Various Topics in the News This Week

Various Topics in the News This Week

Listen:

• mediaBrew Media Player: ( 20 Min. mp3)
• Default Device Player: ( 20 Min. mp3)

Summary

• Republican Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene unexpectedly supports extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, highlighting that her children’s premiums will double if subsidies expire, impacting millions of Americans.
• Democrats are advocating for ACA subsidy extensions in federal spending negotiations, while Republican leaders refuse to discuss this until the government is reopened.
• Polls suggest that many Republicans, beyond Greene, also favor extending ACA tax credits, indicating potential bipartisan support.
• Democratic Congressman Seth Magaziner emphasizes the urgency of addressing rising health insurance costs and criticizes Republicans for lacking a healthcare plan over the past 15 years.
• There is visible disarray among Republicans regarding health care, with internal disagreements and leadership reluctance to negotiate.
• The ongoing government shutdown is affecting health care decisions, with potential service cuts and increased insurance costs looming if action isn’t taken soon.
• Magaziner reports that healthcare leaders advocate for restoring Medicaid funding and extending ACA funding to mitigate rising costs and service reductions.
• Trust issues exist within Congress regarding Republican intentions to negotiate health care solutions, with calls for immediate bipartisan discussions to avert further damage to the healthcare system.

Details

Overnight Democrats got a new unexpected ally on the issue of extending the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies at the very heart of this shutdown debate. It’s Republican Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who broke with her own party yesterday writing a lengthy post on social media calling for action to extend Obamacare subsidies and prevent insurance premium hikes. Greene wrote in part that her adult children who are covered by the ACA have health insurance premiums that will double next year if Congress allows the tax credits to expire.

Yeah, them and millions of other Americans. Greene emphasized that she will not support taxpayer funded health care for undocumented immigrants and slammed Republican leaders for failing to address the subsidies issue. Democrats, of course, have been pushing for provisions in the federal spending bill to extend these subsidies, which expire right now at the end of 2025.

But Republican House and Senate leaders have said the issue will not be discussed until Democrats agree to reopen the government. So it’s a debate on when to negotiate. Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island.

Congressman, just first your reaction to this maybe unlikely ally on the ACA subsidies. Well, I think there’s a lot more Republicans than just her who understand that we need to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. In fact, a majority of Republicans polled say that they want these tax credits extended.

And I think a lot of Republicans in Congress do as well. Taking a step back here, millions of people are about to see their health insurance costs double. Millions more will lose their insurance altogether if we do not act.

That is why Democrats in Congress have taken a stand on this issue. And what you see on the Republican side is they have not had a plan for health care for 15 years. For 15 years, they’ve been talking about how they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it, but they have no replacement.

And you now see these cracks on the Republican side starting to show where not only Marjorie Taylor Greene, but also Donald Trump is saying we should do a deal with the Democrats on health care. But Mike Johnson and John Thune refused to negotiate. So there are a lot of cracks on the Republican side.

They are in disarray. And it all stems from the fact that they don’t have a plan on health care and they never have. Yeah, I remember something about concepts of a plan, but I’m not sure I ever saw those concepts actually put into a bullet point form where we can actually see what the Republican health care plan is.

But I think as we watch the contours of this, there’s two things that I’ve noticed, in part from my conversation with the speaker over the weekend. The idea that Democrats, by holding your leverage point here, have been able to turn this from a conversation of should we negotiate on ACA subsidies to now it being a question of when. Do you think that there is the appetite in your caucus to go along with getting out of a government shutdown if it’s just simply a promise or an agreement to negotiate later? There’s such a trust deficit that I feel in my conversation.

No, of course not. I mean, you know, for Mike Johnson to say, oh, well, trust us, we’ll deal with the health care issue later, shows that, number one, he doesn’t understand the issue because open enrollment is already beginning and a lot of people will have already opted out of health insurance if we wait too much longer. And that’ll do tremendous damage to the health care system.

But also these are the same people, these congressional Republicans who just cut a trillion dollars from Medicaid over the summer. And now they just want us to trust them that they’ll fix it later. They have no credibility on the matter.

Today is the 18th day that Mike Johnson has had the House on vacation, House Republicans on vacation in the midst of a government shutdown while the health care system is exploding. That is a tactical mistake on his part. He is showing no urgency to actually solve this health care crisis.

And he’s making a mistake sending the wrong message to the American people. And even some of his own Republican colleagues have said that they wish that they were in Washington doing something when it comes to these negotiations or speaking to the shutdown. They don’t love the optics of it.

And I think for viewers who are like, well, Congress typically takes a few weeks off sometimes, this is not one of those pre-planned recess periods. You talk, though, Congressman, about the health care impacts that you’ve seen that we are expecting from the so-called one big beautiful bill. You recently met with health care leaders at a hospital in your area.

What did you hear from them about how to address rising health care costs, but also what they’re experiencing right now? Yeah. So health care leaders, whether it’s hospital leaders, nursing homes, community health centers, rural health centers, they will all tell you we have to extend the Affordable Care Act funding and restore the money that was cut from Medicaid by Republicans over the summer. Understand hospitals, nursing homes, other health care providers, they’re having to make their decisions now about what services they are going to offer next year and what their staffing levels are going to be next year.

That’s why, again, when Mike Johnson says, oh, trust us, we’ll deal with this later, even if he was being honest and he has no credibility on this, but even if he was being honest about that, the damage will have already been done. A lot of nursing homes and hospitals and other health care providers will have to shut down or cut back on services if, as we go through open enrollment, a lot of people are no longer able to afford their insurance. And what Marjorie Taylor Greene said about her son seeing their health insurance costs doubling for next year, there are millions of Americans all across the country who are finding the exact same thing now.

That is why Mike Johnson needs to take the House out of recess and bring us back so that we can have a real bipartisan negotiation to fix the health care system and to reopen the government. And if I were seeing you in the halls of Congress right now, I would be asking you about the caucus call that you guys had last night, speaking virtually. What was the conversation? What are the conversations that you and your colleagues are having? As I know from talking with some of them, that as they’re at home, they are hearing that people are hurting right now, sometimes because of the shutdown, sometimes just because of the larger landscape and environment that makes you guys feel like it’s worth holding the line right now.

Yeah, I mean, Democrats are largely united on this. Every Democrat in the House and I assume the Senate as well supports extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits, supports restoring Medicaid funding and understands the importance and the urgency of the situation. You know, Mike Johnson, on the other hand, has real disagreement and disarray on the Republican side of the House.

Some are saying instead of the tax credits, others are saying don’t. I think the real reason, you know, there’s been speculation that the reason Mike Johnson didn’t want that House in session the last two weeks was because we now have the 218th signature to release the Epstein files. That’s possible.

But I think the other reason is that he knows that if Republicans were in town and we were all able to talk to each other face to face, there would be tremendous pressure to do a deal to to address the health care crisis. And for whatever reason, Mike Johnson has decided he doesn’t want that, even though apparently Donald Trump is open to it. And that’s one of the questions that I asked the speaker over the weekend.

If Donald Trump came to you and said, let’s do a deal on the subsidies, would you work against him? And the speaker continued to say, well, just now is not the time to do it. We’ve to reopen the government first. Again, I do think that Democrats holding out here has sort of shifted the Overton window.

But you’re also right that I think a few things can be true at once when it comes to why House Republicans are not in Washington and why the whole House is out of session right now. We’re going to leave it there for now. Democratic Congressman Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island, I’ll have you back to talk about your continued push to ban members from trading stocks in the future.

But for now, we thank you for coming on to talk about this. Thank you, Ali. This is the number one issue I hear about in my district.

Health insurance premiums are unaffordable, not only for people on the ACA, but also families, maybe small business owners that buy their own health insurance. And with the cost of living today, I think it’s reached a boiling point. I am personally against the government shutdown.

I really want to be doing appropriations. I believe in that process. That’s our job, bringing taxpayer dollars back to our districts that help our communities, roads, water projects, you name it.

So the last thing we want to do is shut it down. But a lot of good can come down from shutdowns. We can get rid of a lot of things that we didn’t want.

So we have no choice. I have to do that for the country. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Attorney General Bondi, at your confirmation hearing in January, made a clear commitment you would not politicize your position. We are here today, your first oversight hearing nine months into your tenure, at a time when hundreds of career prosecutors have quit because they were required to take unethical actions at odds with that promise, or feared that they would have to take such actions if they remained on the job. When over a thousand former federal prosecutors have sounded the alarm about the unprecedented degree to which the powers of the DOJ are being abused to go after the President’s enemies, I approach this hearing with a heavy heart.

As a former federal prosecutor myself, I served in a department that, whether it was under a Democratic or Republican president, would never use the office to go after the President’s enemies or to hide the corruption of his friends. But today, the Justice Department has been used to cover up the possible corruption of the Mayor of New York or of a high-level administration official taking $50,000 reportedly in cash in a bag, or a child sex predator who befriended the President and some of his Cabinet members. And instead of preventing partisan weaponization, your department has engaged in a brazenly political prosecution at the President’s explicit direction.

The Department has become President Trump’s personal sword and shield to go after his ever-growing list of political enemies and to protect himself, his allies, and associates. My questions, therefore, focus on these two themes, hiding the corrupt acts of his friends and prioritizing the political prosecution of his enemies. So let me start with the shocking allegations of bribery and pay-to-play.

Two weeks ago, four major media outlets reported that Tom Homan, the President’s top deportation official working in the White House, took $50,000 in cash in a bag from undercover FBI agents in September 2024, just over a year ago. According to these reports, Homan indicated he would facilitate securing contracts in exchange for money once he was in office in a future Trump administration. Reportedly, this exchange was caught on tape.

Rather than pursue this investigation without fear or favor, the Department and the FBI under your leadership or that of your predecessor before you confirmed, quietly shut it down. Once news broke, your deputy and FBI director issued a joint public statement confirming that the Trump administration closed the investigation. White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt denied Homan took the $50,000, telling a reporter, quote, Mr. Homan never took the $50,000 that you’re referring to, so you should get your facts straight.

So today, I hope you can help us get our facts straight. Was that true what the White House Press Secretary said when she denied Homan took the money? Did he take the money? Senator Schiff, as I stated earlier, I was not in office. I was not confirmed when that was handled.

So does that Deputy Attorney General Blanche and Director Patel said that there was no evidence that Tom Homan committed a crime, yet now you’re putting his picture up to slander him? I’m putting his picture up showing an interview he gave with, I think, Fox, in which he was asked explicitly about these allegations that he took a $50,000 bribe, and he refused to answer. He said he didn’t answer the question whether he took the money, so I’m asking you the question, did he take the money? Senator Schiff, I answered that question multiple times, and frankly, you know… Well, I don’t think, with respect, I don’t think you did, but in case I just didn’t hear you, what is the answer? Did he take the money? Senator Schiff, that happened prior to my confirmation as Attorney General. I said that.

Do you know, sitting here, whether he took the money? All I know is that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Patel said there was no case, and Caroline Leavitt is one of the most trustworthy human beings I know. So was she… You know, Senator Schiff, if you worked for me, you would have been fired, because you were censured by Congress for lying. We can stipulate to, you can stipulate to all your personal attacks on the Democratic members of the committee.

Personal attacks? You’ve been attacking my FBI Director, you’ve been attacking my office, you’ve been attacking… But what we’re interested in… The borders are… What we’re interested in is the answer to these oversight questions. I want your full oversight, you want your five minutes of fame attacking good people. A regular order, Madam Chair, so I can ask a question.

You were asked by my colleague from Vermont whether you will support providing a video or audio tape, if it exists, of Mr. Holman taking $50,000 in bribe money from the FBI. Will you support a request by this committee to provide that tape or tapes to the committee? Yes or no? Senator Schiff, you can talk to Director Patel about that. Well, I’m talking to you about it.

You’re the Attorney General. This will be your decision. Will you support… You don’t have to tell me what is my decision and what is not my decision.

I said you can talk to Director Patel. You don’t have to try to… You think you’ve got a gotcha with Tom Holman and our borders are, who’s been out there fighting for our country since Donald Trump took office. Madam Chair, I’m trying to ask a question.

Regular order, please. And you don’t have to defer to the FBI director to pass the buck. So I’m asking you, will you support a request so that the committee, or indeed I believe the American people, should be able to see that video or audio tape? Will you support that request? Will you apologize to Donald Trump for trying to impeach him after you now know that Joe Biden is trying to cover up Hunter Biden’s involvement with Ukraine? Excuse me.

Let me do this because I think it’s valuable that the American people get a sense of what you’ve refused to answer today. So these are just some of the questions you refused to answer or have answered with personal attacks on members of this committee. You were asked whether you consulted with career ethics lawyers as you promised you would do during your nomination hearing when you approved the president receiving a $400 million gift from the Qataris.

You refused to answer that question. You were asked who or what role you may have played or who played the role in asking that Trump’s name be flagged in any of the Epstein documents gathered by the FBI. You refused to answer that question.

You were asked whether Homan kept the $50,000 bribe money. You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether Homan paid taxes on the $50,000 bribe money.

You refused to answer that question. You were asked did career prosecutors find insufficient evidence to charge James Comey. You refused to answer that question.

You were asked how are military strikes on these boats in the Caribbean legal, and you refused to even answer that question. You were asked did you discuss indicting James Comey with the president. You refused to answer that question.

You were asked did you approve the firing of antitrust lawyers who disagreed with the Hewlett Packard merger. You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether you support a restoration fund for violent insurrections to attack the Capitol on January 6th.

You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether you were firing career professionals, career prosecutors, just because they worked on January 6th investigations. You refused to answer that question.

You were asked by my California colleague whether you believe government officials, like immigration officials, have to abide by court orders. You wouldn’t even answer that question. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing.

Oversight? These, excuse me, you can attack me after my time is over. Oh, well, you’ve attacked all of us, including President Trump for your entire career. You can attack me later, and I know you’ve got plenty of canned attacks.

We’ve heard them all day to day. Canned attacks on you? No one needs a canned attack on you. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing of the Justice Department, and it comes in the wake of an indictment called for by the President of one of his enemies.

This is supposed to be an oversight hearing, and it comes in the wake of revelations that a top administration official took $50,000 in a bag, and this department made that investigation go away. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing when dozens of prosecutors have been fired simply because they worked on cases investigating the former president. This is, and now the current president, and this is supposed to be, this is, excuse me, this is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about- Are the riots in LA serious? About the cover-up of corruption, about the prosecution of the president’s enemies, and when will it be, when will it be, when will it be that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions and refuse to accept personal- Clearly you’re a as an answer to those questions.

Personal slander. Will you apologize to Donald Trump for slandering him? Personal slander. Senator- May I ask unanimous consent, Madam Chair, to introduce into the record the statement of a thousand former Justice Department officials who warn that the Comey indictment is a democracy-threatening abuse of power.

May I also request unanimous consent for the introduction to the record of 282 former career officials at the Justice Department raising an alarm who were voluntarily or involuntarily forced to leave the department because of improper actions taken by the Department of Justice. May I introduce with unanimous consent the Justice Department manual that talks about when initiating and declining charges are subject to impermissible considerations. And finally, Madam Chair, may I introduce the letter from Michael Ben-Eri, a career counterterrorism prosecutor, DOJ, a letter he nailed to his door which concludes by urging officials to do the right thing for the right reasons, to follow the facts in the law, and raises the alarm that the decision to remove experienced career officials from U.S. attorneys offices, the FBI, and critical parts of DOJ undermines our country’s abilities to counter terrorist organizations, malign nation-state actors, and countless others that seek to harm our nation and its citizens.

And he believes that the priority is prosecuting the president’s enemies rather than protecting the country. May I have unanimous consent to enter that into the record without objection? Thank you. I yield back.