Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings

A top Capitol Hill Democrat suggested Sunday that the Republican-led House committee leading probes into controversial Obama administration activities is squashing testimony in the recent IRS scandal and taking an overall “accuse, then prove” approach to investigations.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs has released closed-door testimony that indicates two Cincinnati IRS field agents were directed by Washington officials to target Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status.
However, Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the committee’s highest-ranking Democrat, says the body won’t release a transcript in which a self-described "conservative Republican" IRS manager tells investigators that nobody at the White House directed the tax collection agency to target Tea Party groups or other politically conservative organizations.
In the partial transcript, the unidentified manager said he or she was unaware of any political motivation in giving extra scrutiny to the groups.
The manager was interviewed Thursday and says workers in Cincinnati initiated review of the applications, starting in 2010.
The manager also identifies him or herself as a “conservative Republican,” but says he or she never worked for such a candidate nor contributed to such a campaign, according to the 15-page staff memo that Cummings released and includes the partial transcript.
“I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do other than identifying issues that needed to have further development,” the screening manager says in the transcript.
Cummings also sent a five-page letter to committee Chairman Darrell Issa, accusing the California Republican of withholding information in the IRS probe and criticizing how he has investigated the Justice Department’s flawed gun-tracking program Operation Fast and Furious, the fatal Benghazi terror attacks last year, and now the IRS.  
“Your actions over the past three years do not reflect a responsible, bipartisan approach to investigations,” Cummings wrote. “And the committee’s credibility has been damaged as a result. Your approach in all of these cases has been to accuse first, and then go in search of evidence to back up your claims. … You have selectively leaked excerpts of interview transcripts, documents and other information, and you have withheld evidence that directly contradicts your claims.”
Issa responded to Cummings’ allegations and his comment Sunday on CNN’s “State of Union” that the IRS case is “solved” and that he would “wrap this case up” and move on.
"I strongly disagree with … Cummings' assertion that we know everything we need to know,” Issa said in a statement. “His extreme and reckless assertions are a signal that his true motivation is stopping needed congressional oversight and he has no genuine interest in working, on a bipartisan basis, to expose the full truth.” 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/cumming-issa-squashing-info-on-irs-probe-approach-is-accuse-then-prove/#ixzz2Vlsk0YXp

Colorado counties mull forming new state, North Colorado

GREELEY, COLO. –  Officials in eight northern Colorado counties united in opposition to the state's new gun control laws and oil and gas regulations are reportedly considering forming a 51st U.S. state called North Colorado.
The Denver Post reports that a proposal to separate Weld, Morgan, Logan, Sedgwick, Phillips, Washington, Yuma and Kit Carson counties from the rest of the state was hatched at a meeting of county commissioners last week.
Weld County commissioners Sean Conway, Mike Freeman and Doug Rademacher said they will conduct public meetings and decide whether to draft a ballot measure by Aug. 1., according to a report in The Greeley Tribune.
The U.S. Constitution requires that Legislatures must first approve any state that is to be created within its jurisdiction.
Commissioners said Thursday that failed legislative efforts to crack down on oil and gas, as well as increases in rural renewable energy standards were "the straws that broke the camel's back."
Conway told the Tribune that Weld County's main economic drivers, agriculture and energy, are under attack, even though those sectors contribute significantly to the state's economy. He said the county's return on its financial contributions to the state are minimal.
Commissioners are also concerned about the lack of funding for infrastructure and education and believe the split would allow them to leverage financial investments from energy companies in the region, the newspaper reported.
Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., whose district would be included in the split, said in a statement last week that he is sympathetic to the commissioners' concerns and doesn't blame them for wanting to form a new state, The Tribune reported.
"The people of rural Colorado are mad, and they have every right to be," Gardner said. "The governor and his Democrat colleagues in the statehouse have assaulted our way of life, and I don't blame these people one bit for feeling attacked and unrepresented by the leaders of our state."
Gov. John Hickenlooper's spokesman Eric Brown said in a statement obtained by the paper that "background checks on gun sales, increasing renewable energy and supporting responsible development of oil and gas are popular with rural and urban voters."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/colorado-county-proposes-51st-state-north-colorado/#ixzz2VjamBXts

Big ears of the Government

Republican Party Breaking News: Rubio, House GOP Again Warn Immigration Bill Lacks Support Without Border Fixes

LISTED BELOW are several of the arguments that have been used by misguided people to try and justify illegal immigration. Next to each is the reason why that argument has no merit.

1) They are an economic necessity - Not true. The idea that a bunch of desperately poor, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking foreigners are an economic necessity is ludicrous. In fact, when you compare cost vs. benefit, it is obvious that they are not only NOT a necessity, they are not even an asset. Rather, they are a liability and a huge one at that.

2) They do work Americans won’t do - Not true. They do work Americans won’t do for $7 an hour (especially if Americans can collect welfare and unemployment instead). Of course, if you got rid of the illegals, the jobs wouldn’t pay $7 an hour. The people who wanted the work done would have to pay a wage that was attractive enough to get Americans to do the work. And it might even be enough to get Americans off the unemployment and welfare dole and back into the taxpaying workforce!

3) We benefit from all that “cheap” labor - This is nonsense. The only people who benefit from the cheap labor are the unscrupulous people who hire illegal immigrants. Taxpayers are left holding the bag. Ultimately, it is they who must pay to support all the Americans who have been put out of work by illegals and must also provide billions of dollars in services and benefits to the illegals themselves.

4) They are just trying to make better lives - Aren’t we all? The difference is that most of us understand that we DO NOT have a right to acquire by illegal means those things that we find difficult to acquire by legal means. And we certainly don’t have the right to do it in a foreign country.

5) It is impossible to round up and deport the illegals - We don’t have to. All we have to do is remove the incentives that brought them here in the first place. No jobs. No housing. No taxpayer financed services or benefits (including education). Once we remove the incentives that brought them here, they will leave on their own.

6) Immigration control is racist / xenophobic - This is just another play of the race card by people who have no other cards to play. Immigration control is the world-wide status quo. There is nothing racist about it. Furthermore, the USA welcomes LEGAL immigrants of all races and ethnicities from all over the world who have gone through the legal immigration process. This is not just a bad argument, it is an attempt to create racial hatred and division.

7) We are a nation of immigrants - This is the “BIG LIE”. The vast majority of Americans are native-born. I am not an immigrant. Nor were my parents. Nor were my grandparents. We are a nation that has, historically, allowed and even encouraged LEGAL immigration. And we continue to do so. The issue at hand is illegal immigration, which has nothing to do with legal immigration.

8) They are people. We must treat them humanely - Yes & yes. But lets not pretend like they are victims who were dragged here kicking and screaming against their will. Nothing could be further from the truth. They came of their own free will and for their own benefit and they broke the law to do it. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR BREAKING LAWS AND COMMITTING CRIMES. SENDING THEM HOME IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. There is nothing “draconian” or “mean-spirited” about it.

9) It is wrong to break up families- Yes. Unfortunately, families are often broken up by criminal activity. If you don’t believe it, just drop by any prison or jail on visiting day. We can’t keep families together if some family members choose to participate in criminal activity.

10) They work & contribute to our society - So do I. And if I break the law and commit crimes, I can expect to pay a penalty of some kind. Anything from a small fine to the death penalty. I do not receive a reward. WHY SHOULD WE TREAT FOREIGN CRIMINALS BETTER THAN OUR OWN CITIZENS?


http://news.yahoo.com/video/republican-party-breaking-news-rubio-210010965.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container

New York Times editorial board says administration has 'lost all credibility'

The New York Times editorial board, which twice endorsed President Obama and has championed many planks of his agenda, on Thursday turned on the president over the government's mass collection of phone data -- saying the administration has 'lost all credibility.'


 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/06/new-york-times-editorial-board-says-administration-has-lost-all-credibility/

Susan Rice

What’s the Penalty If You Don’t Buy Health Insurance? What does Obama do to you?

To buy or pay the penalty?

That is the question that will confront many U.S. residents in the coming months, when open enrollment season begins for health insurance coverage, under the terms of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.

ACA will be fully implemented on January 1, 2014, when most legal U.S. residents will be required to have “minimum essential health coverage” or make a “shared responsibility payment,” as the Congressional Budget Office puts it in regulations it rolled out last fall. That’s code for penalty.

The penalty “is enforced through a (Internal Revenue Service) tax code,” noted Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, D.C.

So when you file your 2014 tax returns, you will have to let Uncle Sam know what kind of health insurance coverage you have and what, if any, tax credit you are eligible for, unless you can claim you are exempt from buying health insurance.

Non-financial exclusions include:

• You are between jobs and without insurance for up to three months.
• It contradicts your religious beliefs.
• You are an undocumented immigrant.
• You are a member of an Indian tribe.
• You are in jail.

The financial exclusions for not having health insurance include having a family income so low that you don’t have to file an income-tax return, Pollitz said. Or your minimum essential coverage exceeds a certain percentage of your household income for the most recent taxable year. In 2014, that is 8 percent.

Coverage could take many forms. It could be a government-sponsored plan like Medicaid or Medicare, an employer-sponsored plan or a plan purchased on the individual market.

Applicable penalty

The individual one-time penalty under ACA in 2014 will be $95 per adult, or one percent of your income, whichever is greater. So say your annual income is $50,000, you’d pay $500. For every uninsured child, the penalty is $47.50. The family maximum is $285.
“Coverage is assessed on a monthly basis,” said Pollitz. “So if you were uninsured for six months, you’d owe half the otherwise applicable penalty.”

She said that the government has given a wide window – from Oct. 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 – for enrollment this time, but from next year on there will only be a three-month window to sign up.

Will people take the gamble and skip coverage, hoping that their youth or good health will protect them?

If the state of Massachusetts, which passed a landmark health care law in 2006, which became the blueprint for the 2010 ACA, is any indication the number of people who will refuse to get some form of coverage will be low, Pollitz surmised.

In Massachusetts, she observed, “there’s a culture of coverage. Most people want to comply with the law.”

Indeed, within a year and a half after the law passed there, the majority of people signed up for coverage.

But when it comes to the ACA, an estimated 6 million people, who cannot claim legitimate exclusions, will likely take the gamble and remain uninsured in 2016, the government predicts.

Pollitz said there are no criminal penalties to those who violate the law, just a civil one. That could mean seizing your refund.

http://newamericamedia.org/2013/05/whats-the-penalty-if-you-dont-buy-health-insurance.php