Those Obamacare Subsidies Aren’t Going to Extend Themselves

Unfortunately, lawmakers probably won’t end up extending them, either.

(Composite / GettyImages)

MAHA hahaha

There are just thirteen legislative days left in the year, and unlike many American office workers, members of Congress cannot afford to check out and just “circle back” after the holidays. Besides, they’ve already taken a lot of time off this year. As part of their deal to reopen the government after a record-setting 43-day shutdown, Senate Democrats were promised a vote on extending the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced subsidies. But the problems brought on by procrastinating on this health care debate are already starting to take hold—and the likelihood of Congress resolving the issues is, to put it bluntly, not very high.

In the House, Democrats have proposed a three-year extension of the enhanced subsidies. Cynical readers may (fairly) interpret this as a political gambit: The ask is big enough that it virtually guarantees the proposal will not pass. But then, if it does pass, the three-year timeline would bring the ACA subsidies debate back to center stage just in time for the 2028 presidential election. If lawmakers fail to reach a deal of any kind this month, the issue would be at the forefront of the midterm elections next year. Maybe one election-year fight is better than the other—but in any case, Democrats are in a position to get at least one of them.

During the government shutdown, a group of senators sought a single-year extension, which House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries initially called a nonstarter but later hinted could be palatable. Other possibilities include two years of the enhanced subsidies coupled with new income caps and rules intended to prevent fraud. Either way, the opening Democratic demand of a three-year extension is simply too much for most if not all Republicans.¹

Democrats maintain that the extensions are necessary to prevent a crisis—one that is already starting to take shape—before the subsidies sunset at the end of the month. Staying true to form, Republicans have largely tried to obstruct new health reforms with one hand while holding up competing proposals for health savings accounts–based solutions with the other.

Jeffries told reporters on Monday that while there have been informal bipartisan negotiations on a two-year extension led by Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), “There certainly haven’t been any leadership conversations.”

Jeffries isn’t holding his breath for them to begin, citing widespread House GOP opposition to health care negotiations in which they are not in sole control.

“When it appears that Donald Trump actually might be about to enter into a good-faith, bipartisan effort to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, House Republicans detonate the agreement,” he said. “These people aren’t serious about anything other than providing massive tax breaks to their billionaire donors.”

In the Senate, Democrats have an arguably more realistic conception for a potential deal: something that extends the subsidies less than three years, and that might also include some additional Republican-friendly tinkers, such as income phaseouts.

“I want to see the longest extension possible, but I’m flexible,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told me on Monday. “Ultimately, we’re only passing something with Republican votes. It’s obviously not like they’re gonna agree to an extension as long as we would like. So . . . if the stars align and Republicans realize that this is the right thing to do for them and for the country, then we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

The good might have another, equally formidable enemy. Although they balked at the White House’s recent unilateral proposal for extending the subsidies, congressional Republicans may nonetheless wait to enter into negotiations in good faith until after hearing whether President Donald Trump wants them to go ahead.

Trump’s endorsement of a specific plan or approach “would help, but it’s not a requirement,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told me.

Hear no evil

The Washington Post reported last Friday that, “to comply with [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth’s instructions” to (in an anonymous source’s paraphrase) “kill everybody” aboard an alleged drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean, the special operations commander ordered a second strike to kill two survivors of the initial explosion as they clung to the wreckage in the water. The White House confirmed the second strike on Monday, but also clarified that it was Adm. Mitch Bradley who gave the second-strike order.

As the key facts of the event come into focus, at least one Republican still refuses to actually acknowledge the story’s factual basis at all.

In a gaggle with reporters Monday afternoon, Sen. Kennedy defiantly waved off the White House’s own confirmation of the strikes in order to keep landing rhetorical hits against the paper that published the initial reporting:

I read the Washington Post article, and there wasn’t an exact quote from Secretary Hegseth. The anonymous source paraphrased what the secretary allegedly said. So here we’ve got a story in the Washington Post, which is known to hate Trump and Republicans, by a reporter who was citing an anonymous source that supposedly is saying that Hegseth said it before the strike even happened, but they don’t know exactly what he said.

When a Post reporter (not an author on the second-strike story) noted that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the follow-up strike had happened, Kennedy said, “I don’t care what the White House press secretary said. I read the Washington Post article, and I think it’s typical Washington Post bullshit.”

Kennedy insisted that because the Post has never endorsed a Republican presidential candidate,² then its reporters must be lying, even about things the administration admits to having done.

“It’s a democratic socialist newsletter,” Kennedy concluded. “And you’ve got an anonymous source that doesn’t even have a direct quote attributing it to the secretary of defense. I’m not gonna comment on that.”

I’m not sure if Kennedy simply woke up in a splenetic mood, or if he was making up for gaps in his understanding of the latest developments by backfilling his anger. For their part, Kennedy’s Democratic counterparts showed a bit of spleen—and a far firmer grasp of the relevant facts.

Sen. Murphy called Hegseth a “walking, talking national security embarrassment,” adding that the second-strike episode “should scare the shit out of every American.”

“All of his kinetic actions are blatantly illegal, and we’re learning more about how grossly illegal their operations have been every day,” Murphy said. “Nobody voted for Donald Trump because they wanted a war with Venezuela.”

“We’ve gotta get the answers to that,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) when asked during a gaggle about the specifics of the strike. “The White House has had some mixed messaging about who gave an order, was there an order, was there a second strike—we now know there was a second strike. The White House has said that the order to kill everyone was given by the secretary of defense and was implemented by Adm. Bradley and his team.”

Kaine wants to know finer details, like whether Hegseth’s reported kill orders were all-purpose or specific to this exact strike. He added that he has full faith in Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) to conduct an honest and thorough investigation.

Wicker later told reporters he would be seeking full, unedited video and audio of the strike as well as additional briefings to get to the bottom of what happened. When Wicker shares his findings with the public, we’ll see if Kennedy changes his tune.

California Love

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) may have had it with the Golden State, but not with serving in Congress. According to Punchbowl, Issa is mulling a move to Texas to run in a redder GOP district than his California district, which has become slightly less hospitable to his electoral hopes thanks to newly drawn congressional lines.

Jake Sherman writes:

If the Supreme Court upholds the new maps in Texas, Issa would likely run for Texas’ 32nd District, a seat that is currently held by Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson. Johnson’s Dallas-area seat was split into eight in the redraw.

Issa’s San Diego-area seat was made more Democratic in California’s redraw. But it’s not unwinnable for Republicans. Former Vice President Kamala Harris would have won the district by 3 points. Issa would, however, have to run a tough general election.

Issa’s Texas jump only works if the Supreme Court lets Republicans’ newly drawn map remain in place for the midterms. A lower court ruling tossed out the map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming days which map Texas will use.

Read the whole thing. Issa might do well to read up on the congressional history of carpetbaggers, starting with nineteenth-century Democratic Senator James Shields, the only American to ever represent three different states in the U.S. Senate (Illinois, Minnesota, and Missouri). It would take a lot to repeat this achievement in the lower chamber, but it wouldn’t be impossible. What’s life without a dream?

1. Breitbart editor Matt Boyle floated an idea to outsmart the Democrats and remove a potential election-year fiasco for the foreseeable future: A five-year extension. A Democratic aide sarcastically said the libs would be “so owned” if Republicans agreed to a half-decade of additional Obamacare enhancements.

2. They have: Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.