E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPolitics moves to Supreme Court – oral arguments begin on health care… Three days that will determine the legacy of a president … what, who, when, and how to watch (or listen) … Owning ‘ObamaCare’ … Santorum wins Louisiana, but then lashes out with his ‘bull%&!#’ moment … Eight days that could mean the end to the GOP primary … Another Obama hot mic moment on the international scene.
*** Day One at the Supreme Court: For the first time in several months, the top political story won’t be taking place on the Republican campaign trail, or at the White House, or on Capitol Hill. Instead, today’s top story occurs over at the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue that took up much of 2009 and 2010: health care. There will be three days of oral arguments, and today’s topic is over whether the Supreme Court can even hear the case at this particular time. “The justices will hear 90 minutes of argument about whether an obscure 19th-century law — the Anti-Injunction Act — means that the court cannot pass judgment on the law until its key provisions go into effect in 2014,” the Washington Post notes. “It is the rare issue on which both sides agree: the Obama administration lawyers and those representing the states and private organization challenging the new law argue that the Supreme Court should decide the constitutional question now.”
*** On the docket: Tomorrow is the main event, when the justices will hear arguments about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. On Wednesday, they’ll discuss whether the health law can still exist if the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional, the so-called “severability” issue, as well as whether the federal government can force states to increase Medicaid spending. (Here’s the court’s day-by-day rundown. The court will also provide audio and transcripts no later than 2:00 pm ET for the morning sessions and 4:00 pm ET for Wednesday’s afternoon session.) Here’s how the Wall Street Journal sums up these three days: “In taking up President Barack Obama's health overhaul Monday, the Supreme Court wades into an issue that not only could sway this fall's elections but also could help define for generations what Congress is and isn't entitled to do.” So, that's all, just the fate of the president's re-election and the limits on Congressional power, but beyond that, nothing major. Seriously, though, how important is this case: “The six hours of planned debate is the most on a case in 44 years,” Bloomberg/Business Week notes.
*** Who to watch – all eyes on Justice Kennedy (and Scalia): More than any other justice over the next three days, all eyes will be on Anthony Kennedy, who’s considered the Supreme Court’s swing vote. The Tampa Bay Times: “Frank Colucci, a political science professor at Purdue University Calumet and author of a book on Kennedy, said the health care case will test the conflict inherent in the justice’s thinking over the years: his belief in judicial limits on federal power but a recognition of the practical conception of commerce. ‘That sets up the two main arguments in this case,’ Colucci said. ‘The people who want to strike down the mandate will give an argument that if you allow this to stand, there are no limits on what Congress can do. The people who want to uphold the mandate will say you can’t strike this without undermining the foundations of the federal power to regulate commerce that the court has accepted since 1937.’” But also watch Antonin Scalia. NBC’s Pete Williams writes in his preview: “[E]ven the opponents of the law say the vote of Justice Antonin Scalia may be in play. He has joined the court’s majorities in past decisions that read the Constitution’s commerce power very broadly.” Here’s who’s doing the arguing for both sides: For the administration: Solicitor General Donald B. Verilli Jr; For opponents of the law: Paul D. Clement, solicitor general under George W. Bush and partner at Bancroft PLLC. Clement, by the way, is considered one to watch as a potential Supreme Court nominee under a Republican president. Just askin’: but does the mandate really rest on wheat and weed?
*** Owning ‘ObamaCare’ and Romney’s test: The Obama administration made a decision on Friday to own the term “ObamaCare.” It had been used as a pejorative by Republicans, but the White House has made the decision to embrace it and not let opponents have a word that they only drive as a negative. White House senior adviser David Plouffe noted on Meet the Press Sunday that, in 10 years, health care will be a positive and cited polling that people don’t want to re-litigate it. We can report that last part came from Democratic polling Plouffe has seen; he was NOT citing any public polling on this specific issue. By the way, if you’re Mitt Romney, and you basically have eight days to wrap up this nomination before Wisconsin April 3rd, what’s the last thing you want in the news? But if you’re Rick Santorum, it’s do-or-die time on health care for him. It’s a topic he wanted front and center. If he can’t change the momentum now, with health care front and center, he can’t do it.
*** Santorum wins Louisiana, trails in the delegate count: As expected, Rick Santorum won Saturday’s Louisiana primary -- and it turns out he did so easily. He beat Mitt Romney, 49%-27%, with Gingrich finishing in third place with 16% and Paul with 6%. But Santorum’s decisive victory in Louisiana netted him just five delegates, according to Louisiana’s proportional rules: Santorum got 10 delegates, Romney five, and another five were unallocated. That brings NBC’s delegate count to Romney 490, Santorum 203, Gingrich 137, and Paul 34.
*** The 50% evangelical pattern continues: Once again, perhaps the best way to explain why Santorum won Louisiana and not, say, Illinois, is by looking at the evangelical vote. As has been mentioned, Romney has WON every state so far (where there has been exit polling) where self-described evangelical Christians make up less than half of all GOP primary voters. But he’s LOST every state where evangelicals make up more than half of all GOP voters. And what was the percentage in Louisiana? 61%. Given this obvious pattern, the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza has projected how the remaining contests will play out. Romney will probably win: RI, DC, UT, CT, NY, NJ, MD, DE, CA, WI, NM, and SD, while Santorum will likely win AR, KY, NC, WV, IN, TX, PA (not a state where there’s a majority of evangelicals, but it’s Santorum’s home state), NE, MT, and OR. Is it that simple?
*** Santorum loses his cool in Wisconsin: Yet the day after Santorum won Louisiana’s primary by a greater margin than Romney won in Illinois, the former Pennsylvania senator lost his cool -- becoming frustrated with reporters asking him to clarify his remark that Mitt Romney is the worst Republican in the country to take on President Obama. When he was pressed by reporters following him in Wisconsin, Santorum said, “On the issue of health care. That’s what I was talking about, and I was very clear about talking about that. OK? Come on guys, don’t do this. I mean you guys are incredible. I was talking about Obamacare, and he is the worst because he was the author of Romneycare.” But when he faced the same question again, he used a profane word and accused the media of "distorting" his speech: "Quit distorting my words. It's bull%&!#" And Santorum is now raising money off of the question raised by a New York Times reporter, claiming a New York Times reporter tried to, um, “bully” him. Speaking of meltdowns, Newt Gingrich called President Obama’s statement on Trayvon Martin “disgraceful” and “appalling,” contending the president was bringing race into it by saying his son would look like Martin. These are the words of someone in the last throes of a campaign.
*** Eight days until the race could be over? Don’t forget, there are eight days to go in what could be the most pivotal race yet. With a win, even by a hair, Romney would put this race away. Santorum needs a “win on the road,” so to speak, to show he has a legitimate chance at this thing. Here’s a look at how the ad spending is breaking down there, as of Friday evening: Restore Our Future PAC - $2.2 million; Romney $737,000; Santorum $40,000
*** Another Obama hot mic moment: President Obama was caught yet again in an international situation with a hot microphone. This time, he was caught telling Russia’s Medvedev that he needs “space” from Russia on missile defense. “This is my last election,” Obama can be heard telling Medvedev, per NBC’s Shawna Thomas Kristen Welker, and Alicia Jennings. “After my election, I have more flexibility.” To which Medvedev responds: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.” Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.” An administration aide says the president wasn't saying anything nefarious as others are trying to imply; He simply was noting reality, that this year isn't the best time to discuss and negotiate missile defense, because it's an election year, and there are a lot of other items on his agenda. Still, it makes the president look like he’s acting with politics in mind first. At least Obama wasn’t talking about Israel’s Netanyahu again. Geopolitically more significant, might be that the exchange affirms what most suspected that the person really in charge in Russia is Vladimir Putin.
*** On the trail: Romney, in California, holds an event in San Diego and raises money there, as well as in Redwood City… Santorum is in DC… Gingrich stumps in Delaware, and wife Callista is in Wisconsin
Countdown to DC, Maryland, Wisconsin primaries: 8 days
Countdown to Election Day: 225 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
What do you mean the top political story won’t be taking place on the Republican campaign trail ? ? ? More than half of the Supreme Count was appointed by the Republican Party ! ! ! Let's just hope the Supreme Count is as honorable as they once were...and ....do not vote IAW anyone political party and votes IAW the needs of the people of the United States.
the court will rule in favor of Obama care 100% it is only right. the only people that should pay for their medical care are those that work because they have an income to pay for their insurance. those that do not work should have free health care and Obama is correct in making sure that happens. vote Obama 2012
Nobody gets free health care under the ACA law. But yes, people shouldn't just be forced to die quickly because they can't afford insurance or are unable to get insured due to pre-existing conditions, or get dropped because they get sick.
the real problem with health care is that the elder population are living longer and it is driving the cost up. people over 68 should be put down, they drive slow , can't hear ,and are just a waste of space. to cut heath care cost people over 68 should have to go to a camp and be made into fertilizer to help future generations.
Hey, Dick Cheny had no problems heh heh. We took care of him and fast with a new heart LOL. Just ask any politician about how well and fast they are taken care of at our expense heh heh. To funny LOL
One of the last guy's on earth we should be going out of our way to help... how should he be put in front of children who had nothing to do with Bush or Haliburton... ps. thanks Haliburton for having some part in the gulf spill, we all really appreciated that from the bottom of our oceanic hearts
Any Republican Congressmen will tell you --- The taxpayer's pay for my healthcare why should I worry about anyone elses.
This is all the more reason to get sick with something that is highly contagous and attend the Republican Convention in FL.
Congress is under the same health insurance plan as every other federal worker, the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. The government pays a portion of the premium as most other large corporations do for their employees. The employee / congressman pays the rest. They don't get free or special healthcare benefits. And why do you single out Republicans? All congressman get the same insurance! Democrats get it too but you say nothing about them!
Embraced the idea of heath care at first, then i found out I would have to actuall pay for it rather than coming out of a tax refund or something. Then the penalty for not caring it, send me to jail it will give something to other to do than express my opinion here.
You can't be sent to jail. You simply get a tax credit for having health insurance. Really no biggie.
Here's an interesting question for all you HCA haters, and no one has been able to answer this accurately for me: If the Supremes declare the HCA law unconstitutional especially the mandate, what happens to our Medicare system for seniors? Remember we all involuntarily pay for Medicare and must enter the Medicare system when we turn 65. We don't have the liberty or freedom to waive the automatic FICA taxes from our pay and say we'd rather be on our own and not in the system. So does Medidcare go down the drain along with HCA if the Supremes declare the law unconstitutional? Someone address this question please.
The states actually had the option to opt out of the Medicare system at first. Some states did not opt in until as late as 1982 and Medicare was inacted in 1965. The problem came for states when the federal government threatened to cut off all federal funds for those states that opted out. Federal bullying the states. The states send revenue to the federal government and have to acquiesce to fed demands to get some back.
Isn't it sad that no one speculates that Alito or Thomas are in play? It isn't just the decision or vote but rather the basis for each Justice's vote that is essential to maintaining our confidence in the Court. On what basis would Alito rule against the law? If that basis is a perversion of reason and prior case law, then our confidence in the checks and balance system of our democracy as specified in the Constitution is weakened. Should the citizens of this country no longer believe in the fairness and objectivity of the Supreme Court, then our democracy itself is in peril.
Heh explain this "abomination of freedom" cuz i think you just woke up today wondering how can your dumba$$ use that term in an irrelevant uneducated manner
No healthcare is needed, just tweets and ipads.
I don't know what everybody is complaining about heh heh. We have to make sure those that lead this country are in good health and can live longer than the rest of us with sometimes only 4 years of service lol. The government (the American people) will ensure they will be taken care of so what is so scary about the words the government (Americans) will take care of them heh heh. Remember, those words are important to those that run this country LOL. Not one politician can be found that are afraid of those words heh heh.
Don't
worry, according to the Republicans, they will fix all our problems by
electing.... Newt Gingrich? Rick the I
don’t care about Unemployed Sanatorium? Mitt “The I love Firing people and I’m
not very concerned about poor” Romney?
Ya,
great idea. Let's elect the guy that was in bed with the lobbyists from the
companies that CAUSED THE RECESSION in the first place. What a fantastic
f***ing idea. Elect the man who will most likely cause us to go through the
crash all over again. God, these republicans are smart.
Or...
we can elect Mitt Romney. The billionaire who pays less in taxes than middle
class Americans, and STILL thinks we should reduce taxes on the rich. Yes,
awesome idea. Let's elect the guy who wants the rich to pay zero taxes, so the
middle class can carry the burden of the entire country. F***ing brilliant.
Those
are your options. If anyone has questioned whether the Republican party is
actively trying to destroy our country, there is your proof.
You would rather reelect a guy who tells the public that we can't keep piling up massive debt via continued deficit spending, so we don't have to saddle our children and grandchildren with those burdens, but then turns around and deficit spends at record levels and pushes our national debt to record highs.At the same time he continues to push for more deficit spending and debt creation. he talks about a "balanced" approach, but there is nothing balanced about it. Just more debt that our children and grandchildren will have to struggle to pay. That is the Obama way. Don't expect him to do as he says. No thanks. Dump Obama. We can't afford him any more!!!
The
Supreme Court of Injustice that is totally whacked like Tea bagging history of
the way they have ruled in the past striking down McCain/Feingold campaign law to show transparency
in Elections by a 5 to 4 margin along there party lines the justices are most
surely at odds over the RECLUSING
themselves from cases that they are illegally ruling on.
The
Truth is Health Care carriers have constantly said the reason High premiums exist is the uninsured. Further research has pointed
directly at the reason Premiums that were exploding at rates so fast before
this law of Health Care passed have now consistently been held more in check
then in previous years without proving the Law is starting to rein in cost.
Research also has proved that the lobbyist are trying to overturn anything
related to HealthCare law in order to return to the outrages profits and
increases in premiums they had been used to before the law existed.
Alito, Scalia, and Thomas will see the healthcare reform act as a bonanza for insurance companies ~ those corporations who are "people too" and who are so revered by rightwingers everywhere. It is possible that the court could uphold ObamaCare unanimously because it benefits corporate coffers at Aetna, Prudential, BlueCross-BlueShield, Humana, etc. The left-leaners will vote to sustain it because it is ObamaCare and the right leaners because it bumps up the corporate bottom line. Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts will certainly be conflicted ~ Kennedy will flip a coin ~ and the rest will vote in lockstep to affirm.
Did Santorum say "bull%&!#" or "bull$#!+"?
You are right, though Rick. Whenever I hear the media accurately reporting anything you've said, the first thought that comes to mind is "what a load of bull$#!+". It's good to know that you're admitting you have a problem. That's the first step to fixing it so that we no longer have to be subjected to your constant streams of "bull$#!+".
Don't blame the media, Rick, blame the leak. All that "bull$#!+" has just one source: your own mouth (or maybe your other orifices).
I fully expect the SCOTUS to rule against the so-called 'individual mandate.' Although the commerce clause has been given great latitude, it has never been interpreted to give Congress the authority to force individuals to engage in commerce. This is the legitimate role of the SCOTUS and I, for one, hope they exercise it with their full authority.
I’ll pay for your contraception when you pay for my ammunition !
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas released his new financial disclosure form on Friday under pressure from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and others.
Mother Jones reported that his financial disclosure form indicates his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, received a $150,000 salary from the group Liberty Central in 2010 and less than $15,000 from an anti-health care reform lobbying firm she founded.
Liberty Central, which she helped found, supports the repeal of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Weiner had taunted Thomas via Twitter on Friday, but his criticisms where quickly overshadowed by the so-called “Weinergate” fiasco that broke out Sunday. The congressman had previously called on Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving health care reform because of his wife’s financial connections to groups dedicated to its repeal.
“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law,” a letter written by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and signed by 74 Members of Congress stated. “From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred.”
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires Supreme Court justices to disclose their spouse’s income, but Thomas had not disclosed Virginia’s income on his financial disclosure forms for 20 years.
“We knew that Justice Thomas’ family had a financial stake in opposing health care reform,” Weiner said Friday in a statement. “Now we know even more. It’s pretty clear the justice has one option here: recusal.”
Obama is not fool..he knows how to play the politics...he urinates all over his base and yet they bow down and kiss his feet...gitmo still open, tax cut for the rich, no immigration policies, failing healthcare plan, supports wallstreet, takes money from super pacs...i could go on and on all day long and yet the libs love him...must be nice to be able to sh...t on your base and they will still go to the polls for you...our country is really a mess...personally I think it will hit the fan sooner or later..the debt will be over $20,000,000,000,000 in four years...NO way can this country sustain itself with debt at this level...oh well...let's just bury our head in the sand...think about...americans have gotten so stupid they cannot even handle their problems with obesity and exercise...something so simple yet so difficult for folks to do...samething with saving and retirement...
If this healthcare program does not pass and your very sick, please stop by any Republican's house and infect their whole family with what ever your sick with.
And, if your very sick now with something highly contagous...please hold out....and, try to make it to the Republican Convention in FL.
if this does pass and you are sick you will need someone to take care of you...your quality of care and access to care will dramtically drop...that is why we are fighting it...don't believe...google "canada healthcare imploding"
Weird. I have family and friends who live in Canada and they are complimentary of the healthcare system there. Foreign to them are the charges leveled against the Canadian system of rationed care, lengthy waits to receive care or treatment, and diminishing quality of care provided. They tell me that quite the contrary is true. In fact, the stories that condemn the Canadian system seem to originate from those who hold an intrinsic fear of "socialized" medicine and those who are all but violently opposed to any form of national healthcare assurances.
I call BS! That is called political spin, nothing more...a more accurate statement would be that "it confirms that the president is acting with politics in mind first"!
The Supreme court must decide weather socialism is covered within the Constitution of the United States.
A yes vote litterally means the constitution is null and void, and that the people of the US do not have the RIGHT of free choice.
The true answer to this problem is INSURANCE REFORM, not a mandate that everyone pay the money grabers for poor service. Insurance reform would mean they (insurance co.'s) are responsable for cutting costs through management practices at the provider level.
Obamacare means that they (the insurance co.'s) do as little as possible, and rake in more. It means that the federal government will be forcing this country into a third world status by reducing choice and competition, and reducing citizens into subjects.
The Constitution does not provide for a single religion to be that religion of America either but the continued march of the GOP across America trying to make America a single religion is a the greatest violation of the Constitution of the United States of America because from within the GOP hides the devil of Communism or state and corporate mandated laws and rules that says you have to believe in the GOP's religion or you can be shunned and persacuted until you give up your freedom of choice to believe as the master chooses for you to believe.
huh?
as opposed to the direct violation of the seperation of church and state your president, the obamanation tried to shove down this country's throat by demanding that churches pay for birth control, even where it violates church doctrine.
How could you equate the GOP to communits? This country, believe it or not, was founded on judeo-christian values. The constitution writen from those very same values. The term conservative itself means to conserve and preserve the constitution.
It is the DNC, the liberal, the progressive, that wishes to destroy the constitution, limit freedom with the guise that it wants people more 'equal', and remove religion altogether (a communist ideal).
Your blather obviously comes from ignorance on the subject. The constitution allows for all the freedoms given naturally, yet the progressive wishes that they were more free than everyone else, they want to demand that the rest of us bow to their whims, regardless of it's violations of our rights.
Alot of talk about the Supreme Court here. Everyone overlooks the hot mic moment where Obama shows his true colors. It will be interesting to see it the News covers it much. If he is reelected he will take a radical left turn
Do you know this for certain or or you just speculating based upon what you want to believe?
Everyone criticizes Obama for this reason or that reason but no one ever critized the last administration for creating laws that says unless you fall under the flag of the religion that the GOP mandates you believe then you are considered a terrorist or Communist.
The only radicals in this country are the GOP and their Tea Party nutters.
Wow, dwight, you really have it wrong, and so does the person feeding you those lies.
Obama was caught asking Russia to give him slack on missle defenses untill after the election. He said there would be more flexability them. You can read about it on MSN.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas released his new financial disclosure form on Friday under pressure from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and others.
Mother Jones reported that his financial disclosure form indicates his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, received a $150,000 salary from the group Liberty Central in 2010 and less than $15,000 from an anti-health care reform lobbying firm she founded.
Liberty Central, which she helped found, supports the repeal of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Weiner had taunted Thomas via Twitter on Friday, but his criticisms where quickly overshadowed by the so-called “Weinergate” fiasco that broke out Sunday. The congressman had previously called on Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving health care reform because of his wife’s financial connections to groups dedicated to its repeal.
“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law,” a letter written by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and signed by 74 Members of Congress stated. “From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred.”
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires Supreme Court justices to disclose their spouse’s income, but Thomas had not disclosed Virginia’s income on his financial disclosure forms for 20 years.
“We knew that Justice Thomas’ family had a financial stake in opposing health care reform,” Weiner said Friday in a statement. “Now we know even more. It’s pretty clear the justice has one option here: recusal.”
Anyone characterizing one party as being more or less ethical than the other is just the kind of fool that BOTH parties depend on. But for the record, nine of the richest people in congress are Democrats...so much for partisan class warfare. And who really believe our current president is NOT in bed with lobbyists? Labor unions are some of the most powerful, politically active de facto special interest groups out there...
Those supporting single-payer healthcare need to crack open a history book. There is plenty of free health care available in our country right now, regardless of what most media sources will tell you. Yet somehow we manage to avoid the severe pitfalls of the European system. Obamacare will change all of this, which is exactly its point.
I hate to resort to this kind of negative logic, but Anyone but Obama in 2012.
In the meantime, Mr Obama sends a message to Mr Putin that he is willing to stab the voters in the back and compromise our national security, but he has to wait until he deceives the voters into electing him again. Apparently, keeping Mr. Putin happy is more important to Mr Obama, in the long run, than our national security and keeping the citizens of this country safe. Let them eat cake, right Mr Obama?
"White House senior adviser David Plouffe noted on Meet the Press Sunday that, in 10 years, health care will be a positive and cited polling that people don’t want to re-litigate it. We can report that last part came from Democratic polling Plouffe has seen; he was NOT citing any public polling on this specific issue."
"We can report..." MSNBC bragging in inside information fed from an Obama flak? So...MSNBC has access to Democratic polls that the public doesnt?
MSNBC; leaning forward as a Plouffe-Axelrod mouthpiece...
No secret there. MSNBC is the Pravda of the Obama administration.
Here is something I do know as a fact. My insurance as a contractor/consultant for myself and my three children is $653.00 a month, with a $3000 deductible. Which means, my insurance runs almost $11,000 a year. I can afford it, but millions of Americans cannot.
And for Americans employed by companies that offer health insurance? More and more employers are either dumping healthcare altogether, or putting more of the costs on the employee. So called "Obamacare" is not perfect, but with some revisions, could go a long way to reigning in the rising cost of healthcare.
Oh and one other key point here. When health insurance companies like United Health, quit paying their CEO's compensation packages that allow them to retire as BILLIONAIRES, then I might believe they have to keep raising insurance rates.
Obamacare does nothing to stop the rising cost of health care services. Those cost are the driving factor behind the rising costs of insurance premiums.
There will never be conservative support to rein in healthcare "costs" because in doing so we would infringe on free enterprise capitalism. It would be unfair to cap costs which may result in depleted profits, therefore costs will continue to escalate while service deteriorates. Capping Medicare will only result in fewer doctors and hospitals accepting Medicare. The dog chases its tail.
Why support free enterprise capitalism (something that neither the Republicans or Democrats truly support) when you can support crony capitalism by climbing into bed with the insurance companies and the medical industrial complex? Wake up people. All this talk about getting something for free is just another B.S. Ponzi scheme to get your vote and then sell you down the river. Nothing in life is free, but everything is cheaper when you pay cash.