Catalonia’s High Court on Friday ordered Google to delete an application that it said Catalan separatists were using to spread information about a disputed independence vote this Sunday, Reuters reported. The court also ordered Google to block any future applications developed by the gmail address “Onvotar1oct@gmail.com”, according to a written ruling.

The app, which was available on Google Play until just before 7 p.m. on Friday, helps people to find their polling station via their address and shows the closest polling stations on Google Maps via GPS, the name of the town or keywords. It also allows users to share links to polling station locations, according to The Spain Report.

Google told The Spain Report that: “we remove content from our platforms when we receive a court order or when it violates our terms and conditions”. The app no longer appears to be available from Spain.

The court order told Google Inc—at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043 (USA)—to take down the app located at that URL and also to block or eliminate any future apps submitted by the user with e-mail address “onvotar1oct@gmail.com” or identifying as “Catalonia Voting Software”. The judge said in her ruling that the tweet with the app link is “only a continuation of the actions of the [Catalan government] to block” Constitutional Court and High Court orders “repeatedly”.

The High Court in Catalonia issued an order on September 23 allowing police to take down any referendum websites linked to by members of the Catalan government on their social media accounts. Friday’s new court order was issued because this is a referendum mobile app, for download, not a link to a referendum website or domain directly.

The “reluctant attitude” of the Catalan government to obey the previous orders about referendum websites is “clear, once again”, says the judge. “…they mean to dodge said blockades with computer applications for mobile devices, which, like the web pages, only promote and facilitate the holding of the referendum on October 1.”

The Civil Guard notified had notified the judge earlier today that a link had appeared on the Twitter profile of Carles Puigdemont, the Catalan First Minister, at 8:30 p.m. on September 27, “announcing the availability of a mobile app with information about the referendum in Catalonia, along with a link to download it”. The judge has ordered the Civil Guard to take the actions needed to enforce the order. Some 140 referendum websites and mirrors have now been taken down on court orders since the beginning of September.

As reported earlier, Madrid, which claims the authority of a constitution that declares the country to be indivisible, remained implacably opposed to Sunday’s vote. “I insist that there will be no referendum on Oct. 1,” central government spokesman Mendez de Vigo told a news conference following the weekly cabinet meeting, reiterating that the vote was illegal.

However, as also noted previously, it appears that the local population has no intetion of complying with the crackdown. In a sign that large crowds are again expected on the streets on Sunday, department store chain El Corte Ingles said it would shut three stores in central Barcelona. The central government said airspace above the city would be partly restricted, according to Reuters.

Meanwhile, lines of tractors draped in the red-and-yellow striped Catalan flag left provincial towns on Friday, planning to converge on Barcelona in a sign of support for the referendum.

As the disaster-relief effort enters its second week, air traffic is slowly resuming, which means hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans will likely flee the devastated island to stay with friends and relatives in the continental US as they wait for FEMA to rebuild roads, repair power grids and and revive the island’s communications infrastructure – a process that could take months, if not longer.

While the urgency of the situation leaves many of Puerto Rico’s 3.4 million population little choice, the Financial Times is reporting that the scramble to flee could worsen the population decline as some of those leaving may opt to permanently resettle. Meanwhile, cities with large Puerto Rican populations are asking for federal assistance as they prepare to absorb as many as 100,000 people fleeing the hurricane.

Mainland US cities with large Puerto Rican populations are warning that they will need federal help to cope with an anticipated influx of island residents fleeing the devastation visited on the US commonwealth by Hurricane Maria.

“If it’s as large-scale as we anticipated, it’s got to be a federal and state-co-ordinated response,” said Buddy Dyer, Orlando’s mayor. “It can’t be city by city.”

Some have said they expect to host the disaster victims for up to six months.

“We are expecting a large influx of evacuees to the state,” said Teresa Jacobs, mayor of Orange County in Florida, which includes Orlando. “We will have a major evacuation population for an extended period of time — three months, six months.”

Some city officials claimed that they’re working with state and federal officials to formulate a coordinated response.

Officials from the Orlando area said on Wednesday that co-ordination with the federal government was in the early stages.

 

“We are reaching out to federal authorities,” said Ms Jacobs. “We are planning to have a forum next Tuesday with federal authorities as well as state authorities just to get the conversation started about the co-ordination and the logistics of this effort.”

As the FT noted, the severity of the crisis was underscored on Thursday when President Donald Trump waived the Jones Act, allowing more ships to make their way to Puerto Rico. In a series of tweets, Trump lauded the disaster response, saying that navy vessels have delivered millions of dollars of supplies to the island.

Congress, meanwhile, has pledged to deposit another $7 billion in Puerto Rico’s emergency relief account by the end of next week.

However, as WSJ reported, thousands of shipping containers holding potentially life-saving supplies have been marooned at ports in San Juan as FEMA scrambles to rebuild roads and set up a makeshift distribution system to deliver supplies to needy disaster victims across the island.

Crowley Maritime Corp., based in Jacksonville, Fla., but a major operator of cargo ships to Puerto Rico, had 4,100 containers with both relief supplies and commercial cargo waiting at San Juan’s port on Thursday. Another carrier, TOTE Maritime, said earlier this week it had more than 3,000 shipping containers stacked up at the port awaiting transport.

While Democrats have criticized the disaster response, Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello said Friday that the Trump administration has been very attentive in its response to the situation in Puerto Rico, as the Washington Examiner reported.

“I have to say that the administration has responded to our petitions. FEMA, Brock Long, has been on the phone virtually all the time with me, checking out how things are going,” said Rossello, leader of the New Progressive Party.

Puerto Rico is US territory, which grants its residents citizenship but not the right to vote in US elections. Over the past decade, many have left the island as its economy has deteriorated, resulting in Congress appointing a federal oversight board to oversee to manage the island’s finances while it negotiates an accord with its creditors.

Meanwhile, the mayor of Puerto Rican capital San Juan issued an angry response to acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke, who, in defending the Trump administration’s response to the disaster, described the situation in Puerto Rico as a “good news story in terms of our ability to reach people.”

“Well, maybe from where she’s standing it’s a good news story. When you’re drinking from a creek, it’s not a good news story.”

 

“Where is the good news here?”

As much as 40% of Puerto Rico doesn’t have access to potable water.

Meanwhile, in the rush to get off the island, crowds jammed the cruise ship dock in San Juan desperately hoping to board a Royal Caribbean cruise ship the Adventure of the Seas, which was sent to help evacuate people struggling to find a way off Puerto Rico following the destruction of Hurricane Maria.

According to the New York Post, more than 2,000 people sweltered in the hot sun, forming a line stretching down the shore and a pier.

Expect the exodus to the mainland to intensify as shell-shocked Puerto Ricans scramble to get off the island by any means necessary.

Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

Many readers are familiar with the original petrodollar deal the U.S made with Saudi Arabia.

It was set up by Henry Kissinger and Saudi princes in 1974 to prop up the U.S. dollar. At the time, confidence in the dollar was on shaky ground because President Nixon had ended gold convertibility of dollars in 1971.

Saudi Arabia was receiving dollars for their oil shipments, but they could no longer convert the dollars to gold at a guaranteed price directly with the U.S. Treasury. The Saudis were secretly dumping dollars and buying gold on the London market. This was putting pressure on the bullion banks receiving the dollar.

Confidence in the dollar began to crack. Henry Kissinger and Treasury Secretary William Simon worked out a plan. If the Saudis would price oil in dollars, U.S. banks would hold the dollar deposits for the Saudis.

These dollars would be “recycled” to developing economy borrowers, who in turn would buy manufactured goods from the U.S. and Europe. This would help the global economy and help the U.S. maintain price stability. The Saudis would get more customers and a stable dollar, and the U.S. would force the world to accept dollars because everyone would need the dollars to buy oil.

Behind this “deal” was a not so subtle threat to invade Saudi Arabia and take the oil by force.

I personally discussed these invasion plans in the White House with Kissinger’s deputy, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, at the time. The petrodollar plan worked brilliantly and the invasion never happened.

Now, 43 years later, the wheels are coming off. The world is losing confidence in the dollar again. China just announced that any oil-exporter that accepts yuan for oil can convert the oil to gold on the Shanghai Gold Exchange and hedge the hard currency value of the gold on the Shanghai Futures Exchange.

The deal has several parts, which together spell dollar doom.

The first part is that China will buy oil from Russia and Iran in exchange for yuan.

The yuan is not a major reserve currency, so it’s not an especially attractive asset for Russia or Iran to hold. China solves that problem by offering to convert yuan into gold on a spot basis on the Shanghai Gold Exchange.

This straight-through processing of oil-to-yuan-to-gold eliminates the role of the dollar.

Russia was the first country to agree to accept yuan. The rest of the BRICS nations (Brazil, India and South Africa) endorsed China’s plan at the BRICS summit in China earlier this month.

Now Venezuela has also now signed on to the plan. Russia is #2 and Venezuela is #7 on the list of the ten largest oil exporters in the world. Others will follow quickly. What can we take away from this?

This marks the beginning of the end of the petrodollar system that Henry Kissinger worked out with Saudi Arabia in 1974, after Nixon abandoned gold.

Of course, leading reserve currencies do die — but not necessarily overnight. The process can persist over many years.

For example, the U.S. dollar replaced the UK pound sterling as the leading reserve currency in the 20^th century. That process was completed at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, but it began thirty years earlier in 1914 at the outbreak of World War I.

That’s when gold began to flow from the UK to New York to pay for badly needed war materials and agricultural exports.

The UK also took massive loans from New York bankers organized by Jack Morgan, head of the Morgan bank at the time. The 1920s and 1930s witnessed a long, slow decline in sterling as it devalued against gold in 1931, and devalued again against the dollar in 1936.

The dollar is losing its leading reserve currency status now, but there’s no single announcement or crucial event, just a long, slow process of marginalization. I mentioned that Russia and Venezuela are now pricing oil in yuan instead of dollars. But Russia has taken its “de-dollarization” plans one step further.

Russia has now banned dollar payments at its seaports. Although these seaport facilities are mostly state-owned, many payments, like those for fuel and tariffs, were still conducted in dollars. Not anymore.

This is just one of many stories from around the world showing how the dollar is being pushed out of international trade and payments to be replaced by yuan, rubles, euros or gold in this case.

I believe gold is ultimately heading to $10,000 an ounce, or higher.

Now, people often ask me, “How can you say gold prices will rise to $10,000 without knowing developments in the world economy, or even what actions will be taken by the Federal Reserve?”

It’s not made up. I don’t throw it out there to get headlines, et cetera.

It’s the implied non-deflationary price of gold. Everyone says you can’t have a gold standard, because there’s not enough gold. There’s always enough gold, you just have to get the price right.

I’m not saying that we will have a gold standard. I’m saying if you have anything like a gold standard, it will be critical to get the price right.

The analytical question is, you can have a gold standard if you get the price right; what is the non-deflationary price? What price would gold have to be in order to support global trade and commerce, and bank balance sheets, without reducing the money supply?

The answer is, $10,000 an ounce.

I use a 40% backing of the M1 money supply. Some people argue for 100% backing. Historically, it’s been as low as 20%, so 40% is my number. If you take the global M1 of the major economies, times 40%, and divide that by the amount of official gold in the world, the answer is approximately $10,000 an ounce.

There’s no mystery here. It’s not a made-up number. The math is eighth grade math, it’s not calculus.

That’s where I get the $10,000 figure. It is also worth noting that you don’t have to have a gold standard, but if you do, this will be the price.

The now impending question is, are we going to have a gold standard?

That’s a function of collapse of confidence in central bank money, which is already being seen. It’s happened three times before, in 1914, 1939 and 1971. Let us not forget that in 1977, the United States issued treasury bonds denominated in Swiss francs, because no other country wanted dollars.

The United States treasury then borrowed in Swiss francs, because people didn’t want dollars, at least at an interest rate that the treasury was willing to pay.

That’s how bad things were, and this type of crisis happens every 30 or 40 years. Again, we can look to history and see what happened in 1998. Wall Street bailed out a hedge fund to save the world. What happened in 2008? The central banks bailed out Wall Street to save the world.

What’s going to happen in 2018?

We don’t know for sure.

But eventually a tipping point will be reached where the dollar collapse suddenly accelerates as happened to sterling in 1931. Investors should acquire gold and other hard assets before that happens.

The nine-page dax document unveiled by the Trump administration this week included may of the proposals we expected to hear: streamlining the tax code for individuals into three (or possibly four) brackets, eliminating state and local deductions, repealing of the estate tax, major reductions on corporate rates and incentives for American companies to repatriate billions of dollars in overseas profits.

And while the details of the bill have yet to be worked out (Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said they will be negotiated in committee), after a handful of holdout senators killed the Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare (resulting in an embarrassing defeat on repealing an unpopular law that President Donald Trump has said “should’ve been a slam dunk”), the administration is likely already trying to figure out where senators stand. And, more importantly, where various senators stand in terms of their reservations.

To help give readers a sense of where the legislation stands, Bloomberg has identified six senators who may (and in many cases will) cause problems for the Trump administration by opposing the bill. The list includes moderates, hard-core conservatives, and several senators who already have – or may soon announce – that they will not be seeking reelection, presumably allowing them more freedom to consider the legislation on its actual merits.

The full list is presented below:

“The Deficit Hawk” (Bob Corker)

Earlier this week, the Tennessee senator announced that he will not seek a third term in the senate – effectively freeing him from political considerations (presumably unless they would jeopardize his chances of winning a seven-figure lobbying payday after leaving office) and free to vote based on his convictions.

Unfortunately for the Trump administration, those considerations could lead him into conflict. Corker, a well-known “deficit hawk”, has said the bill “cannot produce a deficit”. The official administration line is that any initial deficits will be closed by future revenues produced as a byproduct as economic growth.

Corker recently struck a deal with Toomey paving the way for budget legislation that would allow for huge tax cuts in theory, but Corker has said he wouldn’t allow them to balloon the deficit. “With realistic growth projections, it cannot produce a deficit,” Corker said Wednesday. “There is no way in hell I’m voting for it.” He estimated that some $4 trillion in revenue-raisers must be achieved in order to ease his concerns.
Corker also said he wants to “get down to lower corporate rates and get rid of all these crazy issues that exist in our tax code,” describing his opposition to raising the deficit as a “hard stand” in order to “make sure we stay fiscally sane.”

“The Hard No” (John McCain)

John McCain has twice now led Republicans to believe he would provide a crucial vote in support of their Obamacare repeal-and-replace bills, only to dash everybody’s hopes at the last minute (the first time around, he cast a surprise “no” vote on the Senate floor that elicited audible gasps from his colleagues). McCain, whose distaste for President Donald Trump dates back at least to when then-candidate Trump mocked him for being taken prisoner during the Vietnam War, is already sending subtle hints that he will likely oppose the administration’s agenda, no matter what form the legislation ultimately takes.

His comment that he would like to see the tax bill receive “bipartisan support” echoed his reasoning for opposing Graham-Cassidy. As Bloomberg admits, winning Democratic support “may be difficult.” This suggests that McCain will probably start off in the “no” column.

The irony, of course, is that if a handful of Democrats do break ranks, McCain’s vote would be of little consequence.

“That may be difficult to reconcile with Senate Republican leaders’ plans to use the fast-track procedure on taxes that they tried to use on health care. Will the so-called maverick be satisfied? Initial reaction among Democrats to the tax framework indicates firm opposition, but McCain was more positive, praising the multiple tax hearings that the Finance Committee has held and saying he looks forward to reviewing the proposal.
McCain, 81 and battling brain cancer, has a history of bucking his party on the issue of taxes. He was among the few Senate Republicans to vote against President George W. Bush’s two separate tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, although he later came to support making them permanent.”

“The Ideologue” (Rand Paul)

After Paul opposed the Republicans’ Obamacare repeal-and-replace agenda at every turn, each time claiming that the bill under consideration wouldn’t repeal enough of the law, his early remarks suggest that he and the Trump administration might find more common ground when it comes to cutting taxes.

True to his libertarian ethos, Paul is seeking massive cuts of “at least 15%” for every tax payer. He has also rejected the notion that cuts should be “revenue neutral” – presumably a priority for deficit hawks like Corker. The Trump administration has repeatedly tried to justify expanding the deficit, saying the cuts will bolster growth, which will in turn compensate for some of the shortfall. Paul appears to be on board with this.

The Kentucky libertarian is never an easy vote to win over – he proved it during the health-care debate by staunchly opposing the Senate’s last opportunity to undo Obamacare before the Sept. 30 deadline, complaining that it didn’t go far enough. And now he’s staking out a far-reaching position on taxes, too, calling for a “large cut of at least 15 percent for every taxpayer” in an Aug. 30 op-ed.

 

Paul is also opposed to paying for a tax cut, describing the push for revenue neutrality as “a terrible idea” that simply shifts around the tax burden and fails to achieve “real tax cuts.” He called on his party to reject the principle of revenue neutrality, warning it will “result in those with the best lobbyists, lawyers and accountants being the winners, while most everyone else either gets nothing or largely loses out.” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has also said a tax plan should include big cuts, pushing back on the idea of revenue neutral changes.

 

“The Kentucky libertarian is never an easy vote to win over – he proved it during the health-care debate by staunchly opposing the Senate’s last opportunity to undo Obamacare before the Sept. 30 deadline, complaining that it didn’t go far enough. And now he’s staking out a far-reaching position on taxes, too, calling for a “large cut of at least 15 percent for every taxpayer” in an Aug. 30 op-ed.”

“The Tax Wonk” (Pat Toomey)

Toomey is widely recognized as one of the Republican “thought leaders” on tax policy. Toomey has been “an outspoken cheerleader” for cuts, and, like Paul, believes revenue-neutrality would be counterproductive. However, he has staked out two goals that could bring him in conflict with either the administration, or possibly more moderate Republicans. One is capital expensing (allowing businesses to write off the cost of capital projects). The other is the repatriation of corporate profits.

The second-term Pennsylvania senator is an outspoken cheerleader for tax cuts and has argued against the need to pay for such a plan, saying the overarching focus must be on economic growth and that a revenue-neutral plan would be “anemic.” He successfully pushed for an agreement on a budget vehicle that allows the tax cuts to add to the deficit. He’s also argued for changing the rules to extend the budget window for a temporary tax cut from 10 years to as many as 30 years. “I’d like to stretch that out as much as possible,” he said.

 

Toomey, along with fellow tax wonk Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, are seen as the Senate Finance Committee’s thought leaders on tax policy. One of Toomey’s big priorities: “Expensing capital might be the most pro-growth element of this exercise,” he told reporters Wednesday. “That’s really really important to me.” Another is to create an incentive to bring home the estimated $2.6 trillion in corporate profits sitting overseas and set up a territorial system where U.S. companies aren’t subject to “an extra layer of tax from overseas income.”

“The Chairman” (Orrin Hatch)

Hatch is one of the few remaining senators who was around during the Reagan-era tax-code overhaul. So far, he’s been tight-lipped about the administration’s initial nine-page proposal.

However, Hatch’s support is vital to moving the bill out of committee (a committee that he controls). Hatch, who, as the oldest senator, has said he may not run again, may also be free from political considerations.

“Hatch, who was a second-term senator during the last big tax-code rewrite in 1986, is keenly aware of the issue’s complexity. He declined to say if he believes the Senate will secure a majority to eliminate the state and local tax deduction, a major revenue-raiser targeted in the Trump-GOP framework. “I’m not going to talk about specifics,” he said. “It’s a very complex bill to begin with. And we’re going to have to make some very tough decisions about what we keep and what we don’t.”

 

Hatch’s panel has a 14-12 split between Republicans and Democrats, which means he can afford to lose no more than one Republican if Democrats decline to play ball. He said he hopes to win Democratic support, but conceded that it “would be unique” in this political environment. “If they want to play politics with it, it’s another matter.”

“The Moderate” (Susan Collins)

Finally, we get to Susan Collins. Collins, who opposed repeal-and-replace, is known for her “heterodox” voting record. She has already voted against measures for repealing the estate tax (one of the objectives outlined in the Trump administration’s nine-page document), and she’s also voted for measures raising the top tax rate for people earning more than $1 million (suggesting that she might insist on a fourth, higher tax bracket, a possibility that Trump and his representatives have said they would be open to.

The Maine senator has voted for numerous tax cuts in the past, including the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. But she has also taken some heterodox positions that could be a factor: In 2015, she was the only GOP senator of 55 who broke ranks and voted against a budget measure calling for repeal of the estate tax, which the Trump-GOP framework seeks to do. In 2008, she voted for a measure to raise the top tax rate for people earning more than $1 million.

 

For now, Collins isn’t revealing any of her thoughts on the framework.

 

“I’m going to take the weekend to study it,” she said.

Of course, the final bill hasn’t taken shape yet. But the broad strokes suggest that the administration will be fighting to balance two sets of competing interests: On one side will be Republicans who want to see responsible deficits and more progressive taxes on the wealthy, and the other will be more conservative senators who are less concerned about deficits, and are more focused on across-the-board cuts.

The administration’s tiny margin of error (Republicans can’t afford to lose more than two votes, assuming every Democrat opposes the bill) gives holdouts considerable leverage; it could also be an opportunity for Trump to show off his much hyped “deal-making” prowess (not to mention the political attack machine that is Breitbart) to coax reluctant senators into voting for the final package. One thing is clear: wither neither Obamacare repeal, nor tax reform heading into the midterms, 2018 would be a difficult year for the republicans.

We’ve frequently warned that Obamacare is locked in an inescapable death spiral that will result in its inevitable failure.  The problem is that the folks who make too much to qualify for subsidies (currently defined as roughly $80,000 for a family of 3) are increasingly being priced out of the market for individual insurance by Obamacare’s 30%+ price hikes that consistently come year after year.  Meanwhile, those “rich” families making $80,000 a year are the ones expected to overpay for their health insurance so that a portion of their premiums can be “spread around a little bit” (as Obama likes to say) to subsidize the premiums of others.  Of course, it’s easy to see the circularity here as higher premiums equals less “full-paying” customers and less subsidies equals higher premiums…until the whole system collapses.  

Luckily you no longer have to take our word for it as eHealth.com has just published a new study that finds that, even by Obamacare’s own definition of “affordability”, residents in 47 out of 50 cities surveyed can’t afford the cheapest Obamacare plan.

According to a study released today by eHealth, Inc., which operates eHealth.com, the average family of three earning slightly too much to qualify for subsidies in 2018 would need to increase its household income by nearly $29,000 before health insurance became “affordable” based on Obamacare criteria.

 

The Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) considers health insurance to be “unaffordable” when annual premiums for the lowest-priced plan in a market cost more than 8.16% of a household’s modified adjusted gross income (or MAGI). When health insurance is unaffordable by this standard, individuals and families may qualify for an exemption from Obamacare’s individual mandate to buy health insurance.

 

“Coverage under the Affordable Care Act is becoming seriously unaffordable for many families, even by Obamacare’s own rules,” said eHealth CEO Scott Flanders. “I find it hard to believe that the framers of the law ever intended the cost of family health insurance to rival that of a second mortgage. Without the introduction of lower-cost options into the market or expanded government subsidies, many middle-income Americans are in danger of being priced out of the health insurance market entirely.”

Meanwhile, if anything, the study conducted by eHealth was somewhat conservative as it only assumed a 10% premium increase in 2018.

In preparing its analysis, eHealth reviewed the lowest-price 2017 plan available for families of three comprised of two adults age 35 and one child. The same family model was analyzed using data from Healthcare.gov in 40 cities, data from eHealth.com in 9 cities not utilizing Healthcare.gov, and data from the New York state exchange for New York City.

 

After applying a relatively modest annual rate increase of 10% to 2017 rates to project 2018 rates, eHealth discovered the following:

 

• In 47 of 50 cities surveyed, the lowest-priced plan would be officially unaffordable under Obamacare affordability standards for families earning 401% of the federal poverty level (about $82,000 per year in the contiguous US, making them ineligible for Obamacare subsidies).

 

• Among these, the average three-person household would need to earn an additional $28,939 per year before the lowest-cost plan becomes affordableaccording to Obamacare rules.

To put eHealth’s findings in perspective, a family of 3 in Charlotte, NC, with an annual income of $81,884, would have to spend 18% of their gross income in 2018 just to purchase the cheapest Obamacare plan for their family.  On a post-tax basis, that expenditure would be well over 20%.  Moreover, as eHealth points out, that family of 3 would have to find a way to make an extra $102,245 per year to meet the “affordability” test included in the Obamacare legislation.

Here’s how other cities compared on Obamacare “affordability”:

Sure, Obamacare is working just fine and should be left alone…