Thank You Ted Cruz
Thanks to some help from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada — and arguably Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who delayed the Senate over a procedural fight — 132 executive nominations were approved in the last session, the most in 33 years. Obama was even successful in sticking with controversial surgeon general nominee Vivek Murthy, who was confirmed by the Senate at last.
Cruz’s parliamentary maneuver, intended to object to the President Obama’s immigration decision, sped up the Senate process, allowing additional confirmation votes to take place before adjournment.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
82 responses to Thank You Ted Cruz
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Obewon December 18th, 2014 at 23:21
‘Don’t make me release that photo shoot Ted!’-(D NV) Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid’s text to (R) Canada’s Keystone-XL Senator Raphael Ted Cruz Jr.
Obewon December 19th, 2014 at 00:21
‘Don’t make me release that photo shoot Ted!’-(D NV) Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid’s text to (R) Canada’s Keystone-XL Senator Raphael Ted Cruz Jr.
Red Eye Robot December 18th, 2014 at 23:24
The mythology continues. Am I to believe the democrat controlled senate would not approve Obama’s nominees before recess when all Reid needed for cloture was 51 votes? Then I’m supposed to believe that had Reid not confirmed Obamas nominees that Obama wouldn’t recess appoint them? That’s almost as funny as “If you like your plan you can keep it”
Obewon December 18th, 2014 at 23:31
Any members “Senate Hold”, or veto of “unanimous consent” blocks Cloture, or a vote. Again: ‘Consumers Allowed to Keep Non-ACA Compliant Health Care Plans for Two More Years to 2017!’ If your insurer dumped you. Blame your insurance Co and your own repeated inability to remember what you’ve been schooled on many times before. Evolve or perish in Darwin’s dustbin… http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/us/politics/obama-extends-renewal-period-for-noncompliant-insurance-policies.html?_r=0 Obama Administration Extends “Keep Your Plan” Health Insurance Transition Policy for Two More Years http://www.healthcarereformdigest.com/obama-administration-extends-keep-plan-health-insurance-transition-policy-two-years
You have Red Eye because you parrot Limbaugh’s repeated cerebral impact damage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2V_LiVaIH0
whatthe46 December 19th, 2014 at 01:31
LOfk’nL…
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 09:54
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/teaching-hospitals-left-out-in-the-push-to-cut-insurance/article_99defbf1-63b9-555b-8094-00a55f1166db.html
(But only 150,000 in Missouri signed up for Healthcare.gov.)
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 10:22
Without context the 150K number is meaningless. Is it 10% of people who need to use healthcare.gov or is it 90%?
It is remarkable how conservatives have no argument other than smoke and mirrors when it comes to the ACA. Citing a number with no context is a bit more rational than the death panel meme, I give you credit for that.
Here is another number, that provides a much more accurate account of where we are on what some conservatives would have us believe is a sure sign of the demise of our republic, or what most sane people recognize as providing health insurance to those who need it.
http://time.com/3639785/uninsured-obamacare-record/
Number of Uninsured Americans Near Historic Low
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 10:58
It’s the number of people who signed up. Period. In an article from an established liberal newspaper, dated last Sunday, about people not having the access they used to have because they went to healthcare.gov.
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 11:54
The article states that Mr. Steve Smith lost his coverage because his employer closed a facility. His loss of coverage had nothing to do with the ACA/
The article further states that the only way he could keep his preferred urologist was to sign up for a plan at healthcare.gov
The exclusion of clinics and hospitals is a decision of the private sector companies providing coverage. It is in no way required by the ACA. In fact, the article states
“”Grady Health, a prominent Atlanta medical system, ran a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal this month criticizing an insurer for “forcing” it out of the carrier’s network.””
Your claim that people do not have access they used to have because they went to healthcare.gov is not in any way supported by the article you cite. Mr. Smith’s difficulty in retaining his preferred physician is a result of decisions made by private corporations.
In the case of Mr. Smith, the article demonstrates that without the ACA, he would likely have no insurance at all.
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 11:56
and yes 150,000 is the number of people who signed up.
the question is whether “only” is an appropriate term if that 150,000 represents many or most of the people who need to rely on healthcare.gov.
your post provides no context in which it is accurate to portray that number as “only”
Obewon December 19th, 2014 at 20:37
HC.Gov & State Exchanges 27,400,000 currently covered in 2014 now~! “It’s the number of people who (are currently) signed up. Period.” Plus Confirmed 2015 QHPs: 3,503,387 as of 12/18/14 Via Estimated 2015 QHPs (Cumulative):
11/21: 610K (462K HCgov) • 11/28: 1.02M (765K HCgov) • 12/05: 1.80M (1.35M HCgov)
12/12: 3.26M (2.46M HCgov) • 12/15: 4.70M (3.52M HCgov)
12/19: 7.72M (5.79M HCgov) – Assumes Autorenewals Included
state-level projections
FINAL 2014 QHPs (as of 11/14/14): 1) 6.7M Current / 8.4M PAID / 9.6M Total TOTAL: 6.7 M
2) HC.Gov Exchange QHPs, 8.0 M
3) State Non-HC.Gov Off-Exchange QHPs, 10.7 M
4) Medicaid/CHIP, 2.0 M assorted = 27.4 Million Covered by ACA HC today! 320 M Americans no longer have lifetime care-caps, preexisting exclusions, or lack HC-portability! http://acasignups.net/
rg9rts December 19th, 2014 at 06:27
MORON
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 08:16
1) What’s a “democrat controlled senate”?
2) Cruz’s buffoonery allowed Reid to advance the schedule for 2 full days.
3) Recess appointments can be removed, and why go through the hassle when you don’t have to?
4) Here is the law; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
Where does it say that you can’t keep your policy?
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 09:54
“1) What’s a “democrat controlled senate”?”
History, come January.
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 10:03
That doesn’t answer the question.
That’s what we said in 2006.
I’m wondering what a democrat senate is.
A new 3rd party?
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 10:52
Is this an “ic” thing?
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 11:06
If you are talking about the proper name of the party, it is the Democratic Party.
Else you sound like Archie Bunker talking about the “bus suppository”.
It also demonstrates an obedient parroting of a word that has been carefully selected by the authoritarian leaders.
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 11:22
I would think I would sound more like Archie Bunker if I were to talk about the Democratics in Congress. That’s such a fine distinction for people to get up in arms about. That’s what makes it so comical. I get to see lots of references here (not from you) about Republikkkans, Conservatards, etc. But, gosh, drop the adjectival suffix from the Democratic party, and Katy bar the door! :)
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 11:57
What makes it so comical is that it shows either;
1) A lack of knowledge between a noun and an adjective…..or…
2) A willingness to obediently follow.
As for; Republikkkans, Conservatards…
But not from elected officials and presidents.
An analogy would be “the Republic Party”, but that is incorrect, and people who care about grammar would not use it.
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 12:05
It is also a matter of respect. If they cannot respect me, I have no reason to respect them.
I tried to be civil enough to stop using the phrase TeaBagger when it became clear they objected to the term (even though they came up with it).
But with this “Democrat Party” BS, I could care less if their feelings are hurt by the TeaBag reference.
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 12:17
I know.
Some of them really don’t know that it is incorrect because they hear it so often.
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 12:18
Republican is both noun and adjective, whereas Democratic is the adjective form of Democrat.
The argument you really should be putting forth is that you don’t want to be nouns, you want to be adjectives. That may sound facetious on it’s face, but turn it toward the person making the statement, and ask them if they’d take offense to being called Christ instead of Christian.
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 12:25
The proper name of the Party is “The Democratic Party”.
I you heard,
“What religion is he?”
“Christ”.
You would expect it to have come from someone from a country who didn’t know any better.
I think saying “Democrat Party”, makes the person sound like someone who does not have a good grasp of grammar or a decent vocabulary.
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 10:10
and the future come January 2017. The GOP will be defending 23 of the 33 seats being contested in the Senate, including Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The Senators who won last month will be up for relection in 2020 when the incumbent President will also be seeking reelection. They will not benefit from the lowest turn out in 4 generations as they did last month.
and since there is no such thing as the “Democrat Party” I join oldlefty in asking what the heck you righties are talking about.
Red Eye Robot December 19th, 2014 at 15:14
the omnibus bill passed and senate is still in session even after Reid got all the nominees through, Even if Reid recesses today he would have had a week to confirm. Sorry you lose
The supreme court rebuked Obama 9-0 for making recess appointments when the senate wasn’t even in recess. Do you really think he is concerned his recess appointments might be removed? You lose again. ?Thank you for playing “I’ll believe anything” Enjoy these lovely parting gifts.
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 15:40
1) Tell it to the GOPers who are so angry at Cruz and to Cruz who apologized.
Why do I lose?
2) Recess appointments?
Of course he cares.
And the 4 justices said, “The Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business,”
Too bad no one brought it to the SCOTUS when Bush did it. (Although they would probably have ruled differently)
So again, WHY do I lose?
Most of the nominees I want are in.
Red Eye Robot December 19th, 2014 at 00:24
The mythology continues. Am I to believe the democrat controlled senate would not approve Obama’s nominees before recess when all Reid needed for cloture was 51 votes? Then I’m supposed to believe that had Reid not confirmed Obamas nominees that Obama wouldn’t recess appoint them? That’s almost as funny as “If you like your plan you can keep it”
Obewon December 19th, 2014 at 00:31
Any members “Senate Hold”, or veto of “unanimous consent” blocks Cloture, or a vote. Again: ‘Consumers Allowed to Keep Non-ACA Compliant Health Care Plans for Two More Years to 2017!’ If your insurer dumped you. Blame your insurance Co and your own repeated inability to remember what you’ve been schooled on many times before. Evolve or perish in Darwin’s dustbin… http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/us/politics/obama-extends-renewal-period-for-noncompliant-insurance-policies.html?_r=0 Obama Administration Extends “Keep Your Plan” Health Insurance Transition Policy for Two More Years http://www.healthcarereformdigest.com/obama-administration-extends-keep-plan-health-insurance-transition-policy-two-years
You have Red Eye because you parrot Limbaugh’s repeated cerebral impact damage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2V_LiVaIH0
whatthe46 December 19th, 2014 at 02:31
LOfk’nL…
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 10:54
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/teaching-hospitals-left-out-in-the-push-to-cut-insurance/article_99defbf1-63b9-555b-8094-00a55f1166db.html
(But only 150,000 in Missouri signed up for Healthcare.gov.)
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 11:22
Without context the 150K number is meaningless. Is it 10% of people who need to use healthcare.gov or is it 90%?
It is remarkable how conservatives have no argument other than smoke and mirrors when it comes to the ACA. Citing a number with no context is a bit more rational than the death panel meme, I give you credit for that.
Here is another number, that provides a much more accurate account of where we are on what some conservatives would have us believe is a sure sign of the demise of our republic, or what most sane people recognize as providing health insurance to those who need it.
http://time.com/3639785/uninsured-obamacare-record/
Number of Uninsured Americans Near Historic Low
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 11:58
It’s the number of people who signed up. Period. In an article from an established liberal newspaper, dated last Sunday, about people not having the access they used to have because they went to healthcare.gov.
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 12:54
The article states that Mr. Steve Smith lost his coverage because his employer closed a facility. His loss of coverage had nothing to do with the ACA/
The article further states that the only way he could keep his preferred urologist was to sign up for a plan at healthcare.gov
The exclusion of clinics and hospitals is a decision of the private sector companies providing coverage. It is in no way required by the ACA. In fact, the article states
“”Grady Health, a prominent Atlanta medical system, ran a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal this month criticizing an insurer for “forcing” it out of the carrier’s network.””
Your claim that people do not have access they used to have because they went to healthcare.gov is not in any way supported by the article you cite. Mr. Smith’s difficulty in retaining his preferred physician is a result of decisions made by private corporations.
In the case of Mr. Smith, the article demonstrates that without the ACA, he would likely have no insurance at all.
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 12:56
and yes 150,000 is the number of people who signed up.
the question is whether “only” is an appropriate term if that 150,000 represents many or most of the people who need to rely on healthcare.gov.
your post provides no context in which it is accurate to portray that number as “only”
Obewon December 19th, 2014 at 21:37
HC.Gov & State Exchanges 27,400,000 currently covered in 2014 now~! “It’s the number of people who (are currently) signed up. Period.” Plus Confirmed 2015 QHPs: 3,503,387 as of 12/18/14 Via Estimated 2015 QHPs (Cumulative):
11/21: 610K (462K HCgov) • 11/28: 1.02M (765K HCgov) • 12/05: 1.80M (1.35M HCgov)
12/12: 3.26M (2.46M HCgov) • 12/15: 4.70M (3.52M HCgov)
12/19: 7.72M (5.79M HCgov) – Assumes Autorenewals Included
state-level projections
FINAL 2014 QHPs (as of 11/14/14): 1) 6.7M Current / 8.4M PAID / 9.6M Total TOTAL: 6.7 M
2) HC.Gov Exchange QHPs, 8.0 M
3) State Non-HC.Gov Off-Exchange QHPs, 10.7 M
4) Medicaid/CHIP, 2.0 M assorted = 27.4 Million Covered by ACA HC today! 320 M Americans no longer have lifetime care-caps, preexisting exclusions, or lack HC-portability! http://acasignups.net/
rg9rts December 19th, 2014 at 07:27
MORON
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 09:16
1) What’s a “democrat controlled senate”?
2) Cruz’s buffoonery allowed Reid to advance the schedule for 2 full days.
3) Recess appointments can be removed, and why go through the hassle when you don’t have to?
4) Here is the law; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
Where does it say that you can’t keep your policy?
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 10:54
“1) What’s a “democrat controlled senate”?”
History, come January.
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 11:03
That doesn’t answer the question.
That’s what we said in 2006.
I’m wondering what a democrat senate is.
A new 3rd party?
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 11:52
Is this an “ic” thing?
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 12:06
If you are talking about the proper name of the party, it is the Democratic Party.
Else you sound like Archie Bunker talking about the “bus suppository”.
It also demonstrates an obedient parroting of a word that has been carefully selected by the authoritarian leaders.
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 12:22
I would think I would sound more like Archie Bunker if I were to talk about the Democratics in Congress. That’s such a fine distinction for people to get up in arms about. That’s what makes it so comical. I get to see lots of references here (not from you) about Republikkkans, Conservatards, etc. But, gosh, drop the adjectival suffix from the Democratic party, and Katy bar the door! :)
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 12:57
What makes it so comical is that it shows either;
1) A lack of knowledge between a noun and an adjective…..or…
2) A willingness to obediently follow.
As for; Republikkkans, Conservatards…
But not from elected officials and presidents.
An analogy would be “the Republic Party”, but that is incorrect, and people who care about grammar would not use it.
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 13:05
It is also a matter of respect. If they cannot respect me, I have no reason to respect them.
I tried to be civil enough to stop using the phrase TeaBagger when it became clear they objected to the term (even though they came up with it).
But with this “Democrat Party” BS, I could care less if their feelings are hurt by the TeaBag reference.
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 13:17
I know.
Some of them really don’t know that it is incorrect because they hear it so often.
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 13:18
Republican is both noun and adjective, whereas Democratic is the adjective form of Democrat.
The argument you really should be putting forth is that you don’t want to be nouns, you want to be adjectives. That may sound facetious on it’s face, but turn it toward the person making the statement, and ask them if they’d take offense to being called Christ instead of Christian.
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 13:25
The proper name of the Party is “The Democratic Party”.
I you heard,
“What religion is he?”
“Christ”.
You would expect it to have come from someone from a country who didn’t know any better.
I think saying “Democrat Party”, makes the person sound like someone who does not have a good grasp of grammar or a decent vocabulary.
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 11:10
and the future come January 2017. The GOP will be defending 23 of the 33 seats being contested in the Senate, including Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The Senators who won last month will be up for relection in 2020 when the incumbent President will also be seeking reelection. They will not benefit from the lowest turn out in 4 generations as they did last month.
and since there is no such thing as the “Democrat Party” I join oldlefty in asking what the heck you righties are talking about.
Red Eye Robot December 19th, 2014 at 16:14
the omnibus bill passed and senate is still in session even after Reid got all the nominees through, Even if Reid recesses today he would have had a week to confirm. Sorry you lose
The supreme court rebuked Obama 9-0 for making recess appointments when the senate wasn’t even in recess. Do you really think he is concerned his recess appointments might be removed? You lose again. ?Thank you for playing “I’ll believe anything” Enjoy these lovely parting gifts.
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 16:40
1) Tell it to the GOPers who are so angry at Cruz and to Cruz who apologized.
Why do I lose?
2) Recess appointments?
Of course he cares.
And the 4 justices said, “The Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business,”
Too bad no one brought it to the SCOTUS when Bush did it. (Although they would probably have ruled differently)
So again, WHY do I lose?
Most of the nominees I want are in.
rg9rts December 19th, 2014 at 06:27
AIn’t as smart as he thinks he is
rg9rts December 19th, 2014 at 07:27
AIn’t as smart as he thinks he is
edmeyer_able December 19th, 2014 at 08:32
Obviously a closet democrat.
edmeyer_able December 19th, 2014 at 09:32
Obviously a closet democrat.
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 09:47
Well, Ted did inspire Elizabeth Warren to do totally the same thing he did, in re threatening to shut down the government, which made her Queen for a Day among her fans.
Now, about that other record set by the administration — most seats lost during midterm elections… :-)
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 10:14
please provide a link to Sen. Warren threatening to shut down the government.
I find only her condemnation of such tactics.
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 10:56
— http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/elizabeth-warren-channels-ted-cruz-on-cromnibus/?dcz=
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 11:06
so it is a conclusion by a pundit and not a policy advocated by Sen. Warren. that is very important distinction.
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 11:20
An action by Warren that would have the same results as a former politician, who was excoriated for doing so. Do we need to break out the lmgtfy.com?
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 11:34
No. What we need is Sen. Warren explicitly stating she is willing to shut down the government. She has made no such statement.
Ol Blue December 19th, 2014 at 15:19
Careful. You could pull a muscle grasping at straws so mightily.
tracey marie December 19th, 2014 at 16:33
you wish and assume she threatened to shut it down
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 17:12
I wish and assume that she would go forward with her announced plans that would actually result in a government shutdown. OF course, if she does fight the CROmnibus to the point of a shutdown, it will (but naturally) be the Republicans’ fault for not capitulating to her demands.
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 10:29
most seats lost thanks to the lowest voter turnout since VJ day
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 10:50
Both times?
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 10:47
Well, Ted did inspire Elizabeth Warren to do totally the same thing he did, in re threatening to shut down the government, which made her Queen for a Day among her fans.
Now, about that other record set by the administration — most seats lost during midterm elections… :-)
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 11:14
please provide a link to Sen. Warren threatening to shut down the government.
I find only her condemnation of such tactics.
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 11:56
— http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/elizabeth-warren-channels-ted-cruz-on-cromnibus/?dcz=
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 12:06
so it is a conclusion by a pundit and not a policy advocated by Sen. Warren. that is very important distinction.
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 12:20
An action by Warren that would have the same results as a former politician, who was excoriated for doing so. Do we need to break out the lmgtfy.com?
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 12:34
No. What we need is Sen. Warren explicitly stating she is willing to shut down the government. She has made no such statement.
Ol Blue December 19th, 2014 at 16:19
Careful. You could pull a muscle grasping at straws so mightily.
tracey marie December 19th, 2014 at 17:33
you wish and assume she threatened to shut it down
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 18:12
I wish and assume that she would go forward with her announced plans that would actually result in a government shutdown. OF course, if she does fight the CROmnibus to the point of a shutdown, it will (but naturally) be the Republicans’ fault for not capitulating to her demands.
arc99 December 19th, 2014 at 11:29
most seats lost thanks to the lowest voter turnout since VJ day
R.J. Carter December 19th, 2014 at 11:50
Both times?
fancypants December 19th, 2014 at 17:06
just heard Obama’s press conference today
One reporter asked him what he thought of the xl pipeline ? The answer was hilarious
poor ted cruz :(
fancypants December 19th, 2014 at 18:06
just heard Obama’s press conference today
One reporter asked him what he thought of the xl pipeline ? The answer was hilarious
poor ted cruz :(
Denise December 29th, 2014 at 10:11
This is when you are a self-centered, narcissistic, lying, good for nothing piece of s**t! Cruz lacks wisdom, he doesn’t know when to hold ’em, when to fold ’em, when to walk away. He’s an idiot!
Denise December 29th, 2014 at 11:11
This is when you are a self-centered, narcissistic, lying, good for nothing piece of s**t! Cruz lacks wisdom, he doesn’t know when to hold ’em, when to fold ’em, when to walk away. He’s an idiot!
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 09:34
I have been puzzled by that stat on confirmations. I don’t doubt the explanation given in the OP, but would like more information, if anyone can explain it in more detail.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 10:34
I have been puzzled by that stat on confirmations. I don’t doubt the explanation given in the OP, but would like more information, if anyone can explain it in more detail.