Attention Span Cartoon

Senate panel probes ObamaCare aid confusion, as customers learn they owe IRS

The Senate's top investigative committee has launched an inquiry into the system that's supposed to ensure ObamaCare tax credits go to the right customers for the right amounts -- amid concerns that many Americans are getting inflated or improper subsidies. 
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who is leading the investigation, says because of the confusion with the system, millions of Americans are learning after the fact they inadvertently got too much money and now owe the IRS hundreds. 
"I'm concerned that the subsidy eligibility process is so complicated that many consumers believed they were receiving cheaper insurance coverage than they ultimately got," Portman said in a statement. 
Portman, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, announced his panel's investigation in a letter sent Thursday to HHS Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell. "I have repeatedly raised questions regarding efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services to prevent improper payments through the exchanges," he wrote, saying his prior inquiries were insufficiently answered. 
"We take seriously our responsibility to make sure people who are eligible stay covered while protecting taxpayer dollars," said Meaghan Smith, the director of communications for the Department of Health and Human Services. 
Portman also cited two investigations into the government's income-verification systems. The Government Accountability Office said in 2014 its investigators secured subsidies using false identities in 11 out of 12 undercover attempts. Also last year, an HHS inspector general report found the department "did not have procedures or did not follow procedures to ensure" against government overpayments. 

More on this...

• Has ObamaCare promise to relieve stress on ERs failed?

Committee investigators also point to an analysis by H&R Block that found almost two-thirds of its filers receiving an ObamaCare tax credit owed the government at the end of the year. On average, those filers were required to repay more than $700 of their ObamaCare subsidies. The study found most customers claiming the credits were confused about the requirements. 
"The Administration assured Congress that the eligibility verification process for the exchanges was working, but millions of Americans are now learning that they received overpayments that they have to repay," Portman said. 
Others might have received credits in error because of poor system safeguards, and Portman noted the risks "wasting billions in hard-earned tax dollars." 
ObamaCare offers eligible consumers government-funded tax credits to buy insurance on exchanges. The federal government sets the amount based on a recipient's stated income, family size and whether an applicant's job offers health coverage. Generally, the health care law offers larger subsidies to those earning less, and with larger families. If a customer finishes the year earning more than they stated on their ObamaCare insurance application, the law requires them to repay a portion of the credit. 
To ensure applicants are receiving the correct amount, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it compares the tax credit applicants' stated income with data from the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration. 
"The Marketplace has instituted several layers of protections to ensure that a consumer's identity is verified and is receiving an accurate determination based on trusted data sources or from supplemental information supplied by the consumer," said an HHS official. Of the GAO investigation, the HHS official claimed that those undercover investigators failed to ultimately secure health coverage from healthcare.gov. The official added that the online exchange has "significantly progressed, both from a tech side and a consumer-education side, including strengthening our verification processes." 
Critics say there is still too little known about the effectiveness of the administration's income-verification system. 
"We don't know how much they got that was too much or too little," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the conservative American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "This is all guesswork at the moment, and it'll remain guesswork as the years go by." 
Over the next decade, the CBO projects the federal government will spend nearly $870 billion dollars on ObamaCare insurance subsidies. Those projections, however, fluctuate significantly with unpredictable increases in health care costs, changes in the law and population dynamics. 
Committee staff is also investigating the state-based exchanges. Portman is requesting HHS name any state running an exchange that has "stopped attempting to verify applicants' eligibility to enroll in ACA [Affordable Care Act] health care plans or to receive ACA subsidies." ObamaCare shoppers select insurance plans from state-run exchanges in 13 states and the District of Columbia. 
In June 2014, the HHS inspector general found problems with the way the federal, California and Connecticut insurance exchanges were checking eligibility. "The deficiencies in internal controls that we identified may have limited the marketplaces' ability to prevent the use of inaccurate or fraudulent information when determining eligibility of applicants for enrollment," the report said. 
Portman's letter to Burwell also references a 2013 federal regulation that allowed, until this year, the administration to rely more on applicants' submitted information than independent verification. That reliance, however, is the foundation of much of the U.S. tax system, noted one ObamaCare supporter and law professor. 
"Although the system is not perfect, it likely results in a very small percentage of the total leakage in our tax system," said Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. "Congress would do better by giving the IRS the resources to dramatically increase audits and enforcement generally." 
Other experts said there might be little the administration can do to address federal overpayments because of the design of the federal tax system and ObamaCare's reliance on it. 
"The law itself asks the bureaucracies to do something that's basically impossible," said Holtz-Eakin. "Find every American, determine their income.  Given their income, determine the subsidy for which they're eligible, send that subsidy in advance every month to the exchange in the state of their residence, and to the insurance plan of their choice." 
Portman's letter to Burwell requests responses to more than two dozen questions on the income-verification systems, how they performed during the law's first year and whether any failings were resolved. Only the committee's Republican majority staff is involved in the inquiry, according to Portman. The chairman's letter asked HHS staff to respond by May 29.

ABC’s Stephanopoulos gave $75G to Clinton Foundation without disclosing it, apologizes

ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos got deeper in hot water Thursday with his network, which revised upward to $75,000 the amount of money he contributed to the Clinton Foundation without full disclosure to the network or viewers -- while he was covering Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and foundation controversies.  
Stephanopoulos apologized Thursday and said he should have revealed the contributions, which were initially reported at $50,000. 
But an ABC official told Fox News on Thursday afternoon the anchor has changed that number, to $75,000. He is also pledging not to moderate any presidential debates, Fox News has learned. 
The anchor is a former Bill Clinton spokesman and aide, and his ties to the former first family are well-known. However, as first reported by Politico, he made multiple $25,000 donations to the foundation in recent years -- and while the donations can be found in the organization's records, Stephanopoulos did not disclose them to viewers as he covered the Clintons. 
Even when he interviewed the author of "Clinton Cash" -- the high-profile book examining potential conflicts of interest behind Clinton Foundation funding -- on ABC's "This Week," Stephanopoulos did not disclose his own contributions. 
Stephanopoulos said in a statement on Thursday: "I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work they're doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply. I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize." 
The Washington Free Beacon said Thursday that Stephanopoulos confirmed the donations to Politico only after the Free Beacon asked ABC News for comment. 
Meanwhile, ABC News said they stand behind their star anchor. 
A statement from the network said: "As George has said, he made charitable donations to the Foundation to support a cause he cares about deeply and believed his contributions were a matter of public record. He should have taken the extra step to notify us and our viewers during the recent news reports about the Foundation. He's admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand behind him." 
As of noon ET on Thursday, however, the ABC News website included no acknowledgement of the apology or the network's statement on the ethics issue. 
Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative Media Research Center, said the contributions also weren't discussed when Stephanopoulos interviewed former President Bill Clinton in recent years -- but at least should have been disclosed when he interviewed "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer. 
"It's especially egregious that he did not talk about this [then] ... That was the time he needed to come clean," he said.   
In that interview, the host of "This Week" posed tough questions to Schweizer, pressing him on whether he really had any "smoking gun" showing wrongdoing by the Clintons in their dealings with foundation donors and in Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state. 
Noyes said such tough questions would be expected, but viewers might see them differently had the host disclosed his donations. Noyes said he hopes ABC News addresses the issue on air.

Obama agrees to boost military ties with Arab partners, tries to ease Iran fears

President Obama announced expanded military ties with Persian Gulf nations on Thursday, as he sought to assure the anxious Arab allies that the U.S. would help protect their security in the face of mounting regional unrest and concerns about Iran's growing influence. 
At the close of a Camp David summit, Obama vowed a "new era of cooperation." He pledged a fast-track for transfers of arms and missile defense systems, as well as expanded joint military training and other programs. 
And though he did not declare a new formal security pact with the partners, he reiterated that current agreements allow the U.S. to use military force in aid of its allies if necessary. And he offered assurances that an international nuclear agreement with Iran would not leave the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council more vulnerable. 
Obama spoke in a press conference following talks with members of the Gulf State Cooperation Council, which includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain. He was seeking to placate those countries' concerns over whether the U.S. is committed to helping protect their security, in a time of "extraordinary changes and some great challenges." 
"I was very explicit ... that the United States will stand by our GCC partners against external attack," Obama told reporters. 
In a joint statement with the GCC issued right after the talks, the White House said current security agreements would hold no matter the outcome of an Iranian nuclear deal. The remarks spoke directly to fears that Iran might pursue an offensive policy against its regional rivals if economic sanctions are eventually lifted, freeing up resources for a more aggressive military posture.
"In the event of such aggression or the threat of such aggression, the United States stands ready to work with our GCC partners to determine urgently what action may be appropriate, using the means at our collective disposal, including the potential use of military force, for the defense of our GCC partners," the statement said.
"The United States is prepared to work jointly with the GCC states to deter and confront an external threat to any GCC state's territorial integrity that is inconsistent with the UN Charter."  
He said he updated the partners on current negotiations with Iran, and they all agreed that a comprehensive resolution is in everyone's security interests, "including the GCC partners'." 
But uncertainty about the U.S. commitment to their interests in light of the Iran deal has fueled some tension among these nations. Just two other heads of state -- the emirs of Qatar and Kuwait -- joined Obama at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland's Catoctin mountains. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain all sent lower-level but still influential representatives. The most notable absence was that of Saudi King Salman. On Sunday, Saudi Arabia announced that the king was skipping the summit, two days after the White House said he was coming. 
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman were representing Saudi Arabia instead. The White House and Saudi officials insisted the king was not snubbing the U.S. president. 
In Obama's remarks and the joint statement, the tone was conciliatory and positive, expressing commitments that they would work together on shared interests in the region, including efforts to combat Islamic State terrorism and continuing instability in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Details of how they would do that, and which of the several conflicts raging across the Middle East, however, were few.
"We are still going to face a range of threats across the region," declared Obama. "We are going to work together to address these threats." He noted  they agreed Syrian President Bashar Assad had no future in Syria. Despite differences over how they would support Assad's opponents at the outset, the two sides agreed that they could cooperate to "ultimately destroy ISIL/DAESH in Syria," and warned "against the influence of other extremist groups, such as Al-Nusrah, that represent a danger to the Syrian people, to the region and to the international community."
The White House also welcomed the five-day cease fire in Saudi Arabia's bombing campaign of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which along with the militants, has killed some 800 Yemeni civilians, according to the U.N. They also "strongly affirmed," with the partners, "the necessity of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of a just, lasting, comprehensive peace agreement that results in an independent and contiguous Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel."
With what seemed a nod to critics who say Obama has not pressured the Gulf leaders enough on human rights issues -- Saudi Arabia, for example, has been accused of numerous abuses, including the flogging of a political blogger, who still remains in prison -- earlier this year, Obama told reporters, that "true and lasting cooperation" includes a strong civil society, representative institutions and minority rights. He pledged the U.S. will help to expand economic and educational opportunities for young people, too.
For his part, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir called Thursday a productive day. He said the Arab leaders were "assured that the objective is to deny Iran the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon," and that all pathways to such a weapon would be cut off. He added that it was too early to know if a final nuclear agreement would be acceptable, saying, "We don't know if the Iranians will accept the terms they need to accept."  
As the leaders gathered, an Iranian naval patrol boat fired on a Singapore-flagged commercial ship in the Persian Gulf. A U.S. official said it was an apparent attempt to disable the ship over a financial dispute involving damage to an Iranian oil platform.  
The incident took place a bit south of the island of Abu Musa just inside the Gulf, according to the U.S. official, who was not authorized to discuss details by name. The White House said no Americans were involved in the incident.

Nepal says wreckage of missing US Marine helicopter found

Nepalese officials said Friday that the wreckage of a U.S. Marine helicopter that disappeared earlier this week had been found, along with at least three bodies.
Chief of army operations Maj. Gen. Binoj Basnyat told the Associated Press that wreckage of the missing chopper was spotted in the mountains northeast of Nepal's capital, Kathmandu. Basnyat said no signs of life could be seen from the air. 
Later Friday, Nepal's Defense Secretary Iswori Poudyal announced that the bodies had been found near the wreckage, but gave no details about the nationalities of the victims. The U.S. Marines said they were sending their own rescue team to assess the wreckage and determine if it was the missing helicopter, the UH-1 "Huey."
The suspected wreckage was found about 15 miles from the town of Charikot, near where the aircraft had vanished on Tuesday while delivering humanitarian aid to villages hit by two deadly earthquakes, according to the U.S. military joint task force in Okinawa, Japan. 
The discovery of the wreckage followed days of intense search involving U.S. and Nepalese aircraft and even U.S. satellites.
The U.S. relief mission was deployed soon after a magnitude-7.8 quake hit April 25, killing more than 8,200 people. It was followed by another magnitude-7.3 quake on Tuesday that killed 117 people and injured 2,800.
The helicopter had been delivering rice and tarps in Charikot, the area worst hit by Tuesday's quake. It had dropped off supplies in one location and was en route to a second site when contact was lost.
U.S. military officials said earlier this week that an Indian helicopter in the air nearby had heard radio chatter from the Huey aircraft about a possible fuel problem.

Fox News Poll: Voters believe White House incompetent, US still in recession and ISIS has moved next door

Majorities of voters feel the country is still in recession, think terrorists are living in their hometown and rate the Obama White House handling of the government as incompetent.
Those are some of the findings from the latest Fox News poll released Thursday.
Six in 10 voters think it is likely terrorists are living in their hometown (60 percent). That’s up from 48 percent who felt that way in 2007, the last time the question was asked, and back to about what it was nine months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In June 2002, 58 percent thought terrorists were in their community. 
CLICK TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
The 60-percent majority that says the country is still in a recession is actually down from 74 percent in 2014. The high-water mark came in 2010 when 86 percent of voters said the country was in recession. The new poll shows a record 36 percent say it feels like the recession is over. That’s significantly above the 10 percent who felt that way five years ago. 
Just over half of voters -- 53 percent -- say the Obama administration has not been “competent and effective” in managing the federal government. While that’s hardly welcome news at six years into a presidency, it’s also an improvement from last year, when voters said the White House was incompetent by a 59-39 percent margin. Today 44 percent say the administration has been competent.
Obama’s job approval is about where it’s been for the last two years: 44 percent approve of his performance, while 51 percent disapprove. Last month it was 42-53 percent. A year ago it was 44-49 percent. 
The president gets some of his best marks on the economy, although he’s still in negative territory: 46 percent approve of the job he’s doing, while 49 percent disapprove. (His record low approval of 34 percent came in August 2011.) 
Obama gets lower marks for his handling of ISIS. Only 32 percent of voters approve. A 55-percent majority disapproves. 
The poll finds a record-high 29 percent think it is “very” likely terrorists are living in their area.
Voters who are part of the Tea Party movement (69 percent), those ages 55 and over (67 percent), independents (65 percent) and Southerners (63 percent) are among those most convinced terrorists are living nearby. 
At the same time, most voters are confident U.S. intelligence agencies will succeed in identifying threats in time to prevent attacks: 65 percent feel confident vs. 33 percent not confident. 
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from May 9-12, 2015. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Cheaters Cartoon

Obama call to change ‘how the media reports’ raises concerns

President Obama is taking heat for calling for changes in "how the media reports," during an anti-poverty event where he also took a swipe at Fox News.
At the Georgetown University discussion on Tuesday, Obama lamented how, sometimes, the poor are cast as "sponges" who don't want to work.
"I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu -- they will find folks who make me mad," Obama said. "I don't know where they find them. They're like, I don't want to work, I just want a free Obama phone or whatever. ... And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress -- which is much more typical -- who's raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can't pay the bills."
Obama went on to call for a change in not only how GOP leaders in Congress "think" -- but how the news media cover these issues:
"We're going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues and how people's impressions of what it's like to struggle in this economy looks like, and how budgets connect to that. And that's a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news."
The remark, while perhaps an off-the-cuff moment, only revived concerns about the federal government taking an uncomfortable interest in how the media reports.
"No matter what bias you feel exists in any news outlet, the president, nor any other elected official should feel they have the right or ability to censor the media," said Joseph Desilets, Republican strategist and managing partner at the D.C.-based political consulting firm 21st & Main.
"Had George W. Bush made the same assertion, it would have been considered tyranny. The president doesn't get to tell the media how to do its job. That's outrageous," said Tim Graham, director of the conservative Media Research Center and executive editor at NewsBusters.
Only a year ago, the Federal Communications Commission scrapped plans to pursue a controversial study of American newsrooms.
The study as originally proposed would have sent researchers into American newsrooms across the country to ask what critics called intrusive questions about editorial judgment and practices. The FCC eventually acknowledged some of those questions "overstepped the bounds of what is required," and shelved a pilot study. The initial proposal for the study called for looking into issues like "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."
"Unless Obama really thinks the media isn't giving the people what he wants ... good luck to him with trying to change the business model." said Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
She also said the larger issue is that government programs to help the poor are not working and suggested Obama has tried to put some the blame on a news outlet rather than confronting the issue.
"That's completely absurd," de Rugy said. "The federal government doesn't talk enough about disability insurance and the food stamps program exploding under the Bush and Obama administration."
Graham, referring to Obama's comments Tuesday, also said, "Obama can go after Fox because other news outlets don't see it as an attack on them."
Other conservative media voices also flagged Obama's comments.
Conservative blogger Rick Moran wrote on American Thinker:
"When the president of the United States suggests that the way the media reports stories has to be changed, he is issuing a threat to manage the news. Few presidents have ever liked the media, but none except Obama has suggested, even elliptically, that 'we' -- the government -- have to manage how the news is reported."
A post on the Legal Insurrection blog said the president showed "thin skin."
And Liz Wheeler, co-author of "Young, Conservative, and Why it's Smart to be like Us," tweeted as the speech began: "Been listening to #povertysummit for five mins & already heard Obama divide us by race, class, harangue @FoxNews, and hate on GOP Congress."