It’s unfortunate and profoundly disappointing Congress proved itself incapable of repealing and replacing ObamaCare. But for lower-income Americans who feel the pain of this law each day, that’s all the more reason for Congress to exempt them from one of ObamaCare’s cruelest provisions: the individual mandate.
Intended to force “young invincibles” to buy insurance, in practice, the mandate has forced millions of people to get by with even less. Currently, the law requires every working-age American to buy health insurance—or pay a penalty equal to 2.5 percent of household income or about $700, whichever is greater.
Senators Tom Cotton (R., Ark. ) and Thom Tillis (R., N.C.) introduced the VALOR Act, which will help military veterans have more access to apprenticeship programs.
Currently, private apprenticeship training programs in multiple states are required to register with each state’s approval agency, which increases the amount of paperwork and review processes they have to go through. Because of this, some of these programs have decided to limit themselves to a smaller number of states and have been discouraged from opening up programs for veterans.
Susan Glasser: Well, fantastic. This is Susan Glasser, and welcome back to The Global POLITICO. We’re here in the Russell Senate Office Building with Senator Tom Cotton, probably one of the leading Republican voices on foreign policy and national security today, up on Capitol Hill, so it’s a real treat to talk with him, especially in the middle of what—I know he’s smiling, here—has been quite a newsy week that he also found himself in the middle of. He’s given a major speech about the Iran deal. It looks like the policy is headed in the direction he suggested it should go. He’s also spent a lot of time at the White House this week.
So I’ve got to ask you about that, first of all. You went to dinner with President Trump. You were back up there, today. What did you talk about so much?
Tom Cotton: Well, we had wide-ranging conversations this week, as we normally do, about what is on the Senate’s agenda and what’s on our country’s agenda. But as you say, Iran, right now, is on the president’s mind, probably more than anything. He’s our commander in chief. It’s his job to protect this country from threats like Iran, and under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, he has to decide, by October 15, whether to certify that the Iran nuclear deal is in the United States’ vital national security interest and Iran is complying with that deal. So we’ve spent a lot of time over the last couple of weeks discussing that matter, in addition to things like immigration, with which I work closely with the president and his senior team, and taxes, which is dominating the Senate agenda right now.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) lays out his views on a strategic basis for non-certification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and offers a way forward on U.S.-Iran policy.
SEIB: Welcome. Welcome to today’s Council on Foreign Relations meeting with Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas on a crucial and timely topic, the future of the nuclear deal with Iran. I’m Jerry Seib, executive Washington editor of The Wall Street Journal, and I’ll be presiding over the discussion.
Senator Cotton, as you know, is a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School, and as a member of the United States Army served two combat tours—one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan. And now, in the Senate, he serves on both the Armed Services and the Intelligence Committees.
Senator Cotton will speak for a few minutes, giving his views on what he thinks the course ahead should be for the Iran nuclear deal. Then he and I will have a brief conversation, after which we’ll open the floor to member questions.
There is no better analyst of the national scene than Hugh Hewitt, and no more effective United States senator than Tom Cotton. The two get together frequently on Hewitt’s radio show, and Hewitt recently interviewed Cotton on MSNBC.
Among the subjects they covered was the defense sequester. Cotton summed up the issue in a nutshell, expressing the frustration that many of us feel…
Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) spoke on the Senate floor Monday afternoon to call out Democrats and the lack of action on his amendment to repeal sequester spending cuts on defense and non-defense spending.
“Whenever a Democratic senator says they’re worried about the state of our military – that they’re horrified at the kinds of cuts we’re making, that they can’t sleep at night because of what we’re doing to our troops in the field – don’t believe them,” Cotton said.
Cotton said he is “no fan of frivolous, pork-barrel spending,” and that Congress should work to rein in such spending. He argued, however, the blanket cuts imposed by the sequester are not helping Americans. He said the necessity of a repeal requires lawmakers to forge a bipartisan compromise.
President Trump got big applause last week during a speech in Ohio when he called for fixing our immigration system. Instead of a “terrible system where anybody comes in,” the president advocated for a “merit-based system, one that protects our workers” and “our economy.”
According to polls, most Americans agree with him, but our outdated immigration laws do the opposite.
The basic principles of those laws haven’t been changed in over half a century, making them divorced from the needs of our economy, while also depressing working-class wages. That’s why we’ve introduced the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act, which updates our immigration laws to attract more ultra-high-skilled workers — and give working-class families the raise they deserve.
‘We need Congress to do its job,” President Trump said Saturday at the commissioning ceremony for the USS Gerald R. Ford. “Pass the budget that provides for higher, stable and predictable funding levels for our military needs that our fighting men and women deserve.”
The president is right, but what’s standing in the way is the Budget Control Act of 2011. So why don’t we repeal it already?
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a rule prohibiting banks, credit-card companies, and other financial institutions from including mandatory arbitration clauses in new contracts. The CFPB claims to have struck a blow for consumer rights, but the truth is, this rule will be a boon to frivolous lawsuits—and a drag on our economy.
Today, when you get a new credit card or open a savings account, you likely sign a contract stipulating that, should a dispute arise between you and the company, you both agree to submit it to an independent third party known as an arbitrator. Arbitration is 12 times faster than litigation, according to a study by the CFPB itself—and, on average, it results in bigger awards for the people who bring disputes.
This article originally appeared on Breitbart. Written by Jeff Poor.
Tuesday on Hugh Hewitt’s nationally syndicated radio show, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) commented on a report that former National Security Advisor Susan Rice for President Barack Obama was behind the unmasking of the identities of members of Donald Trump’s transition team. Continue reading