The Justice Department dismissed the report released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said it reiterated “distortions and now-debunked conspiracy theories.”

The report is the first installment of a three-part series on the program that has been a main focus of Republican attacks on the Obama administration’s law-enforcement record.

The Republican-led House of Representatives in June cited U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over thousands of pages of documents related to the program.

Tuesday’s report focused on the conduct of the law-enforcement officials directly in charge of the operation, which was intended to track weapons sold in Arizona that were suspected of being transported to dangerous drug cartels in Mexico.

“From the outset, the case was marred by missteps, poor judgments, and an inherently reckless strategy,” the report said.

Officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) lost track of many weapons. Some of the weapons were allowed to “walk” into Mexico.

The operation became public when two guns found at the scene along the Arizona border with Mexico where U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed in December 2010 were traced back to “Fast and Furious.”

The report said efforts in 2009 by President Barack Obama’s administration to resurrect and prosecute an old gun-running case may have “emboldened” William Newell, the special agent in charge of the Phoenix Field Division for ATF, to broaden the operation and go for the “big fish,” the report said.

‘AUDACIOUS GOAL’

“In Operation Fast and Furious, he saw an opportunity to run a large scale operation intended to bring down an entire gun trafficking network — now with the support of the upper echelons of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.,” the report concluded.

“Newell had an audacious goal. He intended to dismantle the U.S.-based gun trafficking network that supplied the formidable Mexican Sinaloa Cartel.”

Newell and others involved in the case were reassigned to ATF headquarters in Washington.

Newell’s attorney, Paul Pelletier, said there was never a plan or tactic to “walk guns” and that ATF agents seized weapons when they were lawfully permitted to do so.

He accused Republican lawmakers leading the congressional investigation of engaging in a political witch-hunt that demeans “dedicated law enforcement officers.”

Nearly 2,000 weapons were bought in Operation Fast and Furious, the report said, and so-called straw purchasers, who bought the weapons on behalf of ATF, spent about $1.25 million in cash at various firearms retailers from October 2009 to October 2010.

“Despite this vast amount of money being spent by straw buyers, some of whom were on public assistance, ATF failed to confront the vast majority of them,” it said.

Justice Department’s Schmaler said the officials involved in the case have been removed and reassigned and that reforms were instituted at ATF to provide stronger oversight and prevent similar tactics from being used again.

The White House has asserted executive privilege over the documents withheld by Holder. The House has approved a resolution allowing Issa to pursue a civil court case to try to compel the administration to release the documents. No date has been set for filing that civil complaint, an Issa spokesman said.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

The Justice Department dismissed the report released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said it reiterated “distortions and now-debunked conspiracy theories.”

The report is the first installment of a three-part series on the program that has been a main focus of Republican attacks on the Obama administration’s law-enforcement record.

The Republican-led House of Representatives in June cited U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over thousands of pages of documents related to the program.

Tuesday’s report focused on the conduct of the law-enforcement officials directly in charge of the operation, which was intended to track weapons sold in Arizona that were suspected of being transported to dangerous drug cartels in Mexico.

“From the outset, the case was marred by missteps, poor judgments, and an inherently reckless strategy,” the report said.

Officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) lost track of many weapons. Some of the weapons were allowed to “walk” into Mexico.

The operation became public when two guns found at the scene along the Arizona border with Mexico where U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed in December 2010 were traced back to “Fast and Furious.”

The report said efforts in 2009 by President Barack Obama’s administration to resurrect and prosecute an old gun-running case may have “emboldened” William Newell, the special agent in charge of the Phoenix Field Division for ATF, to broaden the operation and go for the “big fish,” the report said.

‘AUDACIOUS GOAL’

“In Operation Fast and Furious, he saw an opportunity to run a large scale operation intended to bring down an entire gun trafficking network — now with the support of the upper echelons of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.,” the report concluded.

“Newell had an audacious goal. He intended to dismantle the U.S.-based gun trafficking network that supplied the formidable Mexican Sinaloa Cartel.”

Newell and others involved in the case were reassigned to ATF headquarters in Washington.

Newell’s attorney, Paul Pelletier, said there was never a plan or tactic to “walk guns” and that ATF agents seized weapons when they were lawfully permitted to do so.

He accused Republican lawmakers leading the congressional investigation of engaging in a political witch-hunt that demeans “dedicated law enforcement officers.”

Nearly 2,000 weapons were bought in Operation Fast and Furious, the report said, and so-called straw purchasers, who bought the weapons on behalf of ATF, spent about $1.25 million in cash at various firearms retailers from October 2009 to October 2010.

“Despite this vast amount of money being spent by straw buyers, some of whom were on public assistance, ATF failed to confront the vast majority of them,” it said.

Justice Department’s Schmaler said the officials involved in the case have been removed and reassigned and that reforms were instituted at ATF to provide stronger oversight and prevent similar tactics from being used again.

The White House has asserted executive privilege over the documents withheld by Holder. The House has approved a resolution allowing Issa to pursue a civil court case to try to compel the administration to release the documents. No date has been set for filing that civil complaint, an Issa spokesman said.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

The savings comes largely from a portion of the decision giving the states an escape hatch from the law’s expanded program of healthcare coverage for the poor. That expansion is funded jointly by the federal and state governments through the Medicaid program, so that any state that drops out gets less federal money.

The CBO estimated that about 6 million fewer people than anticipated will be covered by Medicaid as a result of states that opt out, lowering the overall cost to the federal government.

The CBO also said that repealing Obama’s healthcare law would increase the deficit over the next decade by $109 billion.

The law’s revenue increases and spending cuts total more than the cost of expanding coverage to the uninsured, CBO explained.

The latest measure of the healthcare law’s cost is likely to become a factor in the presidential election-year debate over its merits and Republican efforts to repeal the law, Obama’s top legislative achievement.

The congressional budget analysts estimated that the net cost of expanding medical coverage under the law, enacted in 2010, will total $1,168 billion over the next 10 years compared to an earlier estimate of $1,252 billion.

In its decision last month, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate, requiring Americans to obtain health insurance or face a tax penalty.

But the court said the federal government could not compel states to expand their existing Medicaid programs by threatening to disqualify them entirely from the costly coverage. The CBO said its latest estimate reflects the belief that some states will limit their expansion of Medicaid.

The healthcare reform law aimed to extend medical coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans

But only about 3 million of those people will obtain coverage through one of the new insurance exchanges to be set up by 2014 under the law, CBO said, with another 3 million simply becoming uninsured.

(Editing by Fred Barbash and Philip Barbara)

Both the Democratic-led Senate and Republican-led House of Representatives will take up the expiring tax rates in coming days, but the outcomes will be very different and will settle nothing.

Still the votes may provide some hints on the prospects for party cohesion – especially for Democrats – on the tax issue after the election.

“For Senate Democrats, the primary goal is to avoid the optics of late 2010 when they couldn’t really come together,” said Helen Fessenden, an investor adviser at Eurasia Group. “They want to avoid the public message of division.”

U.S. lawmakers from both parties fear the blame for pushing the country over the so-called fiscal cliff of expiring lower tax rates on December 31, and automatic spending cuts set to kick in days later unless Congress steps in. The Congressional Budget Office says failure to act could spur a recession in 2013.

The tax cuts, passed under Republican President George W. Bush, expire at the end of the year unless Congress and President Barack Obama agree to extend them in one form or another, as they did after a bitter struggle in December 2010.

Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for at least another year with an eye toward a broader reform in 2012. They are playing to small-government Tea Party advocates and voter worries about the economy and sluggish job growth.

Democrats want to extend the lower rates for the first $250,000 of an individual’s income and allow rates to rise for income earned above that threshold.

They are making a play for what polls show are a majority of Americans who believe the rich should pay more to reduce deficits.

The risk is highest for Democrats, who split among themselves in the 2010 vote extending the cuts for all taxpayers. The Democrats also have more Senate seats at risk in the November 6 election as they are defending 23 seats in the 100-mbmer Senate, compared with 10 being defended by Republicans.

In the nearly identical scenario at the end of 2010, with the same set of tax cuts up for renewal, several moderate-to-conservative Democrats balked at raising taxes as the economy emerged from the 2008 financial crisis.

Obama ended up doing an about-face and signed a two-year extension of all the tax cuts.

Democrats say it is different this time.

“We’ve made a diligent effort to separate the middle class from the highest-income people,” said Senator Charles Schumer, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership.

Representative Kevin McCarthy, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said Republicans planned sessions with small businesses during the August congressional recess, as they highlight their opposition to any tax increases at a time of tepid economic growth.

Obama, in a speech to veterans on Monday, addressed the other piece of the fiscal cliff puzzle: the roughly $100 billion in automatic spending cuts that will kick in if Congress fails to act by January 2.

He said lawmakers ought to agree on a balanced plan to avoid the widely feared cuts to defense and other areas.

FISSURES

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel attempted to beef up Democrats’ unity in an internal memo on Monday.

“Polling shows that voters – including independents – support letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans and want to see tax cuts extended for the middle class,” the memo reads.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has expressed confidence he will have a majority to pass the Democratic proposal. But a majority is not sufficient where 60 votes are required to advance legislation. Reid is expected to fall short.

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, facing a potentially tough re-election fight for her seat in Missouri, said she backed extending tax cuts for the middle class, but added she was open to a $1 million threshold, rather than $250,000.

A Republican aide said McCaskill and conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, up for re-election in West Virginia, could join them in blocking the Democratic plan. Manchin has not decided how he will vote, an aide said.

House Republicans expect few if any defectors from their majority when they bring a bill up next week to extend all the tax cuts. A handful of moderate Democrats in tough re-election fights will likely vote with Republicans.

One analyst said the election was also affecting Republicans.

“The Democrats are less cohesive than the Republicans on this issue, but there are probably Republicans who are willing to compromise as well,” said Joanne Thornton, an investor analyst at Washington Research Group. “But that is not going to happen until after the election.”

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan and Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Fred Barbash and Peter Cooney)

Both the Democratic-led Senate and Republican-led House of
Representatives will take up the expiring tax rates in coming
days, but the outcomes will be very different and will settle
nothing.

Still the votes may provide some hints on the prospects for
party cohesion – especially for Democrats – on the tax issue
after the election.

“For Senate Democrats, the primary goal is to avoid the
optics of late 2010 when they couldn’t really come together,”
said Helen Fessenden, an investor adviser at Eurasia Group.
“They want to avoid the public message of division.”

U.S. lawmakers from both parties fear the blame for pushing
the country over the so-called fiscal cliff of expiring lower
tax rates on Dec. 31, and automatic spending cuts set to kick in
days later unless Congress steps in. The Congressional Budget
Office says failure to act could spur a recession in 2013.

The tax cuts, passed under Republican President George W.
Bush, e xpire at the end of the year unless Congress and
President Barack Obama agree to extend them in one form or
another, as they did after a bitter struggle in December 2010.

Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for at least another
year with an eye toward a broader reform in 2012. They are
playing to small-government Tea Party advocates and voter
worries about the economy and sluggish job growth.

Democrats want to extend the lower rates for the first
$250,000 of an individual’s income and allow rates to rise for
income earned above that threshold.

They are making a play for what polls show are a majority of
Americans who believe the rich should pay more to reduce
deficits.

The risk is highest for Democrats, who split among
themselves in the 2010 vote extending the cuts for all
taxpayers. The Democrats also have more Senate seats at risk in
the Nov. 6 election as they are defending 23 seats in the
100-mbmer Senate, compared with 10 being defended by
Republicans.

In the nearly identical scenario at the end of 2010, with
the same set of tax cuts up for renewal, several
moderate-to-conservative Democrats balked at raising taxes as
the economy emerged from the 2008 financial crisis.

Obama ended up doing an about-face and signed a two-year
extension of all the tax cuts.

Democrats say it is different this time.

“We’ve made a diligent effort to separate the middle class
from the highest-income people,” said Senator Charles Schumer, a
member of the Senate Democratic leadership.

Representative Kevin McCarthy, the third-ranking Republican
in the House, said Republicans planned sessions with small
businesses during the August congressional recess, as they
highlight their opposition to any tax increases at a time of
tepid economic growth.

Obama, in a speech to veterans on Monday, addressed the
other piece of the fiscal cliff puzzle: the roughly $100 billion
in automatic spending cuts that will kick in if Congress fails
to act by Jan. 2.

He said lawmakers ought to agree on a balanced plan to avoid
the widely feared cuts to defense and other areas.

FISSURES

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve
Israel attempted to beef up Democrats’ unity in an internal memo
on Monday.

“Polling shows that voters – including independents -
support letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest
Americans and want to see tax cuts extended for the middle
class,” the memo reads.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has expressed confidence
he will have a majority to pass the Democratic proposal. But a
majority is not sufficient where 60 votes are required to
advance legislation. Reid is expected to fall short.

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, facing a potentially
tough re-election fight for her seat in Missouri, said she
backed extending tax cuts for the middle class, but added she
was open to a $1 million threshold, rather than $250,000.

A Republican aide said McCaskill and conservative Democratic
Senator Joe Manchin, up for re-election in West Virginia, could
join them in blocking the Democratic plan. Manchin has not
decided how he will vote, an aide said.

House Republicans expect few if any defectors from their
majority w hen they bring a bill up next week to extend all the
tax cuts. A handful of moderate Democrats in tough re-election
fights will likely vote with Republicans.

One analyst said the election was also affecting
Republicans.

“The Democrats are less cohesive than the Republicans on
this issue, but there are probably Republicans who are willing
to compromise as well,” said Joanne Thornton, an investor
analyst at Washington Research Group. “But that is not going to
happen until after the election.”

The announcement came hours after Panetta and other senior defense officials appeared before a closed-door hearing of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee to discuss recent disclosures of classified security information.

Reports about U.S. cyber warfare against Iran, procedures for targeting militants with drones and a double agent who penetrated a militant group in Yemen have angered U.S. lawmakers. Some have charged the leaks were timed to benefit President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

Representative Buck McKeon, the Republican chairman of the House panel, told a news conference later that he did not believe the Pentagon was behind the leaks and that Panetta and the other officials were taking the issue seriously.

“Both the chairman and I were very convinced that Secretary Panetta and all of the folks at the Pentagon are taking it seriously, are trying to mitigate the damages and prevent it in the future,” said Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the panel.

Panetta, Army General Martin Dempsey, the top uniformed military officer, and chief Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson appeared before the committee to answer questions. McKeon said they agreed the recent leaks had caused damage, but did not elaborate.

In addition to the media monitoring ordered by Panetta, the Pentagon said it had taken a number of other steps in recent months to improve information security.

The measures included improved training for handling classified information, the publication of a manual with clear instructions on what constitutes an unauthorized disclosure and the creation of an online security incident reporting system.

“The department is continuously improving its security posture and overall capability to prevent unauthorized disclosures,” the Pentagon said in a statement disclosing the recent security changes.

McKeon said the House panel was “concerned about the leaks that have come out over the years and accelerated, it seems, over the last few months.”

Although he said he did not believe the Pentagon was the source of the most recent leaks, McKeon declined to comment on speculation the White House was responsible.

Senator John McCain, Obama’s Republican opponent in the 2008 presidential election, has suggested some of the leaks may have been calculated to boost the Democratic president’s re-election efforts – a charge the White House emphatically denies.

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told a briefing on Thursday that Panetta, Dempsey and members of the House committee were of one mind about the leaks.

“The unauthorized disclosure of classified information is truly disturbing,” he said. “It’s of concern to the secretary, and I think members on the Hill express similar concern. And the secretary is clearly prepared to try to address the problem inside the department.”

McKeon said the U.S. government was “actually doing pretty good” in handling its secrets, given the fact that 4 million people had some form of classified clearance.

(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Peter Cooney)

In a letter, released and signed by its chairman, Boeing
President and CEO W. James McNerney, Jr., the group said “the
current political paralysis” in the nation’s capital “has fueled
needless economic uncertainty that impedes a more robust
economic recovery. Without effective action soon, this
uncertainty will spawn a dangerous crisis, threatening our
economy, businesses and workers.”

Action must come before the lame duck session of Congress –
the period between the November election and the start of the
new Congress in January — because the threat by itself was
having a harmful impact, the group said.

“Further delays in addressing the relevant issues will only
increase the economy-chilling uncertainty,” it said.

The plea was part of an accelerating campaign mounted by a
diverse collection of interest groups concerned about the
consequences of massive federal budget cuts and tax increases
that will be triggered at year’s end barring action by Congress.

Teachers, scientists, labor unions and other organizations
whose voices have previously been drowned out by warnings of
looming cuts in defense spending, banded together last week to
warn that their programs, too, were in peril as a result of the
automatic budget cuts set for January.

They face unprecedented across-the-board cutbacks as a
result of the “sequestration” mechanism put in place by Congress
in 2011 as part of its solution to an impasse over raising the
U.S. government’s debt ceiling.

The National Education Association, for example, has
released a 41-page report detailing the “disastrous impact” the
automatic cuts would have on education.

Federal aid would drop to 2003 levels, even though 5.4
million more students are enrolled in U.S. schools, the
organization said. The teachers’ union estimates that more than
80,000 education jobs would be lost due to the spending cuts.

Research America, a non-profit health research advocacy
group, concluded in a report that the cuts would bring disease
prevention, food and drug safety and health research to “the
breaking point.”

The spending cuts would “delay scientific discoveries that
could lead to new treatments and cures for deadly diseases,” the
report said.

ADVOCACY GROUPS PUSH

A letter last week to lawmakers signed by 3,000 groups said
spending on non-defense programs is already set to drop to its
lowest level in 50 years over the next decade when compared to
the overall size of the economy.

That reaction was precisely what some Congressional leaders
said they wanted when, in 2011, they mandated the automatic cuts
in the belief that pressure from the defense and non-defense
sectors would prevent them from happening.

But that was before a congressional super committee created
in the Budget Control Act in 2011 failed to agree on a more
calibrated plan for reducing the deficit, leaving any rescue up
to a deeply divided Congress in an election year.

The law requires about $1.2 trillion in mandated savings
over 10 years, starting with the automatic cuts in 2013. Half of
the automatic cuts are to come from defense and the other half
from non-defense areas.

“Non-defense discretionary is hundreds of things and we’ve
never been together as a community and never thought about it as
being in it together,” said Emily Holubowich, executive director
of the Coalition for Health Funding, one of the groups
spearheading the effort.

Holubowich said the groups cannot match the lobbying power
of the defense industry. With a shoestring budget they hope to
mobilize a grassroots effort much in the same way Tea Party
conservatives joined forces to advocate against taxes and
government spending ahead of the 2010 congressional elections

“We do not have the budget of the defense industry to match
them dollar for dollar on a Washington-centric approach. What we
do have is people,” she said in an interview. People worried
about the impact of across-the-board spending cuts on domestic
programs are being urged to show up and express their views at
town hall meetings that lawmakers, in their bids for re-election
in November, like to hold during August.

The push by advocacy groups against further domestic program
cuts comes as Democrats step up their efforts to wring
concessions from Republicans in the bid to reduce budget
deficits which have topped $1 trillion annually since 2009.

Democratic Senator Patty Murray drew a line in the sand on
Monday saying Democrats would not go along with plan that spares
defense from automatic cuts at the expense of non-defense
programs.

Republicans and Democrats remain divided on taxes as well,
the other element of the fiscal cliff scenario.

The potential for simultaneous tax increases comes from the
expiration at the end of the year of broad but temporary tax
cuts that originated during President George W. Bush’s
administration.

Republicans want the tax cuts extended for all income groups
while Democrats oppose extensions for the wealthy.

The Business Roundtable letter urged extension of the
expiring provisions through 2013 as a “a stopgap measure until
comprehensive tax reform can be enacted.”

Just like previous House efforts to end all or parts of the
two-year-old healthcare law, the bill is certain to be stopped
by Obama’s fellow Democrats who control the Senate.

Regardless, the fight over the landmark law, which has
divided Americans and rallied the Democrats’ and Republicans’
political bases, will likely rage on into the Nov. 6 elections.

Five Democrats joined all Republicans in voting to repeal
the law.

House Speaker John Boehner and fellow Republicans scheduled
Wednesday’s vote after the U.S. Supreme Court last month upheld
the law, which requires nearly all Americans to obtain insurance
or face a tax penalty.

“We were promised this health care law would lower costs and
help create jobs,” Boehner said during the debate. “One
congressional leader even suggested it would create 400,000 new
jobs. Guess what? It didn’t happen. It is making our economy
worse, driving up costs and making it harder for small
businesses to hire new workers.”

“This is a law that the American people did not want when it
was passed and it remains a law that the American people do not
want now,” said House Republican Leader Eric Cantor.

“ObamaCare takes away from patients the ability to make
their own decisions and individual choices,” Cantor said.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called the Republican
repeal measure “a useless bill to nowhere” that would hurt the
“health and economic-well being of America’s families.”

Democrats took advantage of the debate to highlight some of
the law’s popular benefits, including allowing young adults to
stay on their parent’s health plans until age 26.

The law also provides additional benefits for the elderly,
including free wellness checkups, and bars insurance companies
from setting lifetime limits on care costs.

By the Republicans latest count, this was the 33rd time that
they have passed House bills to repeal all or parts of the
2,700-page healthcare law.

While a few provisions have been eliminated or changed,
Senate Democrats have not permitted an outright termination of
the law.

Democratic Representative Jim McDermott mocked Republicans
repeated efforts to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, as the
law is formally called.

“As a psychiatrist, I’m qualified to say this: One
definition of insanity is doing the same than over and over
again and expecting a different result,” McDermott said.

House Republicans remained on the offensive.

“ObamaCare’s new regulations, taxes and mandates are
crushing our already weak economy,” said Republican
Representative Diane Black.

Democrats failed in their bid to attach to the Republican
repeal bill a provision that would require lawmakers to
surrender their own taxpayer-subsidized federal healthcare
benefits.

Voter dissatisfaction with the healthcare law helped
Republicans win the House in the 2010 elections, and they hope
it can give them a boost again this year. But Democrats are
fighting back, and both sides are using the issue to raise
campaign funds.

The House Democratic campaign committee has begun offering
bumper stickers that read: “Dear John Boehner. It’s
constitutional. Get over it.”

Public support for the healthcare law, despite some
fluctuation, is divided just as it was in 2010. Neither side has
made significant lasting headway.

Some recent polling has suggested that the law is of low
importance to voters compared to other issues, such as the
struggling U.S. economy.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Tuesday showed
more voters than in the past saying the healthcare law will not
be a factor when they cast their vote in November.

Another poll – a Kaiser Family Foundation survey taken after
the Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutionality last month
- found that 51 percent of independents and 82 percent of
Democrats said opponents should move on to other issues.

But 69 percent of Republican respondents said they want to
see efforts continued to roll back the law.

(Reporting By Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Fred Barbash and Eric
Walsh)

With both sides jockeying for position in the Nov. 6
elections, the House was certain to pass a bill to end the
2-year-old healthcare law. And the Democratic-led Senate was
just as certain to reject the bill and allow the law to stand.

The House was set to end two days of often spirited debate
by 4 p.m. EDT (2000 GMT) and begin a roll call vote.

Most, if not all, Republicans were expected to back repeal.
At least a few Democrats were expected to vote to repeal the law
as well, but the vast majority appeared ready to stand with
Obama.

The vote will mark at the 33rd time by the Republicans’
latest count that the House has passed a bill to defund or
repeal portions of the law or the entire Affordable Care Act, as
the law is called.

Democratic Representative Jim McDermott mocked Republicans,
declaring: “As a psychiatrist, I’m qualified to say this: One
definition of insanity is doing the same than over and over
again and expecting a different result.”

House Speaker John Boehner and fellow Republicans scheduled
the vote after a divided U.S. Supreme Court disappointed
conservatives last month and upheld the law, which expands
coverage and requires most Americans to obtain health insurance
or face a tax penalty.

Voter dissatisfaction with the law helped Republicans win
the House in the 2010 elections, and they hope it can give them
a boost again this year. But Democrats are fighting back, buoyed
by the Supreme Court ruling.

The House Democratic campaign committee has begun offering
bumper stickers that read: “Dear John Boehner. It’s
constitutional. Get over it.”

But House Republicans remained on the offensive.

“Obamacare’s new regulations, taxes and mandates are crushing
our already weak economy,” said Republican Representative Diane
Black.

Public support for the healthcare law, despite some
fluctuation, is divided just as it was in 2010. Neither side has
made significant lasting headway.

Some recent polling has suggested that the law is of low
importance to voters compared to other issues, such as the
struggling U.S. economy.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Tuesday showed
more voters than in the past saying the healthcare law will not
be a factor when they cast their vote in November.

Another poll – a Kaiser Family Foundation survey taken after
the Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutionality l ate last
month – found that 51 percent of independents and 82 percent of
Democrats said opponents should move on to other issues.

But 69 percent of Republican respondents said they want to
see efforts continued to roll back the law.

(Reporting By Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Fred Barbash)

On Tuesday they began debate on the 31st, the “Repeal of the Obamacare Act,” which is certain to win passage when the House votes on Wednesday and just as certain to go no further, since the Senate and White House are both in Democratic hands.

It will be the second time the House has voted an outright repeal of the Obama administration’s healthcare law. The first came just after Republicans won control of the chamber in the 2010 election.

The main change between then and now was the Supreme Court’s ruling on June 28 upholding the law as a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing power.

Representative Patrick Tiberi was among the Republicans who cited the court’s ruling during the debate in support of the argument that, contrary to the Obama administration’s claim, the law was a tax increase.

It’s “a tax hike on the middle class,” said Republican Representative Diane Black.

In response, Democratic Representative Frank Pallone argued that the law is actually a “tax cut,” because the individual mandate requiring purchase of healthcare means Americans will no longer have to foot the bill for treatment of the uninsured.

Republicans make no pretense that they can repeal the healthcare law. Rather, the House vote is aimed at scoring political points and turning up the heat on Obama and his fellow Democrats in advance of the November 6 congressional and presidential elections.

‘DO EVERYTHING TO STOP IT’

“The American people do not want to go down the path of Obamacare,” House Speaker John Boehner declared on Tuesday shortly before his chamber began consideration of the new bill.

“That’s why we voted over 30 times to repeal it, defund it, replace it,” Boehner said. “We are resolved to have this law go away and we are going to do everything we can to stop it.”

Democratic Representative Sander Levin said during the debate Tuesday that the House was merely “going through the motions” once again.

Democratic Representative Jim McDermott called it “a pointless time-wasting exercise. The game is over,” he said.

Public support for the healthcare law, despite some fluctuation, is divided just as it was in 2010. Neither side has made significant lasting headway.

Some recent polling has suggested that the law is of low importance to voters compared to other issues. A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Tuesday showed more voters than in the past saying the healthcare law will not be a factor when they cast their vote in November.

Another poll – a Kaiser Family Foundation survey taken after the Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutionality late last month – found that 51 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats said opponents should move on to other issues. But 69 percent of Republican respondents said they want to see efforts continued to rollback the law.

TARGETING HOUSE OPPONENTS OF THE LAW

The House Democratic Campaign Committee (DCCC), sensing a possible shift in public opinion on the healthcare law, began a campaign after the Supreme Court ruling that targets seven House Republican opponents of the law.

In campaign ads, the DCCC accuses them of being more interested in protecting insurance company campaign donors than helping meet the healthcare needs of their own constituents.

Explaining why Republicans would want to continue debating the law when there is no chance of repealing it, Ron Bonjean, a former House Republican leadership aide turned political strategist, said the showdowns on healthcare, as well as on tax cuts later this year, “will be two of the most significant votes that members will take in this Congress.”

“It will show voters who’s for creating jobs and who’s for raising taxes,” Bonjean said.

A spokesman for House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi fired back: “Americans are looking for jobs, and Republicans are looking to score cheap political points with message bills to nowhere.”

(Editing by Fred Barbash and Philip Barbara)