i believe it is totally upconstitutional and it is absolutely unaffordable and unaffordable for arizonaor sure, and it is unaffordable for america. >> if you can in your words shut it down, what do you tell the estimated just shy of 60,000 young adults in arizona notal louds to stay on their parents health coverage because the law moves it up to 26 or the 1,700 plus that had preexisting conditions and couldn't get it a year ago and can now. what do you tell them if you win? >> first and foremost, i understand the polite. we have all been at some time may be maybe in that situation. the bottom line is i don't believe that the federal government, and that is at issue, and i think states and states ought to have rights and those are issues that we can determine and that we can solve on a state level. government just simply can't do everything for everyone. under the existing circumstances, i understand there are situations where people indeed need care and need services, but i believe in america that the majority of those people are getting those services under a situations and circumstanc

losing five of them in the space of a few weeks is unaffordable. to protect his animals, hes laying a trap for the lions. across southern africa, traps like these claim the lives of dozens of lions every year. and this is where the lions cross onto farmland. the broken fence of a neighbouring game reserve. the namibian authorities should repair it. but if at all, its the farmers themselves who do so. and committed conservation groups, such as africat north, a foundation dedicated to preserving the namibian lion. 51-year-old namibian tammy hoth is the head of africat north, shes on the frontline of a perennial conflict, between farmers trying to protect their livestock, and local lions roaming their traditional territory. namibias etosha national park has around 400 wild lions. they generate millions in tourism revenue. as the top predator, theyre vital to the delicately- balanced eco-system. but in recent decades, theyve been trapped, poisoned or shot. experts estimate their numbers have been halved in the last 50 years. >> obviously, we want to pr

to come out strong against any state budget cuts that would affect education and make it really unaffordable with the tuition hikes going on and causing outrageous student debt. activists plan to start with a protest this morning outside of california hall where they say many upper administrators are working, planning teach-outs as they have done, holding classes outside near sprawl hall. then a big noon time rally and a march a little later to oakland to meet up with other east bay schools that are participating in this. similar actions again starting at dozens of other east bay schools. this kicks off an ambitious march from the bay area all the way to sacramento where an even bigger protest is planned for march 5th. some students are saying that they are also calling on the governor to support a millionaire's tax, they say that is one of the only ways to try and keep public education affordable. reporting live, christie smith, "today in the bay." >> a livermore middle school reopening after a very tense situation last night. the east avenue campus was locked down following a report that s

a decision that made water unaffordable for many.ld we deal with this precious commodity in the future? time for solutions. that is the motto of this year's world water forum. >> as you have seen, water scarcity is a huge problem in an megacities, but it is also true for india's financial capital mumbai. >> 21 million people. over half of them live in slums. for the poor, accessing drinking water is a daily struggle. >> early in the morning in mumbai, india. for one to two hours a day, the city's water works palm drinking water into residential areas. during that time, the inhabitants of mumbai's slums can collected in buckets from communal taps. latecomers have to make do with the dregs, dirty water that is not necessarily fit for drinking. experts say the constant competition for such an essential commodity sparks conflict. >> on one hand, they produce the new challenges for providing services. on the other hand, they're like a bomb waiting to be ignited. because deep social unrest produces a very, very dangerous and eerie vocable

our amendments will end unaffordable tax cuts for millionaires, absurd tax breaks for oil and other unfair special interest tax giveaways. democrats will argue for responsible investments in building blocks of competitive . blocks that include basic research, modern infrastructure, clean energy, workforce development, and education. my colleagues will offer commitn and immediate upgrades to america's crumbling highways, bridges, and transit systems. to invest $35 billion to modernize at least 35,000 american public schools and community colleges, and direct $1 billion to put 20,000 veterans to work restoring our national parks and public lands. investments like these will create thousands of sustain our economy, recovery, and help shape a new american economy. that the economy of mittee the last decade was built on shaky ground of financial speculation, consumer debt, and imported it's gone. past government policies that contributed to that failed economy are gone aso build a better economy built on a foundation of advanced innovation, and exports. the world-class economy, though, folks, i

so this legislation is not only unaffordable, it makes matter worse when it comes to current programs like medicare, which are already in bad shape. and it's going toul contraction or shrinking of individual freedom in making health care choices. board of bureaucrats er are going to decide whether your medical care is it or whether the federal government will simply choose not to pay for it because in the cost benefit analysis of those bureaucrats, it's simply isn't worth it. >> i'll turn it over to senator hutchinson at this point. a. >> well, thank you. i thinke' arguments. we were arguing is it a tax or a mandate. i thought justice roberts certainly said, well, of course, we all know if it's a tax, th c capability to do it. but he basically said if it dcke a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. which means it's a mandate. will make this whole law unconstitutional. and i think that when you look at what it's doing, it's telling every business in america that they have to subscribe to a .overnment-run health care plan it is ndate that is unsustainable constitution. and i think t

assessment that expanding normalization beyond our current authorization of 4,645 family members is unaffordable under the current construct. our two relocation plans are on track and i intend to execute them. i will continue to review these plans to ensure they place the right capabilities and the right places to meet the operational requirements on the peninsula. the charge to maintain the armistice, deter aggression, defend the republic of korea and take care of our warriors and families is my primary concern. again, i thank you for your support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and department of defensively yans and the families serving in korea. thank you very much. i now look forward to your questions. >> thank you. dr. la voy, you commented about a deal breaker. what is our deal and what happens if they violated and break the deal? >> thank you for that question. we have reached an agreement with the north koreans that will enable us to provide food assistance to north korea and we have been under the very important to us to delink humanitarian assistance and including nutritional

so this legislation is not only unaffordable, it makes matters worse when it comes to current programs like medicare, which are already in bad shape. and it is going to result in a contraction or shrinking of individual freedom in making health care choices, and instead, a 15-member unelected board of bureaucrats are going to decide weather your medicare is worth it or if the federal government will choose not to pay for it because in the cost benefit analysis it isn't working. i'll turn it over to senator hutchinson for this point. >> thank you. we've seen the early arguments today. especially. if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. it's a duck. which means it's a mandate. it's telling every business in america they have to subscribe to a government-run health care plan or they can't offer the premiums. it is a mandate unsustainable in the constitution. and we hope they will come to the right decision. there's no question that two-thirds of the american people believe this is an encroachment on their freedom, and i hope that we can change it some day by

the unaffordable care act is mussolini meets rube goldberg but still dangerous. people don't realize he writes the crisis is the result of previous government intervention. there has been no free market in health services for decades. people should be protesting to remove the federal government from health care, not to make the existing mountain of federal health bureaucracy even larger. our next call on our supreme court coverage day here is bay point, california. you're on the air. >> thank you. my concern as well. i'm generally in favor of the affordable care act or that there aren't provisions that require people -- require insurance providers to cover alternative health care chiropractor care, acupuncture and other kinds of treatment. the problem is that if people are going to be forced to pay for health care, they shouldn't be forced to pay for health care they don't want. i worked for a nonprofit corporation and advocate for people with chronic physical and mental disabilities since 1974, and the problem that they -- the problems they face is that the only

it's going -- it's so unaffordable that more and more people will not be onpla thank god that president obama did do this. and it was a lot of republicans it was the romney plan in the beginning and now he other republicans are back tracking like they always do. it's a to try to make president obama unelectable. avor and going to work. put the mandate up for everyone to read you would see that it's not really, really a mandate. no one's any ridiculous amount of money. no one's going to jail. the mandate doesn't start until changed and i think we'll have single payer health care. that's what we need. thank you. >> thank you, mary joe. about an hour ago michael car vin one of the lawyers with the national federation of independent business he came out after the oral arguments wereni spoke to reporters on the steps of the sueme court. here's michael carven. >> carven. any questions? we'rryterest in the case. they obviously have deeply explored the issues. i feel that we got our chance to make our case and since our case s'm hopeful that the court will do the right thing and strike down the

lesley is on. >> i want to say this should be called it unaffordable care act.eople who talk about children -- for kids that have special needs in order to have them covered. allows seems ton pick among health care plans to is like all of the congress does. number four, a middle-of-the- road americans whose husband has worked his butt off -- we have health insurance and we pay for it. i don't want to be subsidizing people that are of adults age and can work and actually -- we have a ppo. we have a ppo. we did not win for at $10 or $20 or $30 an office visit. they take your blood and expect to pay $10 or $15. this is a big scam. i'm sorry i am being this subset. -- upset. i will give to any charity, lutheran hospital, any charity around. don't tell me the people get turned away from hospitals if they do not have insurance. the doctor will say do this or do that. then they have to go out and get resources on their own to go to charities to get the rest of the care they need. one of my sisters had to do this. i am very upset. >> that was lesley from north carolina.

it's highly unaffordable. we're now over what it's going to cost in increased taxes and spending by the federal government. so my hope would be -- and for another reason, charlie, is the commerce clause and the expansion of it is the reason we're running trillion-dollar deficits. you and i have had this conversation before. we're in such a big financial hole. if you go back to look white we are, it's because the federal government has gotten outside of the bounds of what wi were ever to do and one of the ways we did that is by expanding the commerce clause to have us involvedny things that are not in our purview. >> he says, in my sohn own view the individual mandate is perfectly acceptable policy. if all americans are in the same intraconnected system i think it's reasonable for government to insist that all americans participate in the insurance network that is the payment method for that system. >> well, we just don't have the authority to tell people to do that. that's fine for some columnist to write that

it's highly unaffordable. we're now $2.6 trillion over the first ten years of what it's actually going to cost in increased taxes and spending by the federal government. my hope would be and for another reason, charlie, is the commerce clause and the expansion of it is the reason we run a trillion dollar deficit. you and i have had this conversation before. we're in such a big financial hole. if you go back to look at why we are, it's because the federal government has gotten outside of the bounds of what we were ever intending to do and one of the ways we did that was by expanding the commerce clause to have us involved in things that are really not our purview under the constitution. >> david brooks in today's "the new york times" who is someone who i suspect in many cases you share views with says in my own view the individual mandate is perfectly acceptable policy. we have a national health care system where all indirect pay for ill and injured people. if all americans are in the same health care system, i

in other words, illness will one day soon simply become unaffordable.'s medical cost will surpass their entire income. it's no secret health care costs have been growing faster than just about anything else, and while the trend did slow a bit recently, the authors of this study say medical costs are still going up. as a matter of fact, they're slated to continue to rise about as star as the eye can see. that brings us to the subject of obama-care. in 2009-2010, health care costs grew at a slower rate than any time on record, but they still grew, obama-care the critics say is not enough to solve this problem. the doctors say that obama-care is a good first step, but it's not enough to get us eventually where we must go. what does it mean if paying for health care costs will soon take your entire paycheck? that's scary. go to cnn.com/caffertyfile, post a comment on my blog, or go to our post on "the situation room's" facebook page. wolf? >> that's very carey, jack. thank you. >>> while the republican candidates have been hammering one another at every opp

also in san jose can tackle what officials call a growing liability that is unsustainable and unaffordable half of every payroll dollar in this cities pays not for currents work salaries but it goes to retirees and pensions. here in san diego * we have a retired librarian who draws a $234,000 annual pension. and workers are getting -- can retire with full benefits at age 55. new employees won't get a pension, they will get a 401k. currents employees will pay more on politicians will get no pension at all. >> i want our taxpayers to know government employees are going to receive no better retirement package than the hard working families that pay the bill. >> this ballot measure is illegal. if it passes we'll see if you court. and the city can spend more money on legal fees. >> reporter: the initiative just qualified soy don't have the attack ads on tv and radio yet. taxpayer's exposure is limited to 9%. however, former mayor roger hedge come believes unions will have major opposition. >> san diego will be the next wisconsin. i think you will see a confrontation with these unions who have a

benefit is going to be a taxpayer subsidized insurance plan, and the costs are going to be simply unaffordablejenna: can you do something at that point, though, can congress act, can lawmakers be better advocates, if you will, for some of those exploited costs? it seems like you're suggesting if this law goes through that it's game over. >> no. this law did nothing to deal with insurance costs. all this law did was try to guarantee universal coverage, and the fact of the matter is it didn't succeed in even doing that. so that's really one of the failed opportunities of omabacare, that it really didn't deal with the basic issue of affordability, of health insurance, and we know that is the principal reason why people are uninsured, and we can do much better and we will, given the opportunity. jenna: senator cornyn, notices to have you on such an important day, we look forward to having you again, sir. >> thanks jenna. jon: senator cornyn, of course, comes from texas where the oil business is big. president obama frequently tells us there is no silver bullet for solving the energy crisis in this

speaker, it could not be more unaffordable. the c.b.o. just came out with a new score, originally, two years ago, that score was something like $950 billion. and according to smoking michigan r mirror accounting, completely -- mirror accounting, completely paid for. it's about twice that. it's about twice that. so not the affordable care act, but patently unaffordable care act. for my colleague to criticize the republican majority for coming forward with a budget that includes a plan to save medicare and medicaid, legacy programs, programs that our seniors and our poor are so dependent on, for us to have a plan to save that and for the gentleman from the other side of the aisle to criticize that, i ask him if he were still in the chamber, and i ask all of my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle, what is your plan? what is your plan to save the medicaid program? what is your plan to save the medicare program? how many different studies do we need from how many different commissions over how many years before we accept the plain,

the bill is unpopular, it is unaffordable, it is unconstitutional, it's got to be repealed. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. nor senator madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: i ask consent to-to-speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you. i feel compelled to say a word or two on the heels of our colleague from alabama, who i is salute as he heads off into the setting sun. i wish you a good break. but i want to say -- when i was in the navy back during the vietnam war when we weren't flying a lot of missions off the coast of cambodia and vietnam, we flew a the love missions in and out of other countries, including japan, and i've always had an interest in japan in terms of the way they provide health care. and one of the things that's intriguing to me about japan and the way they provide health care is, they spend half as much money for health care as we do. they spend 8% of gross domestic product. we spend 16% of gross domestic product. they get better outcomes, everythi

which meant we had to put a brake on inflation in health care because health care was becoming unaffordable the highest quality health care in the world. nothing in my view -- i'd like to ask my colleagues -- describes that more of how this whole plan went awry than the so-called class act. late in the debate, the class act was thrown in to provide long-term care for seniors, which seems like a worthy cause, but the whole thing was a gimmick. it was described by senator conrad, our distinguished chairman of the budget committee, called it a ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that bernie madoff would have been proud of. so they foisted that off on us. why? well, initially because of c.b.o. scoring that it would show an increase in finances into -- and revenues into the whole obamacare program. but as soon as those people paying in became eligible, then obviously the reverse happened. thank god for senator gregg, former senator of hall of fame, who had an adopted -- amendment adopted that said the program would be solvent over 75 years before the program could be implemented.

it's never again going to spike to unaffordable levels, it's not going to run out of money.hter off at school and look at her 35-year-old teacher or mid 30s teacher and it was tough. i couldn't look in her eye and say you'll have a pension in 30 years. i knew she was paying into a system and her money was going out the door for retirees. now we can say to her you're going to get your secure retirement and we're going to have money in the budget to fund this school. >> do you want the fed to raise rates so your rate of return goes up for your pension fund? >> that's a tricky question. you know, here what's i'd say about that. i'm trying to hit 57.5% rate a f return and it's very difficult to do that. >> why 7.5? is that what it takes to make that work? >> yeah. we moved to 50% defined contribution and 50% defined benefit. so when you have defined contribution, i don't care so much about hitting that rate because it's a risk shift, you know. it takes the investment -- >> that doesn't solve the problem for the retirees and make sure their money is going to be there. it does for

two years ago, we heard that every small business in america would be forced to buy unaffordable health insurance for their employees. it hasn't happened. two years ago, we heard that every american family would have to bear a crushing tax increase because of the affordable care act. it hasn't happened. two years ago, we heard there would be drastic cuts in benefits to medicare beneficiaries because of the affordable care act. not only has it not happened, benefits have increased. seniors pay a lower share of their prescription drug costs and medicare pays more. seniors have access to annual preventative checkups without co-pays and deductibles. it hasn't happened. and finally, lest we forget, those saying ipab is a threat to medicare, said there were death panels in the affordable care act. where are they? can anyone on the other side point to one person who has gone before a government committee and been denied health care since the affordable care act as a result of that act? it's a distortion. it is a fiction, it is a distortion and here we are at it again. now, in the first two wee

which meant we had to put a brake on inflation in health care because health care was becoming unaffordable, the highest quality health care in the world. nothing in my view -- i'd like to ask my colleagues -- describes that more of how this whole plan went awry than the so-called class act. late in the debate, the class act was thrown in to provide long-term care for seniors, which seems like a worthy cause, but the whole thing was a gimmick. it was described by senator conrad, our distinguished chairman of the budget committee, called it a ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that bernie madoff would have been proud of. so they foisted that off on us. why? well, initially because of c.b.o. scoring that it would show an increase in finances into -- and revenues into the whole obamacare program. but as soon as those people paying in became eligible, then obviously the reverse happened. thank god for senator gregg, former senator of hall of fame, who had an adopted -- amendment adopted that said the program would be solvent over 75 years before the program could be implemented.

so this legislation is not only unaffordable, it makes matters worse when it comes to current programs like medicare, which are already in bad shape. and it is going to result in a contraction or shrinking of individual freedom in making health court she choices that are unelected bureaucrats will decide whether you are medical care is worth it or whether the federal government will simply choose not to pay for it because of the cost-benefit analysis of those bureaucrats simply isn't worth it. i will turn it over to senator hutchison at this point. >> well, thank you. i think we have seen the early arguments. yesterday especially, where we were arguing into the attack of the mandate. and i thought justice roberts certainly said, while course we all know that the attacks may congress had the capability to do it. but she basically said that it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and it? like a duck, it is a duck, which means it is a mandate. it is an unconstitutional mandate that will make this whole lot unconstitutional. and i think when you put that what it is doing, it is telling

congress asked me to review and force relation ship -- this is unaffordable under the current construct. our relocation plans are on track. i intend to execute them. i will continue to review these plans to ensure the place the right capabilities in the right places to meet the operational requirements on the peninsula. the charts to maintain the armistice, deter aggression, defend the republic of correct, and take care of our warriors and families is my primary concern. i thank you for your support of our soldiers, sailors, airlines -- air men, and marines and the family serving. thank you. >> you commented about a deal breaker. what is our deal and what happens if they violate it and break the deal. >> thank you for that question. we have reached an agreement with the north koreans and they enable us to provide food assistance to north korea. we have been -- it has been mportant to us to de0-link humanitarian assistance including nutritional assistance from politics. and from north korea's provocative behavior. that has been our intent all along. however, when we recently reached to t

that is the unaffordable care act. aarp likes to tout harry belafonte.to the left he makes president obama look conservative. another legendary singer, pat boone likes to tout his friendship with ronald reagan. aarp -- the association against retired persons they say they are a listening tour, but did date -- did they listen to the voices of millions of lives? -- of us? now, they did not care if they turned their hearing aids off. if they turn their backs on us. what their reward was was an obama-care waiver. i am here to demand you give america's seniors, all americans, a life time waiver from obama-care. [applause] look, we know that is not going to happen, so we are taking matters into our own hands. the people are speaking loud and clear. thank you for your efforts. obama-care is on life support. it is our job to pull the plug. it is bad medicine. it is hazardous to our health. you know, it is the biggest threat to our house that has ever been enacted. i have been here for 50 years. i would like to remind many of the seniors, two years ago 60 + predi

which meant we had to put a brake on inflation in health care because health care was becoming unaffordable, the highest quality health care in the world. nothing in my view -- i'd like to ask my colleagues -- describes that more of how this whole plan went awry than the so-called class act. late in the debate, the class act was thrown in to provide long-term care for seniors, which seems like a worthy cause, but the whole thing was a gimmick. it was described by senator conrad, our distinguished chairman of the budget committee, called it a ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that bernie madoff would have been proud of. so they foisted that off on us. why? well, initially because of c.b.o. scoring that it would show an increase in finances into -- and revenues into the whole obamacare program. but as soon as those people paying in became eligible, then obviously the reverse happened. thank god for senator gregg, former senator of hall of fame, who had an adopted -- amendment adopted that said the program would be solvent over 75 years before the program could be implemented.

sometimes called the patient protection and affordable care act, i think it needs to be named "unaffordable care act" for reasons we can go into later. but the purpose behind it, we can all understand, and that is to try to contain health care costs and spending by the federal government. because, of course, health care inflation is going up much faster than regular inflation, the consumer price index. it strikes me that as in a lot of the policy debates we have here in washington in congress, we all agree that we need to do something to contain costs, but we disagree about the means to achieve that affordability that we all know we need and to contain the inflation of health care costs. and i just would like to ask my colleague rather than have congress outsource its responsibility in this area to an unelected, unaccountable group of 15 bureaucrats from which there is no appeal and which would have the consequence, as you say, of limiting people's access because if all you're going to do is cut provider payments to hospitals and doctors, then fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals are going