Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Higher-income Americans hit hardest by tax changes
Higher-income Americans and some legally married same-sex couples are
likely to feel the biggest hits from tax law changes when they file
their returns in the next month or two. Taxpayers also will have a
harder time taking medical deductions this year.
In other changes, the tax rate tables and the standard deduction have been adjusted for inflation, as has the maximum contribution to retirement accounts, including 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts.
The Alternative Minimum Tax has been patched -- permanently -- to prevent more middle-income taxpayers from being drawn in. And starting with the 2013 tax year, there's a simpler way to compute the home office deduction.
Tax provisions for the 2013 tax year were set by Congress last January as part of legislation to avert the fiscal cliff of tax increases and spending cuts. "We finally got some certainty for this year," said Greg Rosica, a contributing author to Ernst & Young's "EY Tax Guide 2014."
Nevertheless, the tax filing season is being delayed because of the two-week-long government shutdown. The Internal Revenue Service says it needed the extra time to ensure that systems are in place and working. People will be able to start filing tax returns Jan. 31. Before the shutdown, the original start date was Jan. 21.
"People who are used to filing early in order to get a quick refund are just going to have to wait," said Barbara Weltman, a contributing editor to "J.K. Lasser's Your Income Tax 2014."
Don't think the delay will mean a change to the tax deadline, however. "The April 15 tax deadline is set by statute and will remain in place," the IRS says.
The tax legislation passed at the start of 2013 permanently extended the Bush-era tax cuts, but also added a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent for those at higher incomes -- $400,000 for single filers, $450,000 for married couples filing jointly and $425,000 for heads of household.
On top of that, higher-income taxpayers could see their itemized deductions and personal exemptions phased out and pay higher capital gains taxes -- 20 percent for some taxpayers.
And, there are new taxes for those taxpayers to help pay for health care reform.
However, there are different income thresholds for each of these new taxes.
The additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax, for example, kicks in on earnings over $250,000 for married couples filing jointly and $200,000 for singles and heads of household. Same for the 3.8 percent tax on investment income.
But the phaseout of personal exemptions and deductions doesn't begin until $300,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles.
That means that taxpayers who didn't plan could find themselves with big tax bills come April 15 -- and perhaps penalties for under-withholding.
"It's a snowball effect," said Dave Du Val, TaxAudit.com's vice president of customer advocacy.
Confused yet?
"The complexities of the tax code are only affecting those of us trying to read it," National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson said in an interview. Tax software makes a lot of those complexities invisible to the average taxpayer.
As a result, taxpayers might not realize they're being helped by a wide array of deductions and credits. "They have no idea of the benefits they are getting through the tax code," she said.
The IRS processed more than 147 million tax returns in 2013, down slightly from the previous year. More than 109 million taxpayers received refunds that averaged $2,744, also slightly less than in 2012.
The upward trend of electronic filing continued, with more than 83 percent of returns being filed online. The biggest jump, 4.6 percent, was among people who used a software program to do their own taxes.
The IRS is continuing to offer its Free File option, which is available to taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $58,000 or less. Through the program, these taxpayers can use brand-name software to file their taxes at no cost. Some states also participate. The agency also has an option for taxpayers of all incomes -- Free File Fillable Forms -- which does basic calculations but does not offer the guidance that a software package would.
For the 2013 tax year, the personal exemption is $3,900. The standard deduction is $12,200 for married taxpayers filing jointly, $6,100 for singles, and $8,950 for heads of household.
Many credits and deductions were extended for 2013, including several for education. Among them: the American Opportunity Credit of up to $2,500 per student for tuition and fees and deductions for student loan interest and tuition-related expenses. Many of these are phased out at higher income levels.
Schoolteachers will still be able to deduct up to $250 in out-of-pocket expenses for books or other supplies.
Taxpayers will still be able to deduct their medical expenses, but it will be more difficult for many to qualify. The threshold for deducting medical expenses now stands at 10 percent of adjusted gross income, up from 7.5 percent. There's an exception, though, for those older than 65. For them, the old rate is grandfathered in until 2017.
Among the other changes for 2013, taxpayers who work at home will now have a simplified option for taking a home office deduction.
"You can claim this deduction for the business use of a part of your home only if you use that part of your home regularly and exclusively," the IRS says.
But, if you sit at your kitchen table and check work email, it doesn't qualify. "The regular and exclusive business use must be for the convenience of your employer and not just appropriate and helpful in your job," according to the agency.
The IRS said that for tax year 2011, the most recent year for which the numbers are available, more than 3.3 million people claimed nearly $10 billion in home office deductions using Schedule C. The number does not include the home office deduction taken by farmers, which is claimed on a different form.
Most taxpayers claiming the deduction are self-employed, according to the IRS.
Until this year, you had to figure actual expenses for a home office, according to Weltman. "Starting with 2013 returns, if you're eligible for the deduction, you can take a standard deduction of $5 per square foot, up to 300 square feet," she said. The maximum deduction using this method is $1,500.
The IRS says people who take the simplified option will have to fill out one line on Schedule C, as opposed to a 43-line form.
Weltman likened the simplified home office deduction to the IRS deduction for business use of your car. "You can do your actual costs or the IRS mileage rates."
The standard mileage rate for business use of a car in 2013 is 56.5 cents a mile.
Many investors also will find it easier to report stock sales if the 1099-B forms they receive contain key details of the sale and the correct basis for computing gains and losses.
Beginning this year, same-sex couples who are legally married will for the most part have to choose married filing jointly or married filing separately when doing their tax returns. This is true even if the couple lives in a state that does not recognize gay marriage. "For federal tax purposes, the IRS looks to state or foreign law to determine whether individuals are married," the agency said.
The change is a result of the Supreme Court's ruling last June invalidating provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act.
"It's not a choice. That's the way it is," Rosica said.
Many of these couples will now find themselves hit by the marriage penalty, especially if both spouses work.
For example, with their incomes combined, they might hit the threshold for the extra Medicare taxes, or the beginning of the phaseout of deductions and the standard exemptions.
However, when it comes to things like estate taxes, the federal recognition of same-sex marriage will help legally married gay and lesbian couples. That was the issue in the Supreme Court decision in the case of Edith Windsor, who had to pay estate taxes after her lesbian spouse died.
In addition, health insurance purchased from an employer for a same-sex spouse can be paid for pre-tax and excluded from income.
"Like opposite-sex couples, gay and lesbian married couples can qualify to use the head of household status, when kids are involved, where the spouses are living apart," the IRS says.
Same-sex married couples also have the option of filing amended returns going back to 2010, using the married filing jointly status. Rosica said each couple will have to look at their individual circumstances to see if that's beneficial from a tax perspective.
When it comes to filing state returns, same-sex married couples living in states that don't recognize gay marriage most likely will have to file as singles. Since federal returns often are used as a starting point for state returns, that could force them to calculate their federal taxes twice, once for filing the federal return and once for figuring out their state taxes.
If you made energy efficiency improvements to your home, such as installing new windows or a qualifying furnace or heat pump, you might be able to take an energy credit of 10 percent of the cost up to a lifetime maximum of $500.
However, of that total, the IRS says, "only $200 can be for windows; $50 for any advanced main air circulating fan; $150 for any qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or hot water boiler; and $300 for any item of energy efficient building property."
There are additional credits for solar. However, the credit for plug-in electric vehicles has expired.
Once again, the IRS is reminding taxpayers to make sure their Social Security number is entered correctly and their return is signed. Those who feel they need more time can apply for an extension, until Oct. 15. But if you do file for an extension, remember to estimate and make sure you pay any taxes due -- or face a possible penalty.
In other changes, the tax rate tables and the standard deduction have been adjusted for inflation, as has the maximum contribution to retirement accounts, including 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts.
The Alternative Minimum Tax has been patched -- permanently -- to prevent more middle-income taxpayers from being drawn in. And starting with the 2013 tax year, there's a simpler way to compute the home office deduction.
Tax provisions for the 2013 tax year were set by Congress last January as part of legislation to avert the fiscal cliff of tax increases and spending cuts. "We finally got some certainty for this year," said Greg Rosica, a contributing author to Ernst & Young's "EY Tax Guide 2014."
Nevertheless, the tax filing season is being delayed because of the two-week-long government shutdown. The Internal Revenue Service says it needed the extra time to ensure that systems are in place and working. People will be able to start filing tax returns Jan. 31. Before the shutdown, the original start date was Jan. 21.
"People who are used to filing early in order to get a quick refund are just going to have to wait," said Barbara Weltman, a contributing editor to "J.K. Lasser's Your Income Tax 2014."
Don't think the delay will mean a change to the tax deadline, however. "The April 15 tax deadline is set by statute and will remain in place," the IRS says.
The tax legislation passed at the start of 2013 permanently extended the Bush-era tax cuts, but also added a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent for those at higher incomes -- $400,000 for single filers, $450,000 for married couples filing jointly and $425,000 for heads of household.
On top of that, higher-income taxpayers could see their itemized deductions and personal exemptions phased out and pay higher capital gains taxes -- 20 percent for some taxpayers.
And, there are new taxes for those taxpayers to help pay for health care reform.
However, there are different income thresholds for each of these new taxes.
The additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax, for example, kicks in on earnings over $250,000 for married couples filing jointly and $200,000 for singles and heads of household. Same for the 3.8 percent tax on investment income.
But the phaseout of personal exemptions and deductions doesn't begin until $300,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles.
That means that taxpayers who didn't plan could find themselves with big tax bills come April 15 -- and perhaps penalties for under-withholding.
"It's a snowball effect," said Dave Du Val, TaxAudit.com's vice president of customer advocacy.
Confused yet?
"The complexities of the tax code are only affecting those of us trying to read it," National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson said in an interview. Tax software makes a lot of those complexities invisible to the average taxpayer.
As a result, taxpayers might not realize they're being helped by a wide array of deductions and credits. "They have no idea of the benefits they are getting through the tax code," she said.
The IRS processed more than 147 million tax returns in 2013, down slightly from the previous year. More than 109 million taxpayers received refunds that averaged $2,744, also slightly less than in 2012.
The upward trend of electronic filing continued, with more than 83 percent of returns being filed online. The biggest jump, 4.6 percent, was among people who used a software program to do their own taxes.
The IRS is continuing to offer its Free File option, which is available to taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $58,000 or less. Through the program, these taxpayers can use brand-name software to file their taxes at no cost. Some states also participate. The agency also has an option for taxpayers of all incomes -- Free File Fillable Forms -- which does basic calculations but does not offer the guidance that a software package would.
For the 2013 tax year, the personal exemption is $3,900. The standard deduction is $12,200 for married taxpayers filing jointly, $6,100 for singles, and $8,950 for heads of household.
Many credits and deductions were extended for 2013, including several for education. Among them: the American Opportunity Credit of up to $2,500 per student for tuition and fees and deductions for student loan interest and tuition-related expenses. Many of these are phased out at higher income levels.
Schoolteachers will still be able to deduct up to $250 in out-of-pocket expenses for books or other supplies.
Taxpayers will still be able to deduct their medical expenses, but it will be more difficult for many to qualify. The threshold for deducting medical expenses now stands at 10 percent of adjusted gross income, up from 7.5 percent. There's an exception, though, for those older than 65. For them, the old rate is grandfathered in until 2017.
Among the other changes for 2013, taxpayers who work at home will now have a simplified option for taking a home office deduction.
"You can claim this deduction for the business use of a part of your home only if you use that part of your home regularly and exclusively," the IRS says.
But, if you sit at your kitchen table and check work email, it doesn't qualify. "The regular and exclusive business use must be for the convenience of your employer and not just appropriate and helpful in your job," according to the agency.
The IRS said that for tax year 2011, the most recent year for which the numbers are available, more than 3.3 million people claimed nearly $10 billion in home office deductions using Schedule C. The number does not include the home office deduction taken by farmers, which is claimed on a different form.
Most taxpayers claiming the deduction are self-employed, according to the IRS.
Until this year, you had to figure actual expenses for a home office, according to Weltman. "Starting with 2013 returns, if you're eligible for the deduction, you can take a standard deduction of $5 per square foot, up to 300 square feet," she said. The maximum deduction using this method is $1,500.
The IRS says people who take the simplified option will have to fill out one line on Schedule C, as opposed to a 43-line form.
Weltman likened the simplified home office deduction to the IRS deduction for business use of your car. "You can do your actual costs or the IRS mileage rates."
The standard mileage rate for business use of a car in 2013 is 56.5 cents a mile.
Many investors also will find it easier to report stock sales if the 1099-B forms they receive contain key details of the sale and the correct basis for computing gains and losses.
Beginning this year, same-sex couples who are legally married will for the most part have to choose married filing jointly or married filing separately when doing their tax returns. This is true even if the couple lives in a state that does not recognize gay marriage. "For federal tax purposes, the IRS looks to state or foreign law to determine whether individuals are married," the agency said.
The change is a result of the Supreme Court's ruling last June invalidating provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act.
"It's not a choice. That's the way it is," Rosica said.
Many of these couples will now find themselves hit by the marriage penalty, especially if both spouses work.
For example, with their incomes combined, they might hit the threshold for the extra Medicare taxes, or the beginning of the phaseout of deductions and the standard exemptions.
However, when it comes to things like estate taxes, the federal recognition of same-sex marriage will help legally married gay and lesbian couples. That was the issue in the Supreme Court decision in the case of Edith Windsor, who had to pay estate taxes after her lesbian spouse died.
In addition, health insurance purchased from an employer for a same-sex spouse can be paid for pre-tax and excluded from income.
"Like opposite-sex couples, gay and lesbian married couples can qualify to use the head of household status, when kids are involved, where the spouses are living apart," the IRS says.
Same-sex married couples also have the option of filing amended returns going back to 2010, using the married filing jointly status. Rosica said each couple will have to look at their individual circumstances to see if that's beneficial from a tax perspective.
When it comes to filing state returns, same-sex married couples living in states that don't recognize gay marriage most likely will have to file as singles. Since federal returns often are used as a starting point for state returns, that could force them to calculate their federal taxes twice, once for filing the federal return and once for figuring out their state taxes.
If you made energy efficiency improvements to your home, such as installing new windows or a qualifying furnace or heat pump, you might be able to take an energy credit of 10 percent of the cost up to a lifetime maximum of $500.
However, of that total, the IRS says, "only $200 can be for windows; $50 for any advanced main air circulating fan; $150 for any qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or hot water boiler; and $300 for any item of energy efficient building property."
There are additional credits for solar. However, the credit for plug-in electric vehicles has expired.
Once again, the IRS is reminding taxpayers to make sure their Social Security number is entered correctly and their return is signed. Those who feel they need more time can apply for an extension, until Oct. 15. But if you do file for an extension, remember to estimate and make sure you pay any taxes due -- or face a possible penalty.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Former Va. Gov. Bob McDonnell, wife indicted
RICHMOND, Va. – Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife have been indicted on federal corruption charges.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, says McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, were indicted Tuesday. The 14-count indictment includes conspiracy, wire fraud and other charges.
McDonnell left office earlier this month after four years in the governor's office. Virginia law limits governors to a single term.
A federal investigation overshadowed the final months in office for this once-rising star of the Republican Party, with authorities looking into gifts he and his family received from a political donor.
In July, McDonnell apologized and said he had returned more than $120,000 in loans and other gifts from Johnnie Williams, the CEO of pharmaceutical company Star Scientific.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, says McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, were indicted Tuesday. The 14-count indictment includes conspiracy, wire fraud and other charges.
McDonnell left office earlier this month after four years in the governor's office. Virginia law limits governors to a single term.
A federal investigation overshadowed the final months in office for this once-rising star of the Republican Party, with authorities looking into gifts he and his family received from a political donor.
In July, McDonnell apologized and said he had returned more than $120,000 in loans and other gifts from Johnnie Williams, the CEO of pharmaceutical company Star Scientific.
As Obama hammers ‘income inequality,’ gap grows under his presidency
Income inequality -- the gap between the rich and poor -- is an issue U.S. presidents of both parties have spoken of for years.
President Clinton touted, toward the end of his term, that wages were rising "at all income levels" for the first time in decades. President George W. Bush, toward the end of his, pondered the best way to respond to income inequality, noting some policies "lift people up" and some "tear others down."
But perhaps no president has hammered the issue as emphatically as President Obama.
In his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama said: "The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."
But a look back shows that income inequality has grown, not shrunk, under the current president.
"All told, income inequality has tended to get worse under President Obama," American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks said.
The gap between rich and poor has fluctuated greatly over time, but there are signals that the country is going back to a divide not seen in a long time.
Back in 1928, the top 1 percent of earners received about a quarter of all pre-tax income. The bottom 90 percent received just over half of it.
Fast forward to the Great Depression and World War II. America experienced a time of economic change and development that dramatically reshaped U.S. income distribution. In 1944, under Franklin D. Roosevelt, the wealthy weren't quite as wealthy. The top 1 percent saw their income share sink to 11 percent. Meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent saw their income share rise to 67 percent.
Through the '50s and '60s and early '70s, decades of economic growth brought prosperity for all. Each economic group's income share remained fairly constant. Then came the late 1970s, where under President Carter, the top 1 percent saw their share begin to rise and the bottom 90 percent saw theirs begin to fall.
Between then and now, the share of income gains captured by top earners grew. The top 1 percent saw a 45 percent increase under Clinton and a 65 percent increase under Bush.
That number has dramatically increased since Obama's inauguration in 2009. By 2012, the top 1 percent was back to where it was decades ago -- taking in about a quarter of all pre-tax income. Yet the bottom 90 percent saw their share fall below 50 percent for the first time in history.
Some analysts say this is because Obama was more focused on health care than alleviating unemployment and poverty.
"Our system is predicated on presidential leadership, and the president has not been focused on either you know poverty or unemployment," said AEI's Michael Strain. "Early in his term he was focused on health care as we all know, and you know we have the election, and this just hasn't been at the front-burner."
But Heather Boushey, with the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, said, "I don't think you can lay the blame for that at the feet of Obama."
She continued: "I think that that blame lies also with the U.S. Congress who's made decisions about what they want to fund and how they want to focus on dealing with the deficits rather than focusing on getting us back to something close to full employment."
A look at what's called "real income," or income adjusted for inflation, underscores the trend in recent decades.
In 2012, the bottom 90 percent was earning an average "real income" of about $30,000 a year. That's similar to what they were earning back in 1980.
But the top 10 percent of earners typically made over a quarter of a million dollars in 2012. And the top 1 percent averaged over $1.2 million in earnings that year. That is where the most dramatic fluctuation can be seen over time, as the gap between lower and top earners has widened.
According to the work of Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, during the post-recession years of 2009-2012, top earners snagged a greater share of total income growth than during the boom years of 2002-2007.
In other words, income inequality has become more pronounced since the Bush administration, not less.
"Rich people have pulled away, largely because the top 1 percent has been doing quite well -- and disproportionately doing quite well under President Obama," Brooks said. "Remember that the stock market has doubled in value since President Obama took office, and at least 80 percent of those gains have gone to the top 10 percent of the income distribution."
But perhaps no president has hammered the issue as emphatically as President Obama.
In his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama said: "The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."
But a look back shows that income inequality has grown, not shrunk, under the current president.
"All told, income inequality has tended to get worse under President Obama," American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks said.
The gap between rich and poor has fluctuated greatly over time, but there are signals that the country is going back to a divide not seen in a long time.
Back in 1928, the top 1 percent of earners received about a quarter of all pre-tax income. The bottom 90 percent received just over half of it.
Fast forward to the Great Depression and World War II. America experienced a time of economic change and development that dramatically reshaped U.S. income distribution. In 1944, under Franklin D. Roosevelt, the wealthy weren't quite as wealthy. The top 1 percent saw their income share sink to 11 percent. Meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent saw their income share rise to 67 percent.
Through the '50s and '60s and early '70s, decades of economic growth brought prosperity for all. Each economic group's income share remained fairly constant. Then came the late 1970s, where under President Carter, the top 1 percent saw their share begin to rise and the bottom 90 percent saw theirs begin to fall.
Between then and now, the share of income gains captured by top earners grew. The top 1 percent saw a 45 percent increase under Clinton and a 65 percent increase under Bush.
That number has dramatically increased since Obama's inauguration in 2009. By 2012, the top 1 percent was back to where it was decades ago -- taking in about a quarter of all pre-tax income. Yet the bottom 90 percent saw their share fall below 50 percent for the first time in history.
Some analysts say this is because Obama was more focused on health care than alleviating unemployment and poverty.
"Our system is predicated on presidential leadership, and the president has not been focused on either you know poverty or unemployment," said AEI's Michael Strain. "Early in his term he was focused on health care as we all know, and you know we have the election, and this just hasn't been at the front-burner."
But Heather Boushey, with the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, said, "I don't think you can lay the blame for that at the feet of Obama."
She continued: "I think that that blame lies also with the U.S. Congress who's made decisions about what they want to fund and how they want to focus on dealing with the deficits rather than focusing on getting us back to something close to full employment."
A look at what's called "real income," or income adjusted for inflation, underscores the trend in recent decades.
In 2012, the bottom 90 percent was earning an average "real income" of about $30,000 a year. That's similar to what they were earning back in 1980.
But the top 10 percent of earners typically made over a quarter of a million dollars in 2012. And the top 1 percent averaged over $1.2 million in earnings that year. That is where the most dramatic fluctuation can be seen over time, as the gap between lower and top earners has widened.
According to the work of Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, during the post-recession years of 2009-2012, top earners snagged a greater share of total income growth than during the boom years of 2002-2007.
In other words, income inequality has become more pronounced since the Bush administration, not less.
"Rich people have pulled away, largely because the top 1 percent has been doing quite well -- and disproportionately doing quite well under President Obama," Brooks said. "Remember that the stock market has doubled in value since President Obama took office, and at least 80 percent of those gains have gone to the top 10 percent of the income distribution."
Monday, January 20, 2014
Democrat Punching Bag?
NJ Gov. Christie's office denies claims of withholding Sandy aid funds
A New Jersey mayor who says that she was blocked from receiving millions of dollars in Superstorm Sandy recovery grants because of her refusal to sign off on a politically connected commercial development claimed Sunday that she was told that an ultimatum relating to the project came directly from Christie himself.
In an interview with CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer said that she was approached about the commercial development project by Kim Guadagno, Christie's lieutenant governor, at an event this past May.
"The lieutenant governor pulled me aside and said, essentially, 'You've got to move forward with the Rockefeller project. This project is really important to the governor.' And she said that she had been with him on Friday night and that this was a direct message from the governor," Zimmer recalled Guadagno saying.
Christie's office denied the claim later Sunday, with spokesman Colin Reed saying "Mayor Zimmer's categorization about her conversation in Hoboken is categorically false."
Zimmer told the Star-Ledger that she had met with federal prosecutors Sunday and given them a copy of her daily journal and other documents related to the case. Zimmer also said that she would be willing to testify under oath regarding the allegations. Christie's administration is already under investigation over traffic jams on the George Washington Bridge last September that were apparently manufactured as political retaliation.
Zimmer had alleged Saturday that Guadagno and a top community development official told her recovery funds would flow to her city if she allowed the project to move forward. The Democratic mayor said the Republican administration officials wanted Rockefeller's plans for the property approved, while Zimmer said she preferred to go through normal channels and hear from all stakeholders, including the public and owners of adjacent property.
"I was directly told by the lieutenant governor — she made it very clear — that the Rockefeller project needed to move forward or they wouldn't be able to help me," Zimmer told The Associated Press.
"There is no way I could ethically do what the governor, through the lieutenant governor, is asking me to do," she said.
Christie's office called Zimmer’s statements politically motivated, with Reed Colin Reed saying the administration has been helping Hoboken secure assistance since Sandy struck.
"It's very clear partisan politics are at play here, as Democratic mayors with a political ax to grind come out of the woodwork and try to get their faces on television,” Reed said.
Reed also bashed MSNBC, which first reported Zimmer’s comments.
“MSNBC is a partisan network that has been openly hostile to Gov. Christie and almost gleeful in their efforts attacking him, even taking the unprecedented step of producing and airing a nearly three-minute attack ad against him this week,” he added.
A state website that tracks the distribution of Sandy aid shows that Hoboken received a $200,000 post-storm planning grant in October out of a $1.8 billion pot of money controlled by the state. Hoboken also received a $142,000 state energy resilience grant.
Besides state money, Hoboken has received $70 million in recovery funds distributed by the federal government, according to the Christie administration. Zimmer said she has applied for $100 million to implement a comprehensive plan to help insulate her city from future floods.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Maryland's ObamaCare website sent customers to Seattle pottery store
The Maryland website for ObamaCare mistakenly listed an 800 number that sent some Maryland residents attempting to pick a health insurance provider to Seattle Pottery Supply, instead of the state's call center.
The number appears under the words "State Advantage" and "call a representative," according to The Baltimore Sun.
The correct number for help shows up multiple times on the marylandhealthconnection.gov site before the incorrect number appears.
Critics of the state-run site said Saturday this is just the latest in a long series of problems for the Maryland health exchange.
"You can't make this stuff up, and I guess if it wasn't so serious, it could be funny," said state Senate Minority Leader David R. Brinkley, a Frederick County Republican.
A state spokeswoman said Saturday that she had no update on efforts to fix the problem. Maryland officials were unaware of the problem until contacted Friday by the newspaper.
Maryland is one of 14 states that chose to build its own website to sell health insurance as part of the federal Affordable Care Act.
State officials have set a goal of signing up 150,000 people for private insurance by the end of March; 22,512 had signed up on the website as of Jan. 11.
The site’s problems have become the major issue in this year’s gubernatorial race in which front-runner and Democratic Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown was Gov. Martin O’Malley’s point man on developing the health exchange.
White House reportedly delays ObamaCare equal coverage provision
The Obama administration is reportedly delaying enforcement of
another aspect of ObamaCare, one that prohibits employers from providing
better health benefits to top executives than those being offered to
regular employees.
According to The New York Times, tax officials said they would not enforce the provision in 2014 as they had not yet issued the appropriate regulations.
The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as ObamaCare, says employer-sponsored health plans must not discriminate “in favor of highly compensated individuals” with respect to either eligibility or benefits, and provides a tax break for employer-sponsored insurance, while demanding employers not provide better coverage to higher-paid employees.
Yet Bruce I. Friedland, a spokesman for the I.R.S., told the New York Times that employers would not have to comply until the agency issued regulations or other guidance.
Under ObamaCare, an employer that has a fully insured health plan that discriminates in favor of high-paid executives could face a steep penalty: a tax of $100 a day for each individual affected negatively.
Among the issues holding up the implementation of regulations, according to the Times, are how to measure the value of employee health benefits, how to define "highly compensated" and what exactly constitutes discrimination against less-paid employees.
As a result, the Times reports, officials have decided to review the existing nondiscrimination rules for self-insured companies, even as they try to write new rules for employers that buy commercial health insurance.
“Under the Affordable Care Act, for the first time all group health plans will be prohibited from offering coverage only to their highest paid employees. The Departments of HHS, Labor and the Treasury are working on rules that will implement this requirement of the ACA, taking into account public comments that were previously requested,” Erin Donar, a spokesperson for the Treasury told Fox News in a statement Saturday evening.
“As we continue this work, employers still have the same incentives they always have had to offer coverage to their employees as part of a competitive compensation package, and will have additional incentives under the Affordable Care Act starting this year and next.”
The enforcement delay is the latest in a list of deadline extensions and exemptions to the controversial law by the Obama administration to minimize disruption from the new health care law, which is sure to play in key role in this year’s midterm elections.
According to The New York Times, tax officials said they would not enforce the provision in 2014 as they had not yet issued the appropriate regulations.
The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as ObamaCare, says employer-sponsored health plans must not discriminate “in favor of highly compensated individuals” with respect to either eligibility or benefits, and provides a tax break for employer-sponsored insurance, while demanding employers not provide better coverage to higher-paid employees.
Yet Bruce I. Friedland, a spokesman for the I.R.S., told the New York Times that employers would not have to comply until the agency issued regulations or other guidance.
Under ObamaCare, an employer that has a fully insured health plan that discriminates in favor of high-paid executives could face a steep penalty: a tax of $100 a day for each individual affected negatively.
Among the issues holding up the implementation of regulations, according to the Times, are how to measure the value of employee health benefits, how to define "highly compensated" and what exactly constitutes discrimination against less-paid employees.
As a result, the Times reports, officials have decided to review the existing nondiscrimination rules for self-insured companies, even as they try to write new rules for employers that buy commercial health insurance.
“Under the Affordable Care Act, for the first time all group health plans will be prohibited from offering coverage only to their highest paid employees. The Departments of HHS, Labor and the Treasury are working on rules that will implement this requirement of the ACA, taking into account public comments that were previously requested,” Erin Donar, a spokesperson for the Treasury told Fox News in a statement Saturday evening.
“As we continue this work, employers still have the same incentives they always have had to offer coverage to their employees as part of a competitive compensation package, and will have additional incentives under the Affordable Care Act starting this year and next.”
The enforcement delay is the latest in a list of deadline extensions and exemptions to the controversial law by the Obama administration to minimize disruption from the new health care law, which is sure to play in key role in this year’s midterm elections.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Media Doesn't Want Accurate ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers
As I write this Chuck Todd is using his MSNBC show "The Daily Rundown" to spread the fabricated myth that 2.2 million Americans "enrolled" in ObamaCare. This isn't true and if Todd doesn't know it isn't true he is not a tenth as smart as I think he is. Sadly, Todd's willingness to spread government propaganda without qualification is not unique among a media that obviously don't want to push for the release of accurate ObamaCare enrollment numbers.
You are not "enrolled" in ObamaCare or any insurance plan until you have paid your first month's premium. Scattered reports from various insurance companies tell us that anywhere from 95% to 50% of those the White House are counting as enrolled have not paid and therefore are not really enrolled.The numbers the White House and its mouthpiece media are using do not fall under the accepted or standard definition of "enrollee." We are being told 2.2 million enrolled when the truth is that 2.2 million only went as far as to place a health plan in their shopping cart. How many of those 2.2 million are truly enrolled is a number the White House isn't releasing and the media are not publicly pressuring them to release.
If the mainstream media wanted the true enrollment figure, they could easily do what they always do when they want something: coordinate a narrative throughout every media outlet that pressures the administration to release the numbers and criticizes them for not doing so.
Instead, senior White House correspondents like Chuck Todd are, without qualification, repeating the number as though it's an accurate number.
But why would we expect the media to push for a truth that might hurt President Obama's signature piece of legislation, and one the media championed and refused for three years to vet for fear it might derail the entire program?
This kind of sloppy reporting and parroting of Obama talking points has defined our media since the day Barack Obama became a national figure.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC
Most ObamaCare enrollees already had health plans, report says
The majority of the more than 2 million Americans who signed up for health insurance under ObamaCare through the end of December were already enrolled in employer-sponsored plans or had previously bought their own coverage, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
Early data from insurers, brokers and consultants suggest that the marketplaces are popular with consumers who were previously covered elsewhere, raising questions about a law intended to expand coverage to millions of healthy, uninsured Americans to help offset costs.
A survey by management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found that only 11 percent of consumers who purchased new coverage under ObamaCare were previously uninsured. The survey was based on a sampling of 4,563 consumers between November and January, according to The Wall Street Journal.
HealthMarkets Inc., an insurance agency that signed up about 7,500 people in exchange plans, reported that 65 of its enrollees had prior coverage, the report said. Fifteen percent of enrollees had their individual plans canceled, and 40 percent switched over from previous individual plans.
"One of the intents of the law was to address the uninsured problem in our country," David M. Cordani, chief executive of insurer Cigna told the newspaper. Some insurers said the early data on newly insured consumers is falling short of expectations.
Insurers in Michigan expected 400,000 of the state's 1.2 million uninsured people to join private plans this year, according to an analysis provided Michigan-based Priority Health. As of the end of December, only 76,000 people had signed up, many of whom were previously covered, according to the report.
"I don't know we're growing the number of people with insurance here, so much as we're just adding complexity," Geoff Bartsh, vice president for policy at Minneapolis-based Medica Health Plans told the Journal.
Federal health officials told the newspaper they don't yet know the number of people who have signed up for coverage through the exchanges who had insurance when they enrolled. Consumers have until the end of March 31 to purchase plans under ObamaCare.
"We are in the middle of a sustained six-month open-enrollment period, and we have seen a strong interest in the product overall across the range of demographics so far," said Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "We are ramping up outreach activities so that more Americans learn how they can now benefit from affordable health insurance."
Overall, adults ages 55-64 were the most heavily represented in the signups, accounting for 33 percent of the total. Nationwide, the premiums paid by people in that demographic don't fully cover their medical expenses. Some are in the waiting room for Medicare; that coverage starts at age 65.
Young adults from 18 to 34 are only 24 percent of total enrollment, the Obama administration said Monday in its first signup figures broken down for age, gender and other details. Enrolling young and healthy people is important because they generally pay more into the system than they take out, subsidizing older adults.
Bloggers have First Amendment protections, federal court rules
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.
The appeals court ruled that the trustee was not a public figure, which could have invoked an even higher standard of showing the writer acted with malice, but the issue was of public concern, so the negligence standard applied.
Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.
"It's not a special right to the news media," he said. "So it's a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others."
Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., now living in Port Townshend, Wash., was sued for defamation by Bend attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC, after she made posts on several websites she created accusing them of fraud, corruption, money-laundering and other illegal activities. The appeals court noted Padrick and Obsidian were hired by Summit Accommodators to advise them before filing for bankruptcy, and that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court later appointed Padrick trustee in the Chapter 11 case. The court added that Summit had defrauded investors in its real estate operations through a Ponzi scheme.
A jury in 2011 had awarded Padrick and Obsidian $2.5 million.
"Because Cox's blog post addressed a matter of public concern, even assuming that Gertz is limited to such speech, the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently," judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote. "We hold that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages."
The appeals court upheld rulings by the District Court that other posts by Cox were constitutionally protected opinion.
Though Cox acted as her own attorney, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who had written an article on the issue, learned of her case and offered to represent her in an appeal. Volokh said such cases usually end up settled without trial, and it was rare for one to reach the federal appeals court level.
"It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists," he said. "There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers."
An attorney for Padrick said in an email that while they were disappointed in the ruling, they noted the court found "there was no dispute that the statements were false and defamatory."
"Ms. Cox's false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to our clients, and we are evaluating our options with respect to the court's decision," wrote Steven M. Wilker.
Friday, January 17, 2014
World's greatest hacker calls Healthcare.gov security 'shameful'
Security expert -- and once the world's most-wanted cyber
criminal -- Kevin Mitnick submitted a scathing criticism to a House
panel Thursday of ObamaCare's Healthcare.gov website, calling the
protections built into the site "shameful" and "minimal."
In a letter submitted as testimony to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Mitnick wrote: "It's shameful the team that built the Healthcare.gov site implemented minimal, if any, security best practices to mitigate the significant risk of a system compromise."
Mitnick's letter, submitted to panel Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, held comments from several leading security experts.
Mitnick concluded that, "After reading the documents provided by David Kennedy that detailed numerous security vulnerabilities associated with the Healthcare.gov Website, it's clear that the management team did not consider security as a priority."
RAW DATA: Security experts on Healthcare.gov issues
His comments were backed up by testimony by Kennedy, who is CEO and founder of TrustedSec LLC and a self-described "white hat hacker," meaning someone who hacks in order to fix security flaws and not commit cybercrime. In November, Kennedy and other experts testified before the same panel about security issues on Healthcare.gov.
Kennedy testified that most of the flaws they identified at the time still exist on the site, and said "indeed, it's getting worse," telling the panel that he and other experts have seen little improvement in the past two months.
"Nothing has really changed since our November 19 testimony," Kennedy said.
Only one-half of a vulnerability has been found and plugged since then, he told the committee. "They did a little bit of work on it and it's still vulnerable today."
Also speaking at the panel were Michael Gregg, chief executive officer of Superior Solutions, Waylon Krush, co-founder and CEO of Lunarline, and Dr. Lawrence Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute.
There have been no confirmed security breaches or hacks of the site yet, despite the alarming current and past testimony from the panel. (At the November panel, Kennedy said the website "may have already been hacked.") The flaws that have been found are mere speculation, pointed out Krush, whose firm has done security work for the Department of Health and Human Services.
“Nobody here at this table can tell you there is a vulnerability,” he said during testimony. To actually test the flaws would require hacking the website itself, which would mean breaking the law, he noted.
In a letter submitted as testimony to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Mitnick wrote: "It's shameful the team that built the Healthcare.gov site implemented minimal, if any, security best practices to mitigate the significant risk of a system compromise."
Mitnick's letter, submitted to panel Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, held comments from several leading security experts.
Mitnick concluded that, "After reading the documents provided by David Kennedy that detailed numerous security vulnerabilities associated with the Healthcare.gov Website, it's clear that the management team did not consider security as a priority."
RAW DATA: Security experts on Healthcare.gov issues
His comments were backed up by testimony by Kennedy, who is CEO and founder of TrustedSec LLC and a self-described "white hat hacker," meaning someone who hacks in order to fix security flaws and not commit cybercrime. In November, Kennedy and other experts testified before the same panel about security issues on Healthcare.gov.
Kennedy testified that most of the flaws they identified at the time still exist on the site, and said "indeed, it's getting worse," telling the panel that he and other experts have seen little improvement in the past two months.
"Nothing has really changed since our November 19 testimony," Kennedy said.
Only one-half of a vulnerability has been found and plugged since then, he told the committee. "They did a little bit of work on it and it's still vulnerable today."
Also speaking at the panel were Michael Gregg, chief executive officer of Superior Solutions, Waylon Krush, co-founder and CEO of Lunarline, and Dr. Lawrence Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute.
There have been no confirmed security breaches or hacks of the site yet, despite the alarming current and past testimony from the panel. (At the November panel, Kennedy said the website "may have already been hacked.") The flaws that have been found are mere speculation, pointed out Krush, whose firm has done security work for the Department of Health and Human Services.
“Nobody here at this table can tell you there is a vulnerability,” he said during testimony. To actually test the flaws would require hacking the website itself, which would mean breaking the law, he noted.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
American POW's fate could hang in balance as US, Afghanistan struggle to strike security pact
Efforts to search for America's only living POW currently held by the Taliban could be seriously set back if the U.S. and Afghanistan governments cannot agree on a vital security pact.
The Obama administration has set a new deadline of Jan. 28 for Afghan President Hamid Karzai to sign the agreement, which would provide U.S. troops with protections they need in order to stay after 2014.
But few think the unpredictable Afghan president will sign before he leaves office in April. And military experts say that without an agreement, all U.S. troops will likely be pulled from the country at the end of this year.
For Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban in 2009 and traded to a Pakistani faction known as the Haqqani group, failure to sign the security agreement could be a death sentence, officials say -- as it would make it increasingly difficult to track him and secure his safe release.
A new video intercepted by the U.S. government marks the first time Bergdahl has been seen in three years. The proof of life shows a prisoner who is in deteriorating health, which has U.S. Defense officials worried. It makes reference to Dec. 14, 2013 and Nelson Mandela's death, which has led U.S. intelligence analysts to conclude that the video was made recently.
Bergdahl's parents pleaded in a written statement to his captors to release their only son and gave words of encouragement to Bergdahl himself.
"As we have done so many times over the past 4 and a half years, we request his captors to release him safely so that our only son can be reunited with his mother and father," Bowe's parents wrote from their home in Idaho. "BOWE - If you see this, continue to remain strong through patience. Your endurance will carry you to the finish line. Breathe!""
But the security agreement talks loom over their efforts.
Among the revelations in former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' new book, "Duty," is just how difficult it's been to secure status of forces (SOFA) and bilateral security agreements at the end of America's contentious wars. Gates recalled how he was told by his commanders -- in this case, Gen. David Petraeus, who oversaw the surge forces in Iraq -- that Iran was in fact paying Iraqi officials not to consent to the agreement which would allow U.S. forces to stay after the Iraq war ended.
"Petraeus told me an Iranian brigadier general had been arrested in Iraq for bribing legislators with $250,000 each to vote against the SOFA," Gates wrote in his memoir. "Later in the fall, we learned that the head of the Iranian Quds Force, Major General Qassem Suleimani, had told President Talabani that Iraq should not sign any agreement with Bush."
Similar meddling by those who do not want the U.S. to keep its influence in the region after 2014 can be assumed to be occurring in Afghanistan.
Investigate the investigators? GOP lawmakers urge probe of IRS scandal review
Republican lawmakers, frustrated by the Justice Department's slow-moving probe into the IRS targeting scandal and "conflict of interest" concerns, are now calling for the investigators to be investigated.
Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Wednesday formally requested that the Justice Department's inspector general launch his own probe into the department's review of IRS activities.
The request marks a serious escalation of their complaints about the department's conduct and, specifically, a decision to have a President Obama backer lead the investigation.
"The Department has created the appearance that it is not taking seriously its responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation of IRS misconduct," Issa and Jordan wrote in a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
Such complaints have come to a head this week, as conservative groups and lawmakers worry that the investigation is fizzling -- eight months after the agency first acknowledged it singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.
In their letter, Issa and Jordan cited a litany of concerns, including recent claims from administration officials that criminal charges in the case are unlikely. But they centered on the decision to appoint Barbara Kay Bosserman to lead the FBI probe. Campaign finance records show Bosserman has given more than $6,000 to Obama's two presidential campaigns.
"Publicly available information suggests that Ms. Bosserman may have a conflict of interest in this matter," they wrote, also citing a Fox News report that she attended a bill-signing ceremony at the White House in 2009.
Separately, the lawmakers wrote to Labor Secretary Thomas Perez asking him about any possible involvement, given his prior position as Bosserman's boss in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
The Justice Department, though, has pushed back hard on those questioning Bosserman's fitness for the role.
One official said last week that simply because a trial attorney exercised her constitutional right to make a political donation does not mean she's not acting professionally. Officials stressed that they cannot consider political affiliation when handing out case assignments.
"It is contrary to Department policy and a prohibited personnel practice under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions," the department said in a statement.
On Monday, a DOJ official also said that the ceremony Bosserman attended in 2009 -- for the signing of hate crimes legislation -- was attended by the Civil Rights Division team, which was described as "typical" given their "technical support" on the bill.
The request marks a serious escalation of their complaints about the department's conduct and, specifically, a decision to have a President Obama backer lead the investigation.
"The Department has created the appearance that it is not taking seriously its responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation of IRS misconduct," Issa and Jordan wrote in a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
Such complaints have come to a head this week, as conservative groups and lawmakers worry that the investigation is fizzling -- eight months after the agency first acknowledged it singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.
In their letter, Issa and Jordan cited a litany of concerns, including recent claims from administration officials that criminal charges in the case are unlikely. But they centered on the decision to appoint Barbara Kay Bosserman to lead the FBI probe. Campaign finance records show Bosserman has given more than $6,000 to Obama's two presidential campaigns.
"Publicly available information suggests that Ms. Bosserman may have a conflict of interest in this matter," they wrote, also citing a Fox News report that she attended a bill-signing ceremony at the White House in 2009.
Separately, the lawmakers wrote to Labor Secretary Thomas Perez asking him about any possible involvement, given his prior position as Bosserman's boss in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
The Justice Department, though, has pushed back hard on those questioning Bosserman's fitness for the role.
One official said last week that simply because a trial attorney exercised her constitutional right to make a political donation does not mean she's not acting professionally. Officials stressed that they cannot consider political affiliation when handing out case assignments.
"It is contrary to Department policy and a prohibited personnel practice under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions," the department said in a statement.
On Monday, a DOJ official also said that the ceremony Bosserman attended in 2009 -- for the signing of hate crimes legislation -- was attended by the Civil Rights Division team, which was described as "typical" given their "technical support" on the bill.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Senator presses DHS chief on transporting smuggled kids, likens to ‘Furious’ scandal
The Obama administration’s alleged practice of transporting smuggled children to their illegal immigrant parents in the U.S. has caught the attention of Congress, with a Republican senator likening the practice to the “disastrous” Operation Fast and Furious.
In a letter obtained by FoxNews.com, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked newly confirmed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson a string of questions about the apparent policy. The practice came to light last month after a federal judge in Texas claimed immigration agents were intercepting human smugglers transporting children at the U.S.-Mexico border -- and then delivering those children to illegal immigrant parents in the U.S.
“I am shocked to learn that the federal government is a participant in an international human smuggling conspiracy,” Vitter wrote. “I cannot imagine a case in which such a policy would be in accordance with the established mission of the Department, particularly since this encourages additional smuggling and the sometimes extreme abuse of the smuggled children involved.”
In a court order last month, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen voiced concern about the unintended consequences of such a practice. Vitter echoed those concerns in his letter.
Further, the senator raised the specter of Operation Fast and Furious, where federal agents allowed guns to be illegally trafficked, only to watch those guns show up at numerous crime scenes – including that of the murder of a U.S. border agent.
“I am particularly surprised that a federal agency would assist an international criminal conspiracy after the disastrous Operation Fast & Furious directly resulted in the heinous murder of CBP Agent Brian Terry in December 2010,” Vitter wrote.
Like Hanen, he noted that those being smuggled across the border face abuse and dangerous conditions, and said “easing the ability of immigrants to illegally enter and remain in the United States only encourages greater numbers of illegal border crossings.”
He asked how long the practice has been in place, how many times this has happened, and what statute authorizes it.
The situation is likely more complicated and involves more agencies than the judge’s order made it sound. While Hanen focused on the Department of Homeland Security, officials say minors are typically handed over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, within the Department of Health and Human Services.
Thousands of illegal immigrant children and teens are caught trying to enter the United States, and often sent to federally-run care centers while their status is determined.
The question is whether the Obama administration is engaging in a risky practice by delivering some children to their parents. Critics argue that the practice would only encourage more parents to have their children smuggled over the border, through operations often connected to the drug cartels.
Administration officials defended their actions last month.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a December statement that it was following the law, and that its officers are committed to the "safe, fair and humane treatment" of minors.”
The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement also defended the role of federal agents.
“While the court’s comments did not relate specifically to ICE, it is clear that the transportation of unaccompanied children (UAC) by ICE personnel is appropriate and legal,” acting Director John Sandweg wrote in a brief email to staff, obtained by FoxNews.com.
Questions arise over Obama's pick for Justice post
Critics of President Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division have described Debo Adegbile as “radical,” “dangerous” and “outside the mainstream.” Now he is facing heated criticism for his role in getting convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence overturned during his time as a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF).
Abu-Jamal was convicted of the 1981 killing of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.
Adegbile was asked about the case during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week and replied, "It's important, I think, to understand that in no way does that legal representation, zealously as an advocate, cast any aspersion or look past the grievous loss of Sergeant Faulkner."
His critics, including Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., disagree. According to Fitzpatrick, "[Abu-Jamal's] attorneys ... attended a rally in Philadelphia and said that they could not have been prouder than to have had the opportunity not to represent justice, not to fight for the Constitution, but to represent Mumia Abu-Jamal."
Faulkner's widow, Maureen, says she is "outraged" by Obama’s decision to nominate Adegbile to such an important post. "To have a man who defended a murderer, someone who murdered a police officer with premeditation and malice, is a radical, is a Black Panther, and to give him an appointment, to nominate him, to the Department of Justice, I mean it's a disgrace."
Adegbile is senior counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., praised his "calm demeanor" and ability to "build consensus."
Leahy added, "He is a careful lawyer and good listener."
Dozens of organizations, led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, penned a letter of support to the Senate as well - calling Adegbile "a tireless advocate, a skilled litigator, and a well-respected member of the legal community who is extraordinarily qualified for and suited to this position."
At the same time, Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, contends there are questions about Adegbile's qualifications. There were reports that President Obama intended to nominate him to serve as a judge on the D.C. Circuit back in 2011, and that Adegbile was submitted to the American Bar Association (ABA) for a rating. Whelan says Adegbile didn't make it past the ABA's qualification screening.
Skeptics are also publicly speculating about whether Adegbile is the best fit to head up a department that has been the subject of much recent criticism. Last year the Justice Department's Inspector General released a report blasting the Civil Rights Division, citing inappropriateconduct, harassment of conservatives in the division, and the appearance of partisanship and racial politics.
Many wonder why the White House would tap such a controversial nominee when the Division is in need of a public relations boost.
Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow with the Heritage Foundation, believes the White House doesn't care about the public perception and says the administration sees the Division as "a tool to be used ... to do things like win elections."
He also says of Adegbile,,"He filed a brief in the Supreme Court in a case in which he said it was okay for universities to discriminate against white students because of their race in college admissions and said employers should not be able to do criminal background checks."
However, both Adegbile's supporters and detractors believe he will successfully navigate the Senate votes necessary to be confirmed to head up the Civil Rights Division in the near future.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
IRS Off the Hook: No Criminal Charges Over Tea Party Targeting
The FBI is not planning to file criminal charges involving the
Internal Revenue Service's extra scrutiny of the Tea Party and other
conservative groups, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing
law enforcement officials.
The newspaper quoted officials as saying that investigators probing the IRS actions, which unleashed a political furor in Washington, did not uncover the type of political bias or "enemy hunting" that would constitute a criminal violation. The evidence showed a mismanaged agency enforcing rules it did not understand on applications for tax exemptions, the Journal reported.
The case is still under investigation, but criminal charges were unlikely unless unexpected evidence emerged, officials familiar with the probe told the paper.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment when queried by Reuters.
If there are no criminal charges as expected, the FBI is likely to see a backlash from already skeptical conservative groups which had raised the idea that the administration would not police itself.
House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa last week questioned whether a prosecutor handling the case for the Justice Department could remain impartial when he donated to the Obama campaign.
And just last week, The Washington Times reported that some conservative groups were only just being contacted by the IRS, raising the question of just how thorough an investigation the FBI conducted.
Cleta Mitchell, another attorney representing some of the targeted groups, said last week her clients have not heard from investigators.
"Normally, don't you first interview the victims?" Mitchell said. "I mean, I've watched enough cop shows over the years. You interview the victims. You don't interview the perp."
FBI Director James Comey told reporters last week when asked about the IRS probe, "It's an investigation that we're still working, and that's an important one for us." He declined to comment on whether the FBI believed a crime had been committed.
In May, a senior IRS executive made an unexpected public apology at a legal conference for what she described as improper scrutiny by the agency of conservative political groups.
The apology set off weeks of investigation and controversy, culminating in findings that Tea Party-linked political groups applying for tax-exempt status had been subjected to extra review and delay by employees at an IRS Cincinnati field office.
Republican lawmakers attacked President Barack Obama's administration over the issue, accusing the agency of political bias.
Obama asked then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller to resign in the days after the disclosure, and the FBI opened an investigation.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/fbi-IRS-tea-party/2014/01/13/id/546869#ixzz2qQSA1uvV
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
The newspaper quoted officials as saying that investigators probing the IRS actions, which unleashed a political furor in Washington, did not uncover the type of political bias or "enemy hunting" that would constitute a criminal violation. The evidence showed a mismanaged agency enforcing rules it did not understand on applications for tax exemptions, the Journal reported.
The case is still under investigation, but criminal charges were unlikely unless unexpected evidence emerged, officials familiar with the probe told the paper.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment when queried by Reuters.
If there are no criminal charges as expected, the FBI is likely to see a backlash from already skeptical conservative groups which had raised the idea that the administration would not police itself.
House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa last week questioned whether a prosecutor handling the case for the Justice Department could remain impartial when he donated to the Obama campaign.
And just last week, The Washington Times reported that some conservative groups were only just being contacted by the IRS, raising the question of just how thorough an investigation the FBI conducted.
Cleta Mitchell, another attorney representing some of the targeted groups, said last week her clients have not heard from investigators.
"Normally, don't you first interview the victims?" Mitchell said. "I mean, I've watched enough cop shows over the years. You interview the victims. You don't interview the perp."
FBI Director James Comey told reporters last week when asked about the IRS probe, "It's an investigation that we're still working, and that's an important one for us." He declined to comment on whether the FBI believed a crime had been committed.
In May, a senior IRS executive made an unexpected public apology at a legal conference for what she described as improper scrutiny by the agency of conservative political groups.
The apology set off weeks of investigation and controversy, culminating in findings that Tea Party-linked political groups applying for tax-exempt status had been subjected to extra review and delay by employees at an IRS Cincinnati field office.
Republican lawmakers attacked President Barack Obama's administration over the issue, accusing the agency of political bias.
Obama asked then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller to resign in the days after the disclosure, and the FBI opened an investigation.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/fbi-IRS-tea-party/2014/01/13/id/546869#ixzz2qQSA1uvV
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
California Lawmaker Pushes Bill Extending Obamacare To Undocumented Immigrants
A California state lawmaker plans to introduce legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants to have access to government health insurance plans.
The lawmaker, state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat, said if the current focus of healthcare reform is make sure everyone has access to coverage programs, the millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States cannot be omitted.
“We’ve made enormous strides to reduce California’s uninsured population with the implementation of the [federal] Affordable Care Act, but we won’t have a truly healthy state until everyone has access to quality, affordable coverage,” said Lara, head of the state Latino legislative caucus, in a press release. “Immigration status shouldn’t bar individuals from health coverage, especially since their taxes contribute to the growth of our economy.”
Federal laws preclude undocumented immigrants from many programs – including state insurance ones – that receive federal funding.
The healthcare reform measure, called the Affordable Care Act (ACA), does not allow participation by undocumented immigrants. In California, Covered California, the healthcare exchange that is part of ACA, excludes undocumented immigrants, the Los Angeles Times said.
Lara’s office said in a press release that about a million California residents would be left out of the coverage overhaul because they are undocumented. About another million undocumented immigrants get some form of health care benefits through their place of work, the Times said.
Some of the possible ways undocumented immigrants could get access to health care coverage are expanding Medi-Cal, the state’s plan for low-income people, or through a program linked to Covered California that does not receive federal funding, the Times said.
“Access to preventive care keeps people healthier by providing regular check-ups and screenings, and early diagnosis of health problems ensures those problems can be treated before they become overly expensive,” said Lara’s press release.
“By ensuring everyone has access to health care, we can improve the health of our entire community, limit the overcrowding of emergency rooms, and reduce the costs of healthcare in California.”
Some state Republicans object to Lara's views on allowing undocumented immigrants to get access to government insurance programs.
Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of Twin Peaks, a candidate for governor, said, "California cannot afford to create another incentive to attract people to come to our state illegally in pursuit of taxpayer-subsidized benefits. It's shameful that … Lara would trade on the plight of those who are ineligible."
Monday, January 13, 2014
GOP rep: Require food stamp recipients to work
A Republican congressman renewed his call Sunday for Congress to require able-bodied adults on food stamps to work or volunteer in order to keep receiving the benefits, as the rolls of the welfare program have grown to a record 47 million people.
"I think it makes sense," Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., said on "Fox News Sunday," after a week during which the Obama administration proposed new initiatives to target poverty. Both parties are floating ideas to address poverty and "income inequality," 50 years after the "War on Poverty" was first waged, to limited success.
Southerland's proposal was included in a House-passed version of a food stamp bill approved this past fall, but the House and Senate still have not agreed on final legislation addressing both food stamps and farm subsidies.
Southerland, co-chairman of the Republican Study Committee's Anti-Poverty Initiative, stressed that his plan would exclude disabled people, seniors and children. He claimed most people would agree that food stamp recipients should work, train, look for work or volunteer while on the benefits.
But Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, noted that the other part of the House Republicans' bill would cut billions from food stamps over the next decade, and said many households receiving the benefits are in fact working households.
"You're actually sending a very bad message about work," he said.
The House and Senate remain at odds over how and at what level to fund food stamps, which cost nearly $80 billion in fiscal 2012.
The House bill would cut nearly $40 billion over the next decade. The Senate plan, however, would cut just $4 billion.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Standards for Impeachment
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article II, Section 4
Impeachment is the constitutionally specified means by which an official of the executive or judicial branch may be removed from office for misconduct. There has been considerable controversy about what constitutes an impeachable offense. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates early on voted for "mal-practice and neglect of duty" as grounds for impeachment, but the Committee of Detail narrowed the basis to treason, bribery, and corruption, then deleting the last point. George Mason, who wanted the grounds much broader and similar to the earlier formulation, suggested "maladministration," but James Madison pointed out that this would destroy the President's independence and make him dependent on the Senate. Mason then suggested "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," which the Convention accepted.
Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty. That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device.
The word "impeachment" is popularly used to indicate both the bringing of charges in the House and the Senate vote on removal from office. In the Constitution, however, the term refers only to the former. At the Convention, the delegates experimented with differing impeachment proceedings. As finally agreed, a majority vote of the House of Representatives is required to bring impeachment charges (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), which are then tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict before an official can be removed. The President may not pardon a person who has been impeached (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). If an official is impeached by the House and convicted by the requisite vote in the Senate, then Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, provides that the person convicted is further barred from any "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." The convicted official also loses any possible federal pensions. With a few exceptions, those impeached and removed have generally faded into obscurity.
In The Federalist No. 64, John Jay argued that the threat of impeachment would encourage executive officers to perform their duties with honor, and, used as a last resort, impeachment itself would be effective to remove those who betray the interests of their country. Like the limitations on the offense of treason, the Framers placed particular grounds of impeachment in the Constitution because they wished to prevent impeachment from becoming a politicized offense, as it had been in England. Nonetheless, Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 65, also warned that during impeachment proceedings, it would be difficult for Congress to act solely in the interests of the nation and resist political pressure to remove a popular official. The Framers believed that the Senate, elected by the state legislatures, would have the requisite independence needed to try impeachments. The Framers also mandated a supermajority requirement to militate against impeachments brought by the House for purely political reasons.
There have been several impeachment proceedings initiated since the adoption of the Constitution, principally against judges in the lower federal courts. The most important impeachments were those brought against United States Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805, against President Andrew Johnson in 1867, and against President William Jefferson Clinton in 1999. None of these three resulted in removal from office, and all three stand for the principle that impeachment should not be perceived as a device simply to remove a political opponent. In that regard, the caution of the Framers has been fulfilled.
President George Washington appointed Samuel Chase to the Supreme Court in 1796. Washington had been warned of Chase's mercurial behavior, but Chase had written the President that, if he were appointed, he would do nothing to embarrass the administration. In his early years on the Court, Chase kept his pledge and did render some fine decisions clarifying the powers of the federal government. In the election of 1800, however, when Thomas Jefferson ran against Washington's Vice President and successor John Adams, Chase earned the ire of Jefferson's emerging Republican party. For one thing, Chase actively took to the hustings to campaign for Adams (a move rare for sitting judges even then). What finally brought President Jefferson to approve of efforts by his party's representatives in Congress to remove the judge was a grand-jury charge Chase made in Baltimore in 1803. There Chase lamented the Jeffersonian restructuring of the federal judiciary in order to abolish the Circuit Court judgeships that the Adams administration had created, and the Maryland Jeffersonians' abolishing a state court and establishing universal male suffrage in Maryland. Chase argued that all of this was plunging the country into "mobocracy." Chase voiced sentiments common to a wing of the party of Washington and Adams, but Jefferson and his men believed that to have a federal judge publicly articulating such views was harmful to the government, and they moved against Chase. In addition to citing his behavior in Baltimore, the impeachment charges included several counts based on Chase's conduct during controversial trials in 1800 against Jeffersonian writers who had been prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 (a temporary measure that punished libels against the government).
The proceeding against Chase was part of a broader Jeffersonian assault on the judiciary, and it was widely believed, at least among Federalists, that if it were successful, Chief Justice John Marshall might be the next target. None of the specifications brought against Chase charged him with any criminal conduct, and their thrust seemed to be that his legal rulings were simply not in accordance with Jeffersonian theory on how trials ought to be conducted or how juries should function. There was substantial legal precedent behind each of Chase's rulings, however, and although he may have been guilty of having a hair-trigger temper, it was also clear that to permit his removal would seriously, perhaps permanently, compromise the independence of the judiciary. The requisite two-thirds majority of Senators could not be cobbled together to remove Chase, and, in fact, members of Jefferson's own party even voted for acquittal. From that time to this, the Chase acquittal has been understood to bar the removal of a Supreme Court Justice on the ground of his political preferences. Subsequently, there have been several attempts to begin impeachment proceedings against particular Justices, but none has ever prevailed in the House.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to the presidency following Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865, was impeached because of his failure to follow procedures specified in federal legislation (passed over his veto) that prohibited the firing of Cabinet officials without the permission of Congress. The legislation, known as the Tenure of Office Act, was arguably unconstitutional because it compromised the independence of the executive. Nevertheless, the radical Republicans, who then controlled Congress and who recoiled at President Johnson's active hostility to their plans to protect the newly freed slaves, sought to keep the sympathetic members of Abraham Lincoln's Cabinet in office. When Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, the gauntlet was thrown down, and impeachment was voted by the House. Though just as political as the Chase impeachment proceedings, there was some support for the Tenure of Office Act (Alexander Hamilton, writing in the The Federalist No. 77, had suggested that the consent of the Senate would be necessary "to displace as well as to appoint" officials). As it turned out, the conviction of Johnson failed in the Senate by only one vote.
The administration of President William Jefferson Clinton was beset by assorted scandals, many of which resulted in the appointment of special federal prosecutors, and several of which resulted in the convictions of lesser officials. One of the special prosecutors, Kenneth Starr, recommended to the Congress in 1998 that it consider evidence that the President had obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses, lied to a grand jury, and sought to conceal evidence in connection with a civil proceeding brought against him involving claims of sexual harassment. President Clinton denied the charges, but the Arkansas federal judge who presided in that civil proceeding eventually cited and fined Clinton for contempt based on his untruthful testimony.
A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr's referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President's defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.
The only other time a President came close to being impeached was the case of Richard M. Nixon. He resigned from office in 1974, after a House Committee had voted to put before the full House a number of impeachment charges, the most serious of which was that he had wrongly used the FBI and the CIA in order to conceal evidence that persons connected to the White House had participated in a burglary at the Democratic Party's offices at the Watergate apartment complex. Nixon avoided impeachment, though not disgrace.
There is no authoritative pronouncement, other than the text of the Constitution itself, regarding what constitutes an impeachable offense, and what meaning to accord to the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." When he was a Congressman, Gerald R. Ford advocated the ultimately unsuccessful impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice by defining an impeachable offense as anything on which a majority of the House of Representatives can agree. As impeachment is understood to be a political question, Ford's statement correctly centers responsibility for the definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the House. The federal courts have thus far treated appeals from impeachment convictions to be nonjusticiable. Nixon v. United States (1993). Even if the issue of impeachment is nonjusticiable, it does not mean that there are no appropriate standards that the House should observe.
Some scholarly commentary at the time of the Nixon impeachment proceedings argued that the actual commission of a crime was necessary to serve as a basis for an impeachment proceeding. However, the historical record of impeachments in England, which furnished the Constitution's Framers with the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," does not support such a limitation; at that time, the word "Misdemeanors" meant simply "misdeeds," rather than "petty crimes," as it now does. The issue was revisited at the time of the Clinton impeachment, when those who sought to remove the President from office, basing their arguments principally on the English experience and The Federalist No. 64, claimed that a President could be removed for any misconduct that indicated that he did not possess the requisite honor, integrity, and character to be trusted to carry out his functions in a manner free from corruption. As James Iredell (later Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) opined in the North Carolina ratifying convention, impeachment should be used to remedy harm "arising from acts of great injury to the community."
On the other hand, some have argued that a President should not be impeached unless he has actually engaged in a major abuse of power flowing from his office as President (although judges, who serve during "good behavior," have been impeached for conduct occurring outside of their official duties). In the end, because it is unlikely that a Court would ever exercise judicial review over impeachment and removal proceedings, the definitional responsibility to carry them out with fidelity to the Constitution's text remains that of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
- Stephen B. Presser
- Sullivan & Cromwell Professor of Law
- Northwestern University School of Law
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Obama administration cutting ties with HealthCare.gov contractor
The Obama administration is cutting ties with contractor CGI Federal over its handling of the problem-plagued HealthCare.gov, months after the troubled Oct. 1 launch.
The Washington Post first reported that federal health officials plan to sign a year-long, $90 million contract with Accenture. A source later confirmed the decision to The Associated Press.
The government's contract with CGI was up at the end of February anyway, but the administration apparently is deciding not to renew it. According to the Post, officials concluded CGI was not effective in fixing the myriad problems with the federal ObamaCare website.
A statement to Fox News from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said only that it is working with contract partners "to make a mutually agreed upon transition to ensure that HealthCare.gov continues to operate smoothly for consumers."
The statement continued: "We continually evaluate our needs and remain focused on ensuring consumers have access to affordable, quality coverage, and more than 1.1 million already have enrolled in a private plan in the federal Marketplace."
Republicans are not letting up in their criticism of the law's implementation.
"A change in contractors does not change the sad state of this law," House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said in a statement.
Enrollment through the federal website has picked up considerably since the Oct. 1 launch, when many were blocked from accessing the site due to technical glitches.
But outside experts had to be brought in and many lawmakers criticized CGI and other contractors who had been working for years on the project.
At first the administration said the problem was not having enough equipment to handle the high level of interest. But major software and design flaws quickly emerged. For example, unlike most e-commerce sites, HealthCare.gov had no way for prospective customers to browse health plans without first opening an account. That only created more computing work for the overwhelmed system to handle.
The administration later acknowledged HealthCare.gov was down 60 percent of the time in October.
The White House sent in a troubleshooter, management consultant Jeffrey Zients, who managed to turn things around by the end of November. Since then, more than 1 million people have signed up for coverage, and when state-run websites are counted, enrollments total more than 2 million.
CGI and other contractors have told Congress that there was not enough time to properly test the system and also meet the administration's Oct. 1 deadline for launching it.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Dem senator under fire for pressuring agency to change insurance cancellation stats
Democratic Colorado Sen. Mark Udall is under fire following reports that his staff pressured the Colorado Division of Insurance to walk back its claims that 250,000 people in the state had their health insurance canceled due to ObamaCare.
"It's downright shameful that Sen. Udall would attempt to intimidate state employees to give him political cover," Colorado GOP Chairman Ryan Call told FOX31 in Denver.
The allegations surfaced Thursday after the news site Complete Colorado published emails between Udall's office and the Colorado insurance agency last November. At the time, controversy was heating up over the hundreds of thousands of insurance cancellation notices going out -- the cancellations undercut President Obama's campaign-trail assertions that those who like their health plans can keep them.
Udall's staff challenged the Colorado agency for saying there had been 249,000 cancellations.
"Sen. Udall says our numbers were wrong. They are not wrong," one insurance department official wrote, according to a Nov. 14 email. "Cancellation notices affected 249,199 people. They want to trash our numbers. I'm holding strong while we get more details. Many have already done early renewals. Regardless, they received cancellation notices."
The dispute apparently was over the fact that many of those receiving cancellation notices were also being offered renewals.
"We reached out to the Dept. of Insurance because 250,000 cancellations was radically different than the number we were hearing from the insurance industry," Udall spokesman Mike Saccone told FOX31 Denver. "In fact, 96 percent of Coloradans who received 'cancellation letters' were offered an opportunity to renew their current coverage. To the average Coloradan, that is not a cancellation."
Udall's office wanted that clarification to be made.
But the tone of the emails drew accusations of intimidation.
One email showed the same insurance agency official telling colleagues she got a "very hostile phone call" from Udall's deputy chief of staff.
Another email showed a Udall staffer telling the division "we need to move on this ASAP -- or we'll be forced to challenge the 249K number ourselves."
Brook Hougesen, a spokeswoman with the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in a statement that Udall "authorized his staff to pressure and intimidate state officials to manipulate health care cancellation statistics resulting from ObamaCare."
Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., also wrote a letter on Thursday to state Insurance Commissioner Marguerite Salazar pressing for details about their insurance cancellation calculations.
Salazar told the Denver Post there was no "ongoing pattern of intimidation" with Udall's office.
Udall also told the Denver Post it was "really important to correct the record."
Unemployment benefits extension hits snag in Senate
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats’ plan to
extend long-term jobless benefits has hit political turbulence after
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pushed a reworked version but blocked
Republicans from offering any changes.
The dispute threatened to stall the legislation, just days after it narrowly cleared a Senate hurdle.
“Indiana voters didn’t send me here to be told just to sit down and forget it,” said Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., complaining Republicans had been sidelined.
The original version of the bill was a three-month, $6 billion extension that was not paid for. Republicans objected, and Reid came back with a 10-month extension that was paid for.
But he then moved to block Republicans from offering amendments, going so far as to accuse Republicans of “continually denigrating our economy, our president and frankly, I believe, our country.”
Coats, who had earlier in the week helped advance the bill, expressed anger he hadn’t been consulted about changes in the legislation. By Thursday evening, most of the Republicans who had been on board with the plan earlier in the week signaled they’d be pulling their support.
The now-expired law provided a maximum 47 weeks of payments after an unemployed worker had used up state-funded benefits generally capped at 26 weeks.
The re-worked legislation reduces the 47 weeks to a maximum of 31 weeks, based on a sliding scale that dates to the expired program. Reducing the number of weeks would save about $8 billion, a Senate source told Fox News.
The first tier of additional benefits would be six weeks, and be generally available to all who have used up their state’s eligibility.
An additional six weeks would be available in states where unemployment is 6 percent or higher; an additional nine weeks in states with a joblessness rate of 7 percent or higher; and 10 or more weeks in states where unemployment is 9 percent or more.
The cost, which Republicans had issue with, would be offset in part by extending a previously-approved reduction in Medicare payments to providers. It would also be paid for by extending the sequester cuts to mandatory spending by another year, which would save around $17 billion.
Additional funding would come from limiting or eliminating the ability of people on Social Security disability from also receiving unemployment benefits, which the Senate source told Fox would save another $1 billion.
Senators from the two states — Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Dean Heller, a Republican from Nevada — were central to the talks, and the White House was also being kept informed.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters that administration officials have indicated they would be satisfied with a deal that won the backing of Senate Democrats.
Another Senate vote is tentatively scheduled for next week.
Any legislation that clears the Senate would also have to pass the House, where Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said he is only willing to consider an extension of the expired program that is fully paid for.
Calls to Boehner’s office Thursday by FoxNews.com were not immediately returned.
The dispute threatened to stall the legislation, just days after it narrowly cleared a Senate hurdle.
“Indiana voters didn’t send me here to be told just to sit down and forget it,” said Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., complaining Republicans had been sidelined.
The original version of the bill was a three-month, $6 billion extension that was not paid for. Republicans objected, and Reid came back with a 10-month extension that was paid for.
But he then moved to block Republicans from offering amendments, going so far as to accuse Republicans of “continually denigrating our economy, our president and frankly, I believe, our country.”
Coats, who had earlier in the week helped advance the bill, expressed anger he hadn’t been consulted about changes in the legislation. By Thursday evening, most of the Republicans who had been on board with the plan earlier in the week signaled they’d be pulling their support.
The now-expired law provided a maximum 47 weeks of payments after an unemployed worker had used up state-funded benefits generally capped at 26 weeks.
The re-worked legislation reduces the 47 weeks to a maximum of 31 weeks, based on a sliding scale that dates to the expired program. Reducing the number of weeks would save about $8 billion, a Senate source told Fox News.
The first tier of additional benefits would be six weeks, and be generally available to all who have used up their state’s eligibility.
An additional six weeks would be available in states where unemployment is 6 percent or higher; an additional nine weeks in states with a joblessness rate of 7 percent or higher; and 10 or more weeks in states where unemployment is 9 percent or more.
The cost, which Republicans had issue with, would be offset in part by extending a previously-approved reduction in Medicare payments to providers. It would also be paid for by extending the sequester cuts to mandatory spending by another year, which would save around $17 billion.
Additional funding would come from limiting or eliminating the ability of people on Social Security disability from also receiving unemployment benefits, which the Senate source told Fox would save another $1 billion.
Senators from the two states — Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Dean Heller, a Republican from Nevada — were central to the talks, and the White House was also being kept informed.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters that administration officials have indicated they would be satisfied with a deal that won the backing of Senate Democrats.
Another Senate vote is tentatively scheduled for next week.
Any legislation that clears the Senate would also have to pass the House, where Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said he is only willing to consider an extension of the expired program that is fully paid for.
Calls to Boehner’s office Thursday by FoxNews.com were not immediately returned.
San Francisco environmentalist group wants global warming warning on gas pumps
Bailey comment: " Ever notice that our idiot politicians all across America use California as their role models".
First cigarettes, now gas pumps.
A group of San Francisco environmentalists want to remind drivers that refilling their cars with gas is leading to global warming by slapping a sticker on gas pumps similar to those you find on a carton of cigarettes, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.
"The goal isn't to take transportation away from people and say, 'You're a bad person,'" Jamie Brooks, a member of the Bay Area chapter of 350.org, told the paper. "The goal is to create a signal saying, 'You need to change your behavior.'"
350.org is a group that seeks to build a global grassroots movement to "solve the climate crisis," according to its webpage, and the group made clear that the warning label fight is solely an initiative by the Bay Area branch.
The label's design is straightforward. It has white on black writing, topped off with "Warning" in bold on an orange background. The text reads, "The state of California has determined that global warming caused by greenhouse gases poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources and the environment of California."
The Bay Area group is pitching the idea to local government. Gas station owners and oil companies would likely fight a ruling in favor of the warning labels.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Reid Overstates Reduction in Uninsured
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
incorrectly claimed that 9 million Americans “have health care that
didn’t have it before” because of the Affordable Care Act. That figure
includes an unknown number who previously had insurance but switched to a
policy sold through the exchanges, plus an unknown number of Medicaid
recipients who renewed their coverage.
Reid, Jan. 5: [R]ight now, as we speak, there are 9 million Americans … who have health care that didn’t have it before. We have, as you know, we have 3 million Medicare [Medicaid]. We have 3 million on their policies because they haven’t reached, they haven’t reached age 26. And we’ll have more than 2 million. They’re coming.
The 9 million figure includes three categories of Americans:
2.1 million who have selected plans on the federal or state insurance
marketplaces, or exchanges; 3.9 million who were determined to be
eligible for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program
(higher than the 3 million figure Reid used); and an estimated 3.1
million young adults under the age of 26 who were able to join their
parents’ policies as a result of the ACA.
But it’s wrong to assume, as Reid does, that all of those people were previously uninsured.Let’s start with those who were uninsured. Some may consider the inclusion of the 3.1 million young adults an attempt to puff up the numbers after a slow, glitch-filled and, by any standard, unsuccessful launch of the exchanges last fall. After all, this provision of the law was implemented in September 2010. But this is the one estimate that’s made up exclusively of those gaining insurance. The estimate comes from the Department of Health and Human Services, which said in a June 2012 press release that the figure was based on the National Health Interview Survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, which found an increase in the percentage of young adults (age 19 to 25) with insurance between September 2010 and December 2011. (Some among this estimate may well have gained coverage in another manner — other than being added to their parents’ plans — but the number does represent an increase in the insured in an age group directly affected by the law at the time.)
It’s the other two categories that include folks who did have health coverage before, contrary to Reid’s remarks.
The
2.1 million people who selected exchange plans include some who had
insurance but switched to these marketplace plans, such as those whose
insurers canceled specific plans or even pulled out of the individual
insurance market altogether. And, as Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler pointed out, it even includes Reid, who, like other previously insured members of Congress are required to get their coverage through the exchanges, rather than the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they did before.Then there’s the Medicaid estimate. Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, announced on Dec. 31 that 3.9 million “learned they’re eligible for coverage through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in October and November.” She noted: “These numbers include new eligibility determinations and some Medicaid and CHIP renewals.”
So, some portion of that 3.9 million — a figure that comes from state reports
— includes Americans who already had Medicaid or CHIP and are simply
renewing, and it could include those who had insurance through another
source and are now eligible for Medicaid. CMS doesn’t have such a
breakdown on these Medicaid-eligible folks. The figure also includes
those who were previously eligible for Medicaid (before the ACA) and are
now signing up. Some of those previously eligible folks may not have
been influenced by the law; others
may have been prompted to seek coverage because of the individual
mandate, or because they’ve heard so much about the health care law.
One
last note: Americans buying their own insurance don’t have to go
through the exchanges; they can buy directly from an insurance carrier.
It’s possible some of the previously uninsured have done so, but we know
of no estimate for that.
What
we do know is that it’s incorrect to say, as Reid did, that the 9
million figure represents “Americans who have health care that didn’t
have it before.”
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated
that in 2014, due to the Affordable Care Act, the number of uninsured
would decline by 14 million, with 7 million joining the exchanges, 9
million gaining Medicaid and CHIP, and 2 million fewer Americans getting
coverage through the individual market. It remains to be seen how
closely reality will track with those estimates.
– Lori Robertson
Rodman
Any other time or place this creep would have been put against a wall and shot. They use to call them traitors, but now the kids call them basketball stars.
Chamber of Commerce vows to fight ObamaCare employer mandate in 2014
The head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowed Wednesday to fight
ObamaCare's so-called employer mandate and other "onerous" provisions in
the year ahead, even as the pro-business group acknowledged the bill as
a whole cannot be repealed in the current climate.
The agenda was outlined by Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue, in his annual Washington address. Though the law's requirement on mid-sized and large businesses to provide health coverage to workers was delayed by a year, Donohue said the Chamber still plans to lobby against that mandate in 2014.
“In 2014, we will work to repeal onerous health care taxes; repeal, delay, or change the employer mandate; and give companies and their employees more flexibility in the choice of health insurance plans,” Donohue said. He also cited immigration reform, entitlement reform and more domestic energy production as other major objectives.
“We’re not going to get rid of [the Affordable Care Act] so we’re going to have to find ways to make it work,” Donohue said afterward. “It’s a massive tax bill. It’s a massive rules-and-regulations system. And lots of people are worried about how they are going to get their health care.”
In his speech, Donohue said the health insurance cancellations that “swamped” the individual market last year are expected to hit the small business market even harder this year. And many firms are not hiring and are cutting workers’ hours because of the law’s mandates, he said -- despite claims by the Obama administration to the contrary.
Donohue deflected a question after the speech about how long of a delay he wants for the employer mandate, which requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to offer insurance, saying only that he was speaking in “broad terms.”
“We’ll delay what we have to delay,” he said. “Whatever we have to keep, we’ll keep.”
As further indication that the chamber doesn’t support the ObamaCare repeal effort by the Tea Party and others in the most conservative wing of the Republican Party, Donohue suggested those trying to extract spending cuts or other deals when negotiating over raising the federal debt ceiling “are not helping us.”
He also made clear the Chamber will support candidates in the 2014 elections who “want to work within the legislative process.”
Despite the Chamber’s apparent resignation to ObamaCare being here to stay, he said the group would “head to court to sue” if necessary to achieve its objectives on health care and other issues.
Donohue said the Chamber repeatedly warned Congress and the administration about ObamaCare’s many flaws and argued problems with the president’s signature law go beyond the rollout of the websites on which Americans buy insurance policies from private companies.
“The administration is obviously committed to keeping the law in place, so the Chamber has been working pragmatically to fix those parts of ObamaCare that can be fixed,” he said. “Computers can be fixed.”
The agenda was outlined by Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue, in his annual Washington address. Though the law's requirement on mid-sized and large businesses to provide health coverage to workers was delayed by a year, Donohue said the Chamber still plans to lobby against that mandate in 2014.
“In 2014, we will work to repeal onerous health care taxes; repeal, delay, or change the employer mandate; and give companies and their employees more flexibility in the choice of health insurance plans,” Donohue said. He also cited immigration reform, entitlement reform and more domestic energy production as other major objectives.
“We’re not going to get rid of [the Affordable Care Act] so we’re going to have to find ways to make it work,” Donohue said afterward. “It’s a massive tax bill. It’s a massive rules-and-regulations system. And lots of people are worried about how they are going to get their health care.”
In his speech, Donohue said the health insurance cancellations that “swamped” the individual market last year are expected to hit the small business market even harder this year. And many firms are not hiring and are cutting workers’ hours because of the law’s mandates, he said -- despite claims by the Obama administration to the contrary.
Donohue deflected a question after the speech about how long of a delay he wants for the employer mandate, which requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to offer insurance, saying only that he was speaking in “broad terms.”
“We’ll delay what we have to delay,” he said. “Whatever we have to keep, we’ll keep.”
As further indication that the chamber doesn’t support the ObamaCare repeal effort by the Tea Party and others in the most conservative wing of the Republican Party, Donohue suggested those trying to extract spending cuts or other deals when negotiating over raising the federal debt ceiling “are not helping us.”
He also made clear the Chamber will support candidates in the 2014 elections who “want to work within the legislative process.”
Despite the Chamber’s apparent resignation to ObamaCare being here to stay, he said the group would “head to court to sue” if necessary to achieve its objectives on health care and other issues.
Donohue said the Chamber repeatedly warned Congress and the administration about ObamaCare’s many flaws and argued problems with the president’s signature law go beyond the rollout of the websites on which Americans buy insurance policies from private companies.
“The administration is obviously committed to keeping the law in place, so the Chamber has been working pragmatically to fix those parts of ObamaCare that can be fixed,” he said. “Computers can be fixed.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...