fannie and Freddie profits into the Treasury’s “general fund,” leaving the giant mortgage GSEs vulnerable to the need for another government bailout should another disruption occur in the nation’s economy.

Because of this decision, the Obama administration on its own authority simply decided to discontinue paying dividends to private and institutional owners of Fannie and Freddie common and preferred stock.

Congress, in passing HERA, never anticipated the Obama administration would take over Fannie and Freddie and strip the agencies of all profits – a move that left private and institutional shareholders in the cold.

Leading up to the decision to sweep Fannie and Freddie’s profits, the GSEs return to imminent profitability was known only by a few government officials and their consultants.

Their own internal forecasts, uncovered in unsealed court documents, showed that Fannie and Freddie’s profitability would soon dramatically outperform the amount of the allowable 10% dividend that the Treasury would receive under the existing Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements.

On August 17, 2012, these same officials and consultants succeeded in engineering with the Federal Housing Financial Agency, FHFA, and the Department of Treasury an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements that allowed the U.S. Treasury to grab ALL Fannie and Freddie profits – regardless how large Fannie and Freddie’s earnings might be.

Between 2012, when the Obama administration began its policy of confiscating all Fannie and Freddie profits and now, Fannie and Freddie have paid the U.S. Treasury general fund more than $240 billion in dividends.

The point is that after May 12, 2016, when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that HHS had to stop diverting ACA funds to pay Obamacare subsidies, the Obama administration realized that HHS somehow had to fund the estimated $130 billion the HHS would need in un‐appropriated monies to pay health insurers the ACA subsidies required to keep Obamacare alive in Fiscal Year 2013.

Plaintiffs litigating against the Obama administration’s confiscation of Freddie and Fannie earnings have challenged in court whether the Obama administration’s decision to amend the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement in August 2012 and sweep GSE profits of $130 billion in 2013 ($82.4 billion from Fannie Mae, and $47.6 billion from Freddie Mac) was an attempt to circumvent Congress on the single most important policy priority of the White House.

The timing was particularly interesting given that September 2012 marked the beginning of the sequestration discussions.

Government documents leave little doubt profits from Fannie and Freddie confiscated by the U.S. Treasury have been used by the Obama administration to pay Obamacare subsidies and other items not appropriated by Congress, in complete and illegal circumvention of the District Court’s ruling and the Constitution’s determination that only the Congress shall have the power to tax and spend.

For instance, Chapter 3 of the Congressional Budget Office publication “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025” notes on page 63 that the major contributors to mandatory U.S. government spending include “… outlays for Medicaid, subsidies for health insurance purchases through exchanges, and the government’s transactions with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

Why Fannie and Freddie are specified in this context, when Fannie and Freddie have had sufficient earnings to operate without government subsidies since 2008 is made clear a few pages later.

On page 65, in Table 3-2, the CBO report notes “mandatory outlays projected in CBO’s baseline” from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 2014 is -$74 billion and for 2015 a total of -$26 billion.

The figures are “negative dollar amounts” because instead of paying out to Freddie and Fannie, the U.S. Treasury is collecting from Freddie and Fannie, with the proceeds going into the U.S. Treasury general fund to pay “mandatory outlays,” including evidently continued subsidies to insurers, as specified by ACA Section 1402.

In footnote 14 on page 8 of that CBO report lets the cat out of the bag, noting the Obama administration considers payments from Freddie and Fannie “to be outside of the federal government for budgetary purposes,” recording cash payments from Freddie and Fannie to the Treasury as “federal receipts.”

The Obama administration evidently considered this all-too-convenient redefinition of terms allowed the government to argue the use of Fannie and Freddie profits to pay Obamacare Section 1402 subsidies was not in violation of the District Court ruling.

Why? Evidently because Fannie and Freddie profits were not taxpayer-generated, but were profit payments generated by Government Sponsored Entities that still had some common and preferred stock private and institutional shareholder ownership.

In the same footnote, the CBO takes exception with the Obama administration, commenting the CBO considers profit payments to the Treasury made by Fannie and Freddie to be “intragovernmental” receipts going into the same Treasury general fund pot, to be mixed indistinguishably with taxpayer revenue, not distinct public/private GSE “receipts” separately accounted for in the Treasury general fund as distinguishable from taxpayer revenue.

If the federal courts conclude Fannie and Freddie GSE “receipts” to Treasury still need Congressional appropriation to be spent legitimately by the executive branch of government, the Obama administration will have been exposed as having operated outside the Constitution in its desperate attempt to keep the ACA from imploding.

What should be outrageous to progressives understanding the Obama administration subterfuge to keep the ACA alive is that by confiscating Fannie/Freddie profits to keep Obamacare alive, Obama ignored core members of the Democratic Party’s core constituency – affordable housing advocates and minority groups – with little explanation.

COULTER: House passed SIX Obamacare repeals when Obama was president! Now NOTHING…

screen-shot-2017-02-16-at-10-01-56-am

Let’s compare what President Trump has accomplished since the inauguration (with that enormous crowd!) with what congressional Republicans have done.

In the past three weeks, Trump has: staffed the White House, sent a dozen Cabinet nominees to the Senate, browbeat Boeing into cutting its price on a government contract, harangued American CEOs into keeping their plants in the United States, imposed a terrorist travel ban, met with foreign leaders and nominated a Supreme Court justice, among many other things.

(And still our hero finds time to torment the media with his tweets!)

What have congressional Republicans been doing? Scrapbooking?

More than 90 percent of congressional Republicans kept their jobs after the 2016 election, so you can cross “staffing an entire branch of government” off the list. Only the Senate confirms nominees, which they’ve been doing at a snail’s pace, so they’ve got loads of free time — and the House has no excuse at all.

Where’s the Obamacare repeal? Where are the hearings featuring middle-class Americans with no health insurance because it was made illegal by Obamacare?

The House passed six Obamacare repeals when Obama was president and there was no chance of them being signed into law. Back then, Republicans were full of vim and vigor! But the moment Trump became president, the repeals came to a screeching halt.

After the inauguration (gigantic!), House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put out a plan for repealing Obamacare … in 200 days. They actually gave their legislative agenda this inspiring title: “The Two Hundred Day Plan.”

TWO HUNDRED DAYS!

What was in the last six Obamacare repeals? If we looked, would we find “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” carefully typed out 1 million times? Seriously, what does Paul Ryan’s day look like?

This is the Silence of the Lambs Congress. They’re utterly silent, emerging from the House gym or their three-hour lunches only to scream to the press about Trump.

To the delight of the media, these frightened little lambs are appalled by nearly everything Trump does. They’ve been especially throaty about Trump’s temporary travel ban from seven terrorist nations — as designated by the Obama administration (and by everybody else who hasn’t been in a deep freeze in a Finnish crevasse for the past decade).

Just like the six Obamacare repeals, a refugee ban was already written and passed by one house of Congress. Then suddenly: the Silence of the Lambs. McConnell and Ryan are hiding under their desks, as Trump is being attacked from every side.

Way, way back, 15 long months ago, congressional Republicans didn’t have a problem with a total ban on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Not for a mere three months like Trump’s order — but permanently, unless the director of the FBI, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence personally certified that a particular refugee posed no danger to the U.S.

That bill passed the House with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority, including 47 Democrats. Then it went to the Senate to die.

But when President Trump imposed a comparatively mild three-month ban on immigrants from Syria, Iraq and five other terrorist nations, the same Republicans who had voted for a limitless ban on refugees whiled away their days calling reporters to denounce Trump.

A little more than a year ago, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, bragged in a press release that he had introduced the House’s refugee ban, calling it a bill that would “protect Americans from ISIS.”

But when it came to Trump’s three-month pause, McCaul told the Post that Trump’s order “went too far.”

I guess that ISIS problem just sort of faded away. (Or maybe we should check with Mrs. McCaul, inasmuch as it’s her family money that makes Rep. McCaul one of the richest members of Congress.)

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., who voted for the House’s permanent refugee ban, demanded that Trump immediately rescind his travel ban, babbling on about the “many, many nuances of immigration policy” — which he must have learned about on one of his congressional jaunts to a Las Vegas casino.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said that Trump’s order “overreaches and undermines our constitutional system.” Evidently, he was suddenly struck by the realization that it’s “not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality,” despite having voted to ban refugees on the basis of nationality just 15 months earlier. (I’m OK with this, provided the Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis are sent to live on Justin’s street after being told about his support for gay marriage.)

Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., both rushed to The Washington Post with this refreshingly original point: NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! Why, thank you, senators! Where would the GOP be without you?

The Post also quoted spokesmen — spokesmen! — for Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rob Portman of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina complaining about not having been briefed on Trump’s order. The senators themselves were far too busy to talk to the press because they were — wait, what were they doing again? Words With Friends? Decoupage?

Since the election, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has been mostly occupied polishing his anti-Trump quotations to get a pat on the head from an admiring media. He complained about Trump’s order, saying it was “poorly implemented” and that he had to find out about it from reporters. (I wonder why.)

This is the moment we’ve been waiting for our entire lives, but Republicans in Congress refuse to do the people’s will. Their sole, driving obsession is to see Trump fail.

I am not presently calling for these useless, narcissistic, Trump-bashing Republicans to be defeated in their re-election bids, but they’re on my Watch List. To be cleared, they can start by getting off the phone with The Washington Post and passing one of those six Obamacare repeal bills.