Search This Blog

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Honoring a Hero Who Defied the Nazis

Healthcare Reform Solves Nothing... It's The Debt, Stupid!


Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Over the last few weeks, I have been discussing the ongoing consolidation process for the S&P 500 from the March highs. (For a review read: “Oversold Bounce Or Return Of The Bull,” and “Return Of The Bull…For Now.”) As the expected rally in stocks, and reversal in bonds, took shape as the S&P 500 was finally able to ratchet a record close at 2399.29. (Read: 10/2016 – “2400 Or Bust”)

“With the market on a short-term ‘buy signal,’ deference should be given to the probability of a further market advance heading into May. With earnings season in full swing, there is a very likely probability that stocks can sustain their bullish bias for now.”

The market did do exactly that this past week, and while hitting a new high, as noted above, it was a “weak” breakout as volume contracted. My friend Dana Lyons made an interesting observation this past week:

You will notice that while such events did NOT rule out “new highs” first,such periods often preceded either mild or intermediate-term corrections.

Furthermore, despite the record close on Friday, it did little to change the intermediate term backdrop of the markets. The “warning signal” I discussed three weeks ago, still remains which is currently keeping a  lid on stock prices for now. More importantly, we remain very close to triggering the secondary “sell signal,” also from an extremely high level, which would also raise caution levels higher, cut such has not happened…yet.

Importantly, both signals are improving over the last week, and, as I wrote last week:

“If the markets can continue to rally next week, and push to new highs, then both of those signals will reverse. The problem is the reversal from high levels historically has only been short-lived before a more significant decline took place as shown in the chart below.”

While much of the price action on Friday was due to continued “dovish Fed-speak” from a raft of speakers on Friday, it was also the high expectation of a successful French election this coming weekend. At current levels, the potential “reward” from an upward move next week is far outweighed by the downside risk. 

Therefore, a “reactionary” approach to portfolio management is a better choice in the current environment. In other words, let the market determine our next course of action rather than trying to “guess” at what may happen. Throughout history, investors have rarely “guessed” well.

Despite the push higher this past week, it should be noted that since the beginning of March internal measures have remained weak. With the markets very extended above their 200-dma, a correction is likely over the next month or so. This is particularly the case as volatility has dropped to its lowest levels in recent history.

Furthermore, both the ratio and number of stocks above their respective 50 and 200 day moving averages has also remained weak.

Lastly, the market remains very 3-standard deviations above its 3-year moving average. While the long-term signal currently remains on a “buy,” it will not require much weakness sometime this summer to trigger a long-term “sell.”

For now, the market remains in a bullish trend which keeps portfolios allocated on the long-side. Outside of small tweaks and close monitoring, nothing has occurred, yet, which would warrant more drastic movements within the allocation model. However, we have reached a point in the market cycle where the “risk” of remaining heavily invested in the market far outweighs the potential “reward.”

As has been the case over the last couple of weeks, caution, nothing more, is advised for now.


AHCA Solves Little

First, everyone just calm the **** down.

The passage of the American Health Care Act by Congress this past week does nothing immediately. Nobody is going to die. No one will lose access to health care. The world will not end.

All that happens now is the bill moves to the Senate where it will likely be dead on arrival. Given the bill only passed by 4-votes in the House, there is a much narrower spread of leadership in the Senate. The bill will likely get tied up in debates, and even it does somehow miraculously get passed out of the Senate, whatever changes are made will likely lead to a loss when it returns back to Congress for a final vote.

Then we will get to restart this whole process over again.

This also means that tax reform, repatriation, and infrastructure spending are likely much further down the road than currently estimated. 

One thing, however, is for certain – Obama no longer owns “the failed healthcare plan.” 

It now squarely rests on the shoulders of President Trump and the Republican party. Since the current construction will increase healthcare costs and government debt, the opposite of why Trump was elected, it will likely cost Republicans control of House and Senate in the next election. 

The ACHA, or now known as “Trump Care,” is roughly 90% ObamaCare with the taxes stripped out of it. Here are the details as provided by Goldman Sachs on Friday:

COVERAGE

  • It would allow young adults to stay on their parents’ health plan until age 26.
  • The bill would let states opt out of Obamacare’s mandate that insurers charge the same rates on sick and healthy people.
  • It would also allow states to opt out of Obamacare’s requirement that insurers cover 10 essential health benefits, such as maternity care and prescription drug costs.
  • The measure would provide states with $100 billion, largely to fund high-risk pools to provide insurance to the sickest patients.
  • The bill also would provide $8 billion over five years to help those with pre-existing conditions pay for insurance.
  • It would let insurers mark-up premiums by 30 percent for those who have a lapse in insurance coverage of about two months or more.
  • The ability to charge older Americans up to five times more than young people. Under Obamacare, they could only charge up to three times more.

TAX

  • The bill would end in 2018 Obamacare’s income-based tax credits that help low-income people buy insurance.
  • These would be replaced with age-based tax credits ranging from $2,000 to $4,000 per yearthat would be capped at upper-income levels.
  • The Republican bill would abolish most Obamacare taxes,including on medical devices, health insurance premiums, indoor tanning salons, prescription medications and high-cost employer-provided insurance known as “Cadillac” plans.
  • Those taxes paid for Obamacare. Republicans have not said how they would pay for the parts of the law they want to keep.
  • The bill would also repeal the Obamacare financial penalty for the 2016 tax year for not purchasing insurance, as well as a surtax on investment income earned by upper-income Americans.
  • It would repeal the mandate that larger employers must offer insurance to their employees.

MEDICAID

  • The bill would allow the Medicaid expansion to continue until Jan. 1, 2020. After that date, expansion would end and Medicaid funding would be capped on a per-person basis.
  • State Medicaid plans would no longer have to cover some Obamacare-mandated essential health benefits, fulfilling a Republican promise to return more control to the states

The ramifications for the economy are not good. For investors it likely means a much longer wait for tax reform and the expected boost to corporate profitability. Per Goldman:

“In our view, House passage of the AHCA is likely to further delay the consideration of tax reform. House passage arguably reduces doubts that Republicans can assemble a working majority for controversial legislation in the House, which suggests that complex tax legislation might be achievable as well. However, since the House cannot act on tax reform using the ‘reconciliation’ process until the Senate has passed (or decides not to pass) its own health legislation, tax legislation looks unlikely to emerge until September in our view. Given the time it will likely take to reach an agreement on tax legislation, this suggests that enactment of tax legislation is unlikely until Q1 2018. While our base case is still that legislation is more likely than not to pass in 2018, further delays could push consideration of tax legislation too close to the upcoming midterm election, reducing the likelihood that tax legislation is enacted in the next two years.”

For investors, it is a case of “Waiting On Godot.”  The only question is just how long will they wait.


Debt Is The Problem

But of course, here is the bigger point.

The chart below is the current amount of debt (not including the $1.1 Trillion continuing resolution last week) and the amount of interest currently being paid on that debt.

As the Committee For A Responsible Budget penned on Friday:

“Setting aside the health policy implications of these changes,the fiscal implications could be significant. If more people purchase health insurance, more will be eligible for the AHCA’s tax credits. Assuming no change in employer coverage, we estimate an increase of one million enrollees would cost about $30 billion over a decade, two million would cost $60 billion, five million would cost $150 billion, and ten million would cost $300 billion.”

“Taken together, that means the amendments would save an additional $5 billion if one million more people enrolled in insurance each year than CBO’s prior projection. But it would cost $25 billion if two million more people enrolled, $115 billion if five million more enrolled, and $265 billion if ten million did.With 6.5 million or more additional enrollees, the entire legislation would likely increase rather than reduce deficits.”

The significant importance of this was pointed out just recently in “Tax Cuts The Economic Growth Cure-All?”

“Of course, as noted, rising debt levels is the real impediment to longer-term increases in economic growth. When 75% of your current Federal Budget goes to entitlements and debt service, there is little left over for the expansion of the economic growth.”

“The tailwinds enjoyed by Reagan are now headwinds for Trump.”

The true burden on taxpayers is government spending, because the debt requires future interest payments out of future taxes. As debt levels, and subsequently deficits, increase, economic growth is burdened by the diversion of revenue from productive investments into debt service. 

This is the same problem that many households in America face today. Many families are struggling to meet the service requirements of the debt they have accumulated over the last couple of decades with the income that is available to them. They can only increase that income marginally by taking on second jobs. However, the biggest ability to service the debt at home is to reduce spending in other areas.

While lowering corporate tax rates will certainly help businesses potentially increase their bottom line earnings, there is a high probability that it will not “trickle down” to middle-class America.

wealth-distribution10-15

While I am certainly hopeful for meaningful changes in tax reform, deregulation and a move back towards a middle-right political agenda, from an investment standpoint there are many economic challenges that are not policy driven.

  • Demographics
  • Structural employment shifts
  • Technological innovations
  • Globalization
  • Financialization 
  • Global debt

These challenges will continue to weigh on economic growth, wages and standards of living into the foreseeable future.  As a result, incremental tax and policy changes will have a more muted effect on the economy as well.



Read More Here

A+RA- New Yorker: Secret Cabal of Congressmen Plotting to Remove President Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. Sunday, 07 May 2017 15:15 Print Email font size decrease font size increase font size New Yorker: Secret Cabal of Congressmen Plotting to Remove President A coterie of congressmen are secretly meeting to concoct a plan to impeach President Donald Trump, the New Yorker reports. Writing for the magazine, Evan Osnos reports that “Trump’s critics are actively exploring the path to impeachment or the invocation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which allows for the replacement of a President who is judged to be mentally unfit.” Who are these mystery conspirators? Osnos claimed during an appearance on MSNBC, This is a conversation that people are having around the dinner table, it’s one people have at the office, members of Congress are talking about it in private and the question is very simple: is this a president who is able to do the job and is able to go the distance? While President Trump has demonstrated disdain for several key constitutional restraints on his power, it still seems a bit cowardly to claim “members of Congress” are mulling over tactics for taking down the president without naming those lawmakers. As for the 25th Amendment, even the president’s most vicious critics among the mainstream media admit that this tactic is doomed. In an article published in February, Salon called any talk of invoking the 25th Amendment as a way to dump Trump “unambiguous, raving madness.” Osnos seems undeterred by his comrades’ evaluation of the likely efficacy of such a scenario, insisting that “there has been considerable speculation about Trump’s physical and mental health.” While the 25th Amendment is purportedly the lever this secret group of lawmakers are using to pry President Trump out of the White House, it is worthwhile to look at the history of how presidents are constitutionally removed from office. An excellent summary of this topic was written in 2010 by Robert Gilbert, a political science professor at Northeastern University. Here’s the relevant portion of his article: In September 1787, they inserted the following clause into the draft Constitution: “[I]n case of [the President’s] removal as aforesaid, death, absence, resignation or inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice-president shall exercise those powers and duties until another President be chosen, or until the inability of the President be removed.” A few days later, however, the draft constitution went to the Committee of Style for polishing, and this particular provision came back to the Framers in a quite different form. It then read: “In case of the removal of the president from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the vice-president.” This wording — which was accepted by the Framers and incorporated into the Constitution as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 — presented three significant problems: (1) It is not clear to what “the same” refers. Do these words refer to the presidential office or to the powers and duties of the presidential office? The difference between the two is significant. If the presidential office passes to the vice president, the vice president becomes President; if the powers and duties of the office pass to the vice president, the vice president serves only as acting president. The latter is what the Framers seemed to intend, but their intentions became clouded in the final wording of the Constitution. 2) It is not clear what the Framers meant by “inability.” Also unclear is who determines “inability,” how “inability” is determined, and who determines when and if “inability” has ended. 3) The Framers placed in the same sentence of the Constitution three permanent conditions under which a president may leave office (removal, death, and resignation) with one temporary or even fleeting condition (inability). If the vice president inherits the office of the presidency when any one of these conditions exists, it is unclear whether a disabled president could get back the office after the inability ended. It is not surprising, then, that, for much of American history, presidents were reluctant to admit publicly that they were ill or disabled because this admission might have provoked a constitutional crisis. Gilbert goes on to rehearse a rarely remembered episode in American history, an episode that served to clear up the constitutional language regarding the transfer of power from president to vice-president. In 1841, Gilbert explains, President William Henry Harrison died in office and almost immediately vice-president John Tyler insisted that he was the new chief executive, not just some presidential pinch-hitter. Gilbert continues: Some of his political contemporaries disagreed. Former President John Quincy Adams, a member of the House of Representatives at the time, wrote in his diary, “I paid a visit this morning to Mr. Tyler, who styles himself President of the United States, and not Vice-President, acting as President, which would be the correct style.” On the floor of the Senate, Senator William Allen of Ohio raised a troubling question. If a Vice President becomes President when the President dies, resigns, is removed, or is disabled, what happens if a President recovers from a disability only to find the Vice President claiming to be President? “What would become of the office? Was it to vibrate between the two claimants?” He then warned that if the “office” of President devolved on the Vice President in a succession event, “the most fearful convulsions might follow.” Tyler, however, was fiercely determined, and insisted that he was, in fact, the nation’s new President. To drive home the point, he took the presidential oath of office, gave an inaugural address in which he proclaimed that the presidential office had devolved on him and moved into the White House. Faced with his intransigence, Congress finally acquiesced. This created a powerful precedent: when the presidency was vacated permanently, the Vice President became President of the United States rather than Acting President. Over a century later, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment would codify the precedent set by John Tyler, an action Professor Gilbert claims “overturns the Framers’ original intentions….” Once again, the wisdom of the Founders was nullified by one man’s mania for political power. Finally, after chronicling evidence of President Trump’s “malignant narcissism,” in an exercise in exploring potential paths that could lead to removing President Trump via the Twenty-Fifth Amendment’s “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” clause, Osnos quotes Professor Gilbert as saying, “If the statements get too strange, then the Vice-President might be able to do something. But if the President is just being himself—talking in the same way that he talked during the campaign—then the Vice-President and the Cabinet would find it very difficult.” After admitting that the first two-thirds of his article was impotent pragmatically, Osnos hitches his hopes of undoing the last presidential election to the wagon of impeachment. Although likely to prove equally as futile, at least the impeachment gambit has some support from the Founders. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides the power to check corruption of all federal officials: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In The Federalist, No. 65, Alexander Hamilton promoted the power of impeachment to protect public trust: A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. [Emphasis in original.] The Framers of the Constitution, while meeting in Philadelphia in 1787 recognized the necessity of writing a remedy into our founding charter for the disease of official abuse of the confidence of the people. Impeachment was the remedy and it was a central element of the overall scheme of tethering public servants to the anchor of popular consent. On July 20, 1787, James Madison recorded the following question asked by George Mason during debates on the proper method of keeping federal officers inside their constitutional cages. “No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above justice?” Madison asked. On that same hot afternoon session, Madison himself described impeachment as an “indispensable” provision for “defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy” of government officials. So, while journalists such as Osnos spend time typing out clickbait claims of secret cabals of congressmen conspiring to oust the president, those who genuinely want to push the president out of the Oval Office would be better off pursuing impeachment. More in this category: « Obama Team Distributed Thousands of NSA Data Reports Showing Names of U.S. Residents in 2016 Scroll to Top Copyright © 2015 The New American Designed by JoomShaper Powered by Joomla! Valid XHTML and CSS About TNA About Staff Contributors Shop Get Involved Advertise Contact Us


New Yorker: Secret Cabal of Congressmen Plotting to Remove President

Written by  Sunday, 07 May 2017 15:15
New Yorker: Secret Cabal of Congressmen Plotting to Remove President

A coterie of congressmen are secretly meeting to concoct a plan to impeach President Donald Trump, the New Yorker reports.

Writing for the magazine, Evan Osnos reports that “Trump’s critics are actively exploring the path to impeachment or the invocation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which allows for the replacement of a President who is judged to be mentally unfit.”

Who are these mystery conspirators?

Osnos claimed during an appearance on MSNBC,

This is a conversation that people are having around the dinner table, it’s one people have at the office, members of Congress are talking about it in private and the question is very simple: is this a president who is able to do the job and is able to go the distance?

While President Trump has demonstrated disdain for several key constitutional restraints on his power, it still seems a bit cowardly to claim “members of Congress” are mulling over tactics for taking down the president without naming those lawmakers.

As for the 25th Amendment, even the president’s most vicious critics among the mainstream media admit that this tactic is doomed.

In an article published in February, Salon called any talk of invoking the 25th Amendment as a way to dump Trump “unambiguous, raving madness.”

Osnos seems undeterred by his comrades’ evaluation of the likely efficacy of such a scenario, insisting that “there has been considerable speculation about Trump’s physical and mental health.”

While the 25th Amendment is purportedly the lever this secret group of lawmakers are using to pry President Trump out of the White House, it is worthwhile to look at the history of how presidents are constitutionally removed from office.

An excellent summary of this topic was written in 2010 by Robert Gilbert, a political science professor at Northeastern University. Here’s the relevant portion of his article:

In September 1787, they inserted the following clause into the draft Constitution: “[I]n case of [the President’s] removal as aforesaid, death, absence, resignation or inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice-president shall exercise those powers and duties until another President be chosen, or until the inability of the President be removed.”

A few days later, however, the draft constitution went to the Committee of Style for polishing, and this particular provision came back to the Framers in a quite different form. It then read: “In case of the removal of the president from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the vice-president.”

This wording — which was accepted by the Framers and incorporated into the Constitution as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 — presented three significant problems:

(1) It is not clear to what “the same” refers. Do these words refer to the presidential office or to the powers and duties of the presidential office? The difference between the two is significant. If the presidential office passes to the vice president, the vice president becomes President; if the powers and duties of the office pass to the vice president, the vice president serves only as acting president. The latter is what the Framers seemed to intend, but their intentions became clouded in the final wording of the Constitution.

2) It is not clear what the Framers meant by “inability.” Also unclear is who determines “inability,” how “inability” is determined, and who determines when and if “inability” has ended.

3) The Framers placed in the same sentence of the Constitution three permanent conditions under which a president may leave office (removal, death, and resignation) with one temporary or even fleeting condition (inability). If the vice president inherits the office of the presidency when any one of these conditions exists, it is unclear whether a disabled president could get back the office after the inability ended. It is not surprising, then, that, for much of American history, presidents were reluctant to admit publicly that they were ill or disabled because this admission might have provoked a constitutional crisis.

Gilbert goes on to rehearse a rarely remembered episode in American history, an episode that served to clear up the constitutional language regarding the transfer of power from president to vice-president.

In 1841, Gilbert explains, President William Henry Harrison died in office and almost immediately vice-president John Tyler insisted that he was the new chief executive, not just some presidential pinch-hitter. Gilbert continues:

Some of his political contemporaries disagreed. Former President John Quincy Adams, a member of the House of Representatives at the time, wrote in his diary, “I paid a visit this morning to Mr. Tyler, who styles himself President of the United States, and not Vice-President, acting as President, which would be the correct style.”

On the floor of the Senate, Senator William Allen of Ohio raised a troubling question. If a Vice President becomes President when the President dies, resigns, is removed, or is disabled, what happens if a President recovers from a disability only to find the Vice President claiming to be President? “What would become of the office? Was it to vibrate between the two claimants?” He then warned that if the “office” of President devolved on the Vice President in a succession event, “the most fearful convulsions might follow.”

Tyler, however, was fiercely determined, and insisted that he was, in fact, the nation’s new President. To drive home the point, he took the presidential oath of office, gave an inaugural address in which he proclaimed that the presidential office had devolved on him and moved into the White House. Faced with his intransigence, Congress finally acquiesced. This created a powerful precedent: when the presidency was vacated permanently, the Vice President became President of the United States rather than Acting President.

Over a century later, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment would codify the precedent set by John Tyler, an action Professor Gilbert claims “overturns the Framers’ original intentions….”

Once again, the wisdom of the Founders was nullified by one man’s mania for political power.

Finally, after chronicling evidence of President Trump’s “malignant narcissism,” in an exercise in exploring potential paths that could lead to removing President Trump via the Twenty-Fifth Amendment’s “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” clause, Osnos quotes Professor Gilbert as saying, “If the statements get too strange, then the Vice-President might be able to do something. But if the President is just being himself—talking in the same way that he talked during the campaign—then the Vice-President and the Cabinet would find it very difficult.”

After admitting that the first two-thirds of his article was impotent pragmatically, Osnos hitches his hopes of undoing the last presidential election to the wagon of impeachment.

Although likely to prove equally as futile, at least the impeachment gambit has some support from the Founders.

Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides the power to check corruption of all federal officials: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

In The Federalist, No. 65, Alexander Hamilton promoted the power of impeachment to protect public trust:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. [Emphasis in original.]

The Framers of the Constitution, while meeting in Philadelphia in 1787 recognized the necessity of writing a remedy into our founding charter for the disease of official abuse of the confidence of the people. Impeachment was the remedy and it was a central element of the overall scheme of tethering public servants to the anchor of popular consent.

On July 20, 1787, James Madison recorded the following question asked by George Mason during debates on the proper method of keeping federal officers inside their constitutional cages.

“No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above justice?” Madison asked.

On that same hot afternoon session, Madison himself described impeachment as an “indispensable” provision for “defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy” of government officials.

So, while journalists such as Osnos spend time typing out clickbait claims of secret cabals of congressmen conspiring to oust the president, those who genuinely want to push the president out of the Oval Office would be better off pursuing impeachment.

House Oversight Committee Investigating How Obama Admin Misled Americans Over Iran Deal

Cortney O'Brien

We already know that the Obama administration engaged in some verbal gymnastics to try and sell the Iranian nuclear deal to the American people in 2015. The New York Times reportedlast year that Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes helped push a "narrative" that Iran had adopted moderate policies so that the White House could gain support for the agreement. In reality, Iran was still in engaging in nefarious activity. 

The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), is digging deeper to try and discover just how the Obama White House manipulated the deal. The committee is reacting in direct response to a Politico report last month that suggested the Obama administration "hampered a much-touted federal law enforcement effort known as the National Counterproliferation Initiative at a time when it was making unprecedented headway in thwarting Iran’s illicit weapons proliferation activities."

The report also noted that the Obama administration downplayed the threat of the Iranian traffickers they were freeing as part of a prisoner swap. While the president insisted the freed prisoners were merely "civilians," in reality they posed serious threats to national security.

Now, Chaffetz, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and other members of the House Oversight Committee and sending their demands to the Justice Department, eager to glean more information about the last administration's misleading tactics.

In their May 5 letter, Republican Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Ron DeSantis asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to produce an exhaustive volume of Justice Department documents that they said would “help the Committee in better understanding these issues.” They sent a nearly identical letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson demanding all related documents in the State Department’s possession, and gave both officials until May 19 to provide one copy of them to committee Republicans, and another to committee Democrats. A Democratic Committee staffer said the minority side wasn't asked to sign the letter or given an advance copy of it before it went out.

Before the Oversight Committee penned their letter, over a dozen senators wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions as well, asking similar questions.

The senators’ letter, released Friday, was co-signed by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), James Inhofe (R-OK), John Boozman (R-AK), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Tim Scott (R-SC) and Luther Strange (R-Ala.).

The senators, in their letter, included a list of questions they wanted answered, including whether the 21 men whose cases were dropped were “still engaging in illicit activities on behalf of the Iranian government.”

On the one-year anniversary of the nuclear deal, President Obama claimed the agreement had lived up to its promises. Yet, Iran is still engaging in belligerent behavior.

Ryan on Republicans not reading the bill: 'Bogus attack' from the left

Ryan on Republicans not reading the bill: 'Bogus attack' from the left
By Rebecca Savransky - 05-07-17 09:33 AM EDT

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Sunday dismissed "bogus" criticism that Republicans in the House rushed their healthcare bill to a vote before some of them read the bill.

"I think this is kind of a bogus attack from the left," Ryan said during an interview on ABC's "This Week." He was asked about concessions from other members of the House who admitted they didn't read the bill, as well as the fact that there wasn't a hearing or committee markup on the finalized bill.

"The bill has been online for two months," he said. "The final version was an amendment that was three pages long. It takes you 30 seconds to read."

The GOP is now facing criticism similar to their own over ObamaCare in 2009.

"Before members even had time to read the 1,000-page bill, it already has cleared two major House committees," Ryan wrote in a 2009 op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "Those members of Congress who voted for this bill already in their committees did so without knowing what the legislation costs."

But on Sunday, Ryan said the ObamaCare legislation was more than 2,000 pages long, compared to the GOP's replacement bill, which was under 200 pages long.

Ryan also said the GOP healthcare bill had received two scores from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the final amendment wasn't going to "dramatically alter" that score.

The House last week narrowly passed legislation aimed at repealing and replacing ObamaCare, sending the bill to the Senate.

No House Democrats supported the bill, and many publicly slammed it as "abominable" and a "tax cut for millionaires."

Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), a top ally of President Trump, admitted last week that he did not read the entire text of the GOP's healthcare bill. But he said his staff did.

"I will fully admit, Wolf, I did not, but I can also assure you my staff did," Collins said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. "You know, I have to rely on my staff, and I can probably tell you that I read every word and I wouldn't be telling you the truth, nor would any other member."