by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Reince Priebus had a swift and forceful response to the mockery that was the CNBC debate hosted on Wednesday night. Though I am not particularly a fan of the RNC, in this instance, Priebus was correct to call out the behavior of the moderators and the breech of agreement that occurred. Here’s his letter in full below:
Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Dear Mr. Lack,
I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.
The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.
CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.
While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.
While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.
I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.
Sincerely,
Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
During Congressional testimony on Tuesday, John Koskinen defended his tenure as Commissioner of the IRS against stirrings of impeachment among some elected officials. Koskinen maintained that there has been an ample turnover of personnel, as well as disciplinary reviews within the IRS, so that the IRS has been positively rehabilitated since the scandal erupted in 2013.
While the accusation of charges against Koskinen — accused of “misleading the public and destroying documents that were being sought under a congressional subpoena” — was newsworthy, another portion of his testimony was just as important, but went largely unreported by the the media: the future role of 501c4s.
Koskinen framed part of the reason for the IRS targeting scandal on confusing rules, “leaving the nonprofit groups and IRS auditors uncertain about what activity was allowed.” However, this assertion is utterly nonsensical, as the rules that govern 501c4 activity have been in place since 1959. So why the sudden interest in the last couple of years to create (or “clarify”) rules that limit activities by nonprofit organizations? Because of the 2016 election.
Don’t forget — the IRS tried to do a major rewrite in 2014 ahead of midterm elections, but received an unprecedented amount of comments during the IRS rulemaking comment period. If you added together all of the comments on all Treasury and IRS draft proposals from the seven prior years and doubled that you came close to the number of responses received, which was more than 150,000. In light of the overwhelming response on the proposed changes, the IRS decided to delay any rules changes.
So here we are on the threshold of another major election cycle, and we have the IRS announcing it will be stirring the pot. The Washington Times reported that Koskinen hopes, “that we’d be able to provide these proposed new rules early enough next year so that they could — the work on them can be completed well in advance of the election so there wouldn’t be any confusion.” And more: “But I would stress that the work that we’re doing now is focused on clarifying — not changing — but clarifying the rules under which organizations operate.”
Yet this is onerous and unnecessary. These are your social welfare organizations, for which advocacy for “the common good and general welfare” is their primary purpose. They differ from 501c3, which are your charitable organizations; 501c5s, your labor unions; and 501c6s, your trade organizations. The one thing all of these organizations do have in common is that they are all tax-exempt organizations.
501c4s are not tax-deductible precisely because they are not political organizations. They serve to educate by being issue-based. This is protected under free speech; so long as the 501c4 sticks to an issue and not advocate for a particular candidate, it is not considered political speech and therefore it cannot be curbed. They can talk about policies and positions, not people.
These social welfare groups can therefore participate in the political arena as long as they maintain education as their primary purpose. Some examples of 501c4s would be the National Rifle Association (NRA), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), and the Sierra Club. 501c4s themselves have been around for nearly 100 years, and the regulations that currently govern them have been in place since 1959.
And yet the IRS has been increasingly adamant about clarifying the rules for social welfare organizations that have been in place for more than 50 years. And why only the social welfare organizations — not the unions or trade organizations?
It is well known that on issue-based advocacy, the Republicans have made much better use of 501c4s than the Democrats. So of course, the Democrats want to find a way to disrupt this. Dozens of articles in recent years have documented how this conservative group and that conservative group spent money on political ads, more than the liberal groups — as if that is somehow unfair. It’s perfectly fair and perfectly legal, except when the Democrats are on the losing/receiving end.
This situation is reminiscent of the repeated attempts to implement the “Fairness Doctrine” for talk radio, pushing to give conservative and liberal talk radio shows “equal air time” — because the conservatives dominate that market as well.
The IRS tried reforming 501c4s in 2014 because they knew the Democrats were vulnerable. It didn’t get done then, and 2014 was a disaster year for Democrats. What better way to stifle the ability for conservatives to message than by attacking the methodology? The Democrats, in cahoots with the Obama Administration, are working in tandem with the IRS to change to the way social welfare organizations function by introducing very specific and onerous rule “clarifications”.
By trying to redefine some activities as “political” instead of advocacy, they would be opened to being limited or even banned — activities which serve to provide education for the common good, as they always have.
Critics of the way 501c4s operate, which allow their donors to remain protected, suggest that the 501c4s are somehow gaming the system — using phrases like “secret donors” and “secret activity” to inflame the public against 501c4s. But this is patently untrue.
Political donors are required to be disclosed under campaign finance, but since 501c4s are specifically not political organizations, the donor names do not need to be made public. Their anonymity is protected under the Right of Free Association. Those who are on the receiving end of 501c4 activities to educate the populace during the election cycle, however, are now pushing for this to change in order to reveal citizens identities.
Therefore turning a simple and known definition of a 501c4 into a new and incomprehensible one, has the effect of stifling speech. Even the mere presence of such a proposal will have detrimental affect. Why? The possibility of new regulations becoming permanent rules will have 501c4s worried about potential infractions — especially as we are recovering from the 2013 IRS targeting scandal, especially since the IRS has been known to issue rules that are effective immediately, and even retroactively.
The most egregious part is that we probably won’t have the ability to comment on proposed changes this time around. According to the IRS bulletin (last revised April 2015), the IRS states, “Given the diversity of views expressed and the volume of substantive input, we have concluded that it would be more efficient and useful to hold a public hearing after we publish the revised proposed regulation. Treasury and the IRS remain committed to providing updated standards for tax-exemption that are fair, clear, and easier to administer.”
In other words, they don’t want to hear feedback this time around. What good is a “public hearing?” It’s not, of course, at least for the public. But from the vantage point of the 2016 presidential elections, the effect of curbing or scaring the activity of 501c4s during the upcoming election cycle is beneficial. What organization would risk the potential for increased scrutiny and possible violation from the IRS, knowing that the IRS has been operating in an unjust and partisan matter? They wouldn’t. So the 501c4s would have to be more careful for at least the time being, which plays right into the timing of the important 2016 election cycle activity.
The IRS continues to act in an incompetent manner. That they are targeting 501c4s, and not c5s and c6s, show that there is an inherent bias internally within the IRS. No one can look at the situation and not think that this isn’t being done to have an affect on our political cycles. This is not how the IRS is supposed to function in our country.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
The latest reports on the budget deal show some entitlement changes coming to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and the Social Security Trust Fund. The text of the bill is here.
According to analysis of the deal, spending would be increased “by $80 billion over two years, not including a $32 billion increase included in an emergency war fund. Those increases would be offset by cuts in spending on Medicare and Social Security disability benefits.”
The deal sought some much needed structural changes to the SSDI program, because it was slated to reach insolvency sometime in 2016 — which, of course, would play right into the Presidential election cycle.
Some of the proposed changes include: “a medical exam now required in 30 states before applicants could qualify for benefits would be required in all 50 states. That change was projected to save the government $5 billion.”
Another reform looks to be restructuring work and benefits reviews, “in which some people who receive disability benefits could earn money from working with less fear of triggering a review that can result in benefits being cut off. Instead, people participating in the projects could see their benefits gradually curtailed as their income rises … ”
While these changes are a start, they come at a price that no one in the media is really talking about in depth. The NYTimes casually mentions that there were be a reallocation of “funds among Social Security program trust funds to ensure solvency of the disability insurance program.” That sounds well and good, until you get to the details.
The reallocation of roughly $150 billion over the next three years comes from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to rescue the nearly bankrupt SSDI Trust Fund; in other words, we are borrowing money from one entitlement program to another!
SSDI was slated to receive across-the-board 20% cuts in 2016 as a way to deal with its nearly-depleted funds. But that is a very messy topic for a very messy election year. This deal papers over the SSDI funding problem — infusing it with cash from Social Security over the next three years, and extending the insolvency question for the disability question until around 2022.
“Congress has been kicking the can down the road on disability insurance reform for decades and 2016 should have been the end of the road—time for meaningful reform. Instead, policymakers want to provide a little more roadway for the disability insurance program by whacking off a portion of Social Security’s roadway.
This isn’t the first time the disability insurance program has run out of money and it isn’t the first time Congress has kicked the can down the road. As recently as 1994, the disability insurance program was about to run out of money and Congress increased the disability insurance payroll tax by 50 percent, from 1.2 percent to 1.8 percent. That increase was coupled with a stark warning that the disability insurance program was in dire need of additional reforms to sustain it over the long run.
What has Congress done to reform the disability insurance program since then? Nothing.
Rather than looking to improve the efficiency and integrity of the program, Congress sat idly by as the percent of the working-age population receiving disability insurance benefits increased from 2.8 percent in 1994 to 5.1 percent today.”
This cash infusion — from Social Security of all places! — merely obfuscates the larger question of true entitlement reform. Using Social Security Trust Fund money was a perfect cover for lawmakers because it can be explained as a routine “reallocation of Social Security funds”, without explaining it is essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is a known fact that both programs are slated to run out of money in the future. This deal just extends the life support for one program, while shortening the life of another.
Though lawmakers made a few minor changes to SSDI, it wasn’t enough. There are major systemic problems with SSDI. Just last month, a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that for 5 years (FY2009-FY2013), disability payments totaling $371.5 million were overpaid to many individuals — all while the program is running out of money. In this instance, “the SSA’s ‘internal controls’ rely on beneficiaries to self-report overpayments.” Why not fix this problem? Start somewhere. But that would be hard. It’s easier to throw new money at the problem (again) instead of actually tackling tough entitlement reform, thereby kicking the can down the road for future lawmakers to deal with (again). All this deal did was hide the problem so that it did not become an issue for any of the Presidential candidates next year.
Last January, I wrote on this topic, reporting a conversation with Charles Blahous, (a Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds,) about the Social Security situation. Blahous described how “the problem is not that disability needs a bigger share of the overall payroll tax than it now has, but that Social Security as a whole faces a financing imbalance that needs to be corrected. The single most irresponsible response to the pending [disability insurance] trust fund depletion would be to do nothing other than paper it over with a reallocation of funds, delaying meaningful corrective action as long as possible.”
Unfortunately,that’s JUST what we did.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
With open enrollment for Obamacare beginning in a week, the Wall Street Journal outlines some of the major failures of this legislation to attract enrollees. Obamacare is severely behind target, which in turn affects costs for premiums for subscribers and costs to the government for subsidies. The Wall Street Journal suggests that within a year, by 2017, the need to overhaul and/or replace Obamacare will be necessary. Read their thoughts below:
ObamaCare’s image of invincibility is increasingly being exposed as a political illusion, at least for those with permission to be honest about the evidence. Witness the heretofore unknown phenomenon of a “free” entitlement that its beneficiaries can’t afford or don’t want.
This month the Health and Human Services Department dramatically discounted its internal estimate of how many people will join the state insurance exchanges in 2016. There are about 9.1 million enrollees today, and the consensus estimate—by the Congressional Budget Office, the Medicare actuary and independent analysts like Rand Corp.—was that participation would surge to some 20 million. But HHS now expects enrollment to grow to between merely 9.4 million and 11.4 million.
Recruitment for 2015 is roughly 70% of the original projection, but ObamaCare will be running at less than half its goal in 2016. HHS believes some 19 million Americans earn too much for Medicaid but qualify for ObamaCare subsidies and haven’t signed up. Some 8.5 million of that 19 million purchase off-exchange private coverage with their own money, while the other 10.5 million are still uninsured. In other words, for every person who’s allowed to join and has, two people haven’t.
Among this population of the uninsured, HHS reports that half are between the ages of 18 and 34 and nearly two-thirds are in excellent or very good health. The exchanges won’t survive actuarially unless they attract this prime demographic: ObamaCare’s individual mandate penalty and social-justice redistribution are supposed to force these low-cost consumers to buy overpriced policies to cross-subsidize everybody else. No wonder HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said meeting even the downgraded target is “probably pretty challenging.”
The HHS survey shows three of four ObamaCare-eligible uninsured people think having coverage is important—but four of five say they couldn’t fit their share of the premiums into their budgets even after the subsidies. They’re not poor; they tend to have jobs in industries like construction, retail and hospitality but feel insecure financially; and they prioritize items like paying down debt, car repairs or saving to buy a home over insurance.
The law’s failure to appeal to the young and rising middle class is already cascading through the insurance markets. Researchers at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Urban Institute recently published a remarkable study of the industry barometer called medical loss ratios, or MLRs, and the pressure is building fast.
MLRs measure the share of premium revenue that flows to reimbursing medical claims. ObamaCare sets an MLR floor of 80% for patient care, with one-fifth left over for overhead like administration and profits, and the pre-ObamaCare 2010-13 historical trend for the individual market ranged from 79% to 86%.
The researchers found that in 2014—the first full year of claims experience in ObamaCare—average MLRs across all health plans sold on 16 state exchanges roamed from 90% to 99%. Average MLRs in 11 states climbed to 100% or more, reaching as high as 121% in Massachusetts. A business can’t stay solvent for long spending $1.21 for every $1 that comes in.
The 2014 MLRs are used to set rates for 2016 premiums, which are still under regulatory review. But the researchers estimate that to rebound to an MLR of 85%, premiums in the 11 money-losing states need to rise by 10% to 36% in the best estimate and 23% to 52% in the worst scenario. The familiar danger is that as rates rise, more people drop out, and thus rates must rise still higher, as the states that attempted ObamaCare-like regulatory schemes in the 1980s and 1990s discovered.
ObamaCare liberals pose as what-works-and-what-doesn’t technocrats. So perhaps they’d care to explain what it says about their creation that so many rational adults are willing to pay a fine of $695 or 2.5% of their earnings, whichever is higher, for the privilege of not buying an ObamaCare-compliant health plan.
***
ObamaCare will almost inevitably be reopened in 2017, whoever wins the election. The good news is the emerging consensus among Republican candidates about a credible, pragmatic and optimistic alternative. Jeb Bush was the latest to release a plan two weeks ago—and this is a debate that has always deserved to be litigated at the presidential level to create a mandate for reform.
The basic approach is to deregulate insurance and medical practice while replacing ObamaCare’s complex subsidy schedule with a refundable tax credit for individuals who lack job-based coverage. Unchained from benefit and redistribution mandates, insurance products and prices would come to reflect what consumers want. The credit would be sufficient to buy at least coverage for catastrophic expenses if people get sick, and the trade-offs of such skinnier plans might look better to voters priced out of ObamaCare.
GOP reformers also recognize that the Cadillac tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health plans is a heat shield that might let them solve some of the problems of the pre-2010 health finance status quo. Substituting a cap on the tax-code subsidy that helps drive medical inflation is more politically plausible with the Cadillac tax in place than without.
Mr. Bush was shrewd to frame his proposal with the vocabulary of innovation and aspiration. ObamaCare is built on a 20th-century chassis that is ever less relevant to modern medicine and consumer finance. If the law continues to underperform, voters may be open to a new model that puts their choices and needs ahead of the political class’s.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
The cynic in me was wholly unsurprised when the Associated Press reported the Department of Justice (DoJ) concluded that no formal charges would be filed against any of the IRS officials embroiled in the IRS scandal of 2013. In a letter to Congress, the DoJ announced that they found “no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.”
Never mind the fact that computer hard drives and emails disappeared, secret email accounts were maintained, interoffice messaging systems were used to avoid written records, only one conservative group received approval under Lerner in three years, and some groups remain unapproved after 5 years — all while Obama’s brother received retroactive tax-exempt approval in less than 30 days.
According to the DoJ letter, such actions were merely, “mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia.” That is utter nonsense.
Stephen Dinan at the Washington Times did a decent round up of the news and reactions to the decision.
“The IRS did mishandle tea party and conservative groups’ nonprofit applications, but their behavior didn’t break any laws, the Justice Department said in a letter to Congress Friday that cleared the tax agency and former senior executive Lois G. Lerner of any crimes.
“Ineffective management is not a crime,” Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik said in a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee. “The Department of Justice’s exhaustive probe revealed no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution. What occurred is disquieting and may necessitate corrective action — but it does not warrant criminal prosecution.”
The decision comes more than two years after the IRS’s internal watchdog reported that auditors singled out tea party groups’ applications for special scrutiny and delayed those applications beyond reasonable timelines, preventing the groups from being able to say they were officially recognized nonprofits.
The agency initially admitted its bad behavior, and President Obama vowed an investigation — but he later said, in the middle of the probe, that there was no evidence of corruption.
Some Republicans have questioned the validity of the probe from the beginning, after learning that one of the Justice Department lawyers assigned to the investigation was a contributor to Mr. Obama’s political campaigns.
In its letter Friday the Justice Department specifically cleared Ms. Lerner, a senior executive in charge of approving the groups’ applications, who had authored a number of emails that suggested a bias against the tea party movement.
Investigators said none of the witnesses they interviewed believed Ms. Lerner acted out of political motives, and said that Ms. Lerner seemed to try to correct the inappropriate scrutiny once she “recognized that it was wrong.”
“In fact, Ms. Lerner was the first IRS official to recognize the magnitude of the problem and to take concerted steps to fix it,” Mr. Kadzik wrote.
Congressional Democrats said the decision confirmed what they’d figured out years ago — that there was no underhanded political dealing at the agency.
“Over the past five years, Republicans in the House of Representatives have squandered literally tens of millions of dollars going down all kinds of investigative rabbit holes — IRS, Planned Parenthood, Benghazi — with absolutely no evidence of illegal activity,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Benghazi investigation and ranking member of the House Oversight Committee.
The House Ways and Means Committee conducted its own investigation into the IRS’s tea party targeting, as did the Senate Finance Committee. The House panel was the one that voted to refer Ms. Lerner’s behavior to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, called the Friday letter “deeply disappointing,” but said it wasn’t a surprise given the bent of the Obama administration.
He said his committee’s probe did find “serious and unprecedented actions” by Ms. Lerner that deprived tea party groups of their rights.
“The American people deserve better than this. Despite the DOJ closing its investigation, the Ways and Means Committee will continue to find answers and hold the IRS accountable for its actions,” he said.
Ms. Lerner’s lawyers, in a statement, said they were “gratified but not surprised” by the announcement.
“Anyone who takes a serious and impartial look at the facts would reach the same conclusion as the Justice Department,” they said, adding that she cooperated with the investigators and answered their questions.
That stands in contrast to her interaction with Congress, where she refused to answer questions, invoking her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent — but only after she delivered a statement declaring her innocence.
The House Oversight Committee concluded that she was not, in fact, able to invoke the Fifth Amendment at that point, and when she refused to answer questions, the House voted to hold her in contempt of Congress.
The Justice Department declined to pursue that case, too, arguing that her claim of Fifth Amendment rights was likely to succeed.
Groups that faced targeting by the IRS were infuriated by Friday’s decision.
“To say there is no evidence of discrimination makes a mockery of all we witnessed in the last two years,” said Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, which had its application for nonprofit status delayed as it and another group she was involved in faced scrutiny by everyone from the FBI to federal occupational health authorities.“
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
I have written numerous times in the past few months of the fiscal distress in Puerto Rico. I have discussed how Puerto Rico’s debt crisis is the result of years of government mismanagement, and a major key to getting Puerto Rico back on track is to reduce the size and scope of government.
Now, President Obama is calling on Congress to directly aid Puerto Rico, with a plan that is very near a bailout. I’m reprinting the NYTimes article in full below, so to keep the details about the plan intact. I will write my analysis in a separate article.
_______
“Looking for a way to help debt-ridden Puerto Rico, administration officials on Wednesday proposed an ambitious — if politically perilous — plan that stops short of a direct federal bailout but that its backers hope is sweeping enough to keep the island from becoming America’s Greece.
The plan would create a new territorial bankruptcy regime and impose new fiscal oversight on Puerto Rico, which is mired in the depths of a decade-long recession, running out of cash and struggling to make payments on $72 billion of debt. It represents an urgent bid by President Obama to offer a way forward. But it requires cooperation from a Republican-led Congress bent on imposing spending restraint.
In describing the package on Wednesday, administration officials emphasized that they had exhausted the limits of their own authority to help Puerto Rico, and needed quick action by Congress to avoid a catastrophe.
“Administrative actions cannot solve the crisis,” Jacob J. Lew, the Treasury secretary, said in a joint statement with Jeffrey D. Zients, the National Economic Council director, and Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the health and human services secretary.
“Only Congress has the authority to provide Puerto Rico with the necessary tools to address its near-term challenges and promote long-term growth,” the statement said.
The situation in Puerto Rico “risks turning into a humanitarian crisis as early as this winter,” one senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly. Antonio Weiss, Mr. Lew’s counselor, will explain the administration’s plan in Capitol Hill testimony on Thursday.
The Puerto Rican government has already “done a lot” to restore fiscal order, the official added, but “Puerto Rico cannot do it on its own, and the United States government has a responsibility to 3.5 million Americans living in Puerto Rico” to step in with additional help.
The plan was shared late Wednesday with The New York Times and Agencia EFE, a news organization in Puerto Rico. On the same day, the island’s Government Development Bank said it had ended weeks of fruitless negotiations with certain creditors, aimed at persuading them to voluntarily accept lower bond payments. The bank has a bond payment of about $300 million coming due on Dec. 1.
Virtually all of the administration’s proposed plan would have to be refined and approved by Congress. It would create a special territorial bankruptcy regime — something that does not now exist — to give Puerto Rico a place to restructure all of its $72 billion in debt, which it says it cannot hope to repay.
The new regime could ultimately be a new chapter of the bankruptcy code, available only to Puerto Rico and other American territories. A senior administration official said the specifics would be left up to Congress.
In a nod to Republicans in Congress, who have resisted even limited bankruptcy access for Puerto Rico, the administration also proposes to establish an independent body to monitor the island’s fiscal affairs. Its role would be to improve Puerto Rico’s credibility by policing the imposition of structural economic reforms; it would also demand better financial disclosures.
Officials said the oversight body might resemble one that Congress established for the District of Columbia in the 1990s.
At the same time, the package would seek to bring Puerto Rico, where unemployment tops 12 percent and 46 percent of citizens qualify for Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor, into parity with the federal health programs and tax credits available in the states.
The proposal calls for a Medicaid overhaul in Puerto Rico that would expand coverage and access to important services in the short term, and eventually remove a cap that currently applies to the island’s Medicaid program. The effect would be more federal dollars for the Medicaid program in Puerto Rico. Administration officials also said they believed Puerto Rico’s health care facilities needed to be brought up to standards on the mainland.
The administration is also proposing to extend the earned-income tax credit, a refundable credit for the working poor that is payable even to people who earn too little to owe income tax. It is not currently available in Puerto Rico.
Officials said that extending that type of tax credit would help increase the labor participation rate on the island, now a paltry 40 percent, the lowest in the United States and its territories. A fact sheet compiled by the administration said it would provide an “added incentive for formal participation in Puerto Rico’s economy.”
The tax credit, invented by conservative economists, already enjoys some degree of bipartisan backing. Administration officials who detailed the proposal offered no estimate of the cost of extending it to Puerto Rico, nor did they have a cost projection for the Medicaid expansion.
The legislative proposal will be presented on Thursday to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over all of America’s territories. It is led by Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, which was itself a territory until 1959, when it became the 49th state.
Puerto Rico is now barred from seeking any form of relief under Chapter 9, the type of bankruptcy that municipal governments use. The administration’s proposal for a territorial bankruptcy regime represents a bolder approach than the bankruptcy bills that Congress has considered since the island’s debt crisis began.
Federal law allows for cities, counties, special districts and the like to seek bankruptcy protection if their states agree, but the states themselves are excluded. There are concerns that if Puerto Rico gains access to bankruptcy, fiscally troubled states like Illinois might try to follow suit.
Puerto Rico’s creditors have been arguing that the island’s government has been portraying its financial situation as beyond repair, hoping to force the administration and Congress to give it access to Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The recent bankruptcies of distressed cities like Detroit showed them that bondholders can emerge with just pennies on the dollar, and they believe the same thing will happen if Puerto Rico is allowed to declare bankruptcy.
The legislation introduced so far would make bankruptcy relief available only to Puerto Rico’s municipalities and its government enterprises, not to the government itself. Even those limited bills have failed to gain support from Republican lawmakers.
There is some willingness, particularly among top Senate Republicans, to work out a compromise on the bankruptcy issue, according to a person briefed on the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly about it. But the Republican leadership appears willing only to grant Puerto Rico limited access to the bankruptcy courts and only with strings attached, like a federal “control board” to oversee the island’s finances.
Control boards have been used in cases of severe municipal distress to take the power to spend public money out of the hands of elected officials. They do not generally have the powers that bankruptcy judges do to abrogate contracts, such as labor contracts and promises to repay debt.
Both Democrats and Republicans are under pressure to respond to the Puerto Rico crisis. Largely because of the island’s economic problems, Puerto Ricans are flooding the mainland United States, particularly central Florida, and are becoming an increasingly important voting bloc in the 2016 presidential race.
In the hearing, Puerto Rico’s governor, Alejandro García Padilla, will offer his first congressional testimony since his announcement in June that Puerto Rico’s debt had become “unpayable” and he would seek a “negotiated moratorium” with its creditors. His most recent appearance was in 2013, when he accused advocates of statehood of skewing a 2011 plebiscite to make it appear that a majority wanted Puerto Rico to become a state.
“That is a great example of how you can lie with numbers,” he told the same Senate panel at the time.
Another scheduled witness is Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico’s nonvoting member of Congress and the statehood advocate who designed the 2011 voting process that the governor disputed. Mr. Pierluisi introduced the House bill to to give very limited bankruptcy access to Puerto Rico. In September, he testified before the Senate Finance Committee, challenging the governor’s handling of the debt crisis and saying that general-obligation bonds “must be paid — period.” The third witness is to be Mr. Weiss, the special adviser to the Treasury Secretary.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
The next open enrollment period for Obamacare begins in a few weeks. “Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell announced Thursday that an expected 10 million Americans will be covered by late 2016 by health plans they bought on the federal and state insurance exchanges created under the law.”
This is a far cry from the CBO projections when Obamacare was passed. Last year, we saw lower revisions for enrollment from 13 million to a hopeful 9.1 million. Obamacare may have barely hit THAT target; the Washington Post reports that the number looks to be around “9.1 million Americans the administration believes will have ACA health plans by the end of this year.”
This is stunning news. To say that 10 million will be covered by 2016 means that the Obama Administration predicts a mere 1 MILLION enrollees this year. As the Washington Post reminds us, 10 million is “just half the most recent forecast by congressional budget analysts, who have long expected 2016 to usher in the biggest surge in enrollment.”
CBO forecasts had predicted 21 million enrollees in 2016, and 32 million by 2019. As expected, there are a litany of excuses for the abysmal numbers:
Still, substantive forces are at work behind the calculation. According to HHS estimates, about 10.5 million uninsured people are eligible to buy a health plan on the exchange, and they are proving more difficult to reach than those who bought coverage early on.
In addition, federal health officials point out that the dynamics of insurance coverage have not been playing out as analysts expected. Fewer employers have dropped health benefits for their workers, and fewer consumers have switched from older policies they purchased on their own. Both factors, HHS officials say, play into their projection of how many people are likely to gravitate to the exchanges.
HHS contended on Thursday that exchange enrollment, originally pegged to reach 24 million within several years, is not plateauing but is instead on “a much longer path towards equilibrium,” as a senior official said.”
What’s even less clear is how how this affects the budget projections and funding of Obamacare. An article last month in the Washington Times outlined how the enrollees for 2016 needed to double to stay solvent. On top of that, the penalty for not having insurance increases begins to increase sharply. The penalty during the first year was $95 or 1 percent of income above the filing threshold — a relatively minor bite. For tax year 2015, the penalty will be $325 or 2 percent of income, and for 2016 it will be $695 or 2.5 percent of income. Per person.
Remember when we were told that Obamacare would help millions to have insurance and also save Americans $2500/family? Me too.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, TAXES
For minimum wage advocates, their position is clear: more money in the hands of the worker is better for the worker — a tangible result. Though their hearts may be in the right place, they lack the basic understanding of the invisible effects of minimum wage policies, especially when it pertains to the business side of the equation. What does the business grapple with? Here are three typical responses to a minimum wage hike.
1) By raising minimum wage, many people, especially the poorest among us, will either lose their job or not be able to get jobs at all moving forward. The cost of raising the minimum wage is just like the cost of raising a commodity. For instance, consider the scenario where the price of apples — a basic pantry item for most everybody — goes from $1.50/pound to $2.50/pound. Fewer people will buy the apples, or buy less of them overall. So it is also with a higher minimum wage; with more money going to basic business costs, fewer businesses will hire, or they will hire fewer people overall. An added effect is that the economy will likely contract because of the loss of jobs resulting from a wage hike.
2) Businesses earn less money. Employees are the number one cost for businesses. If even more of the earnings must go to the capital cost, the business earns less profit overall. For some minimum wage advocates, perhaps that is the actual goal — to keep businesses from earning too much at the top. But in reality, the loss of business capital (from both large corporations to small mom and pops) means there is less money for future business endeavors. Whether it is reinvested directly back into the business with equipment upgrades or growing the business through expansion, whatever the case may be, earning less money for the company creates a ripple effect. The less a company can earn, the less it can help grow the economy. Impeding its ability to do so, through the imposition of mandated wage increases, is harmful.
3) In order to offset the increased wage cost, a business can also choose to raise its prices. This will attempt to ensure that the company earns the same amount as before. But the effect of the price increase is negative. As prices increase, people are wont to adjust their purchasing habits and will end up buy less of the product. When consumption decreases, the health of the economy worsens.
Every one of these responses — cutting jobs, loss of business capital, and raising prices — are either bad for the employees or the economy as a whole. Though the minimum wage hikes sound good in theory, in reality, economies don’t exist in a vacuum. These types of policies hurt more than help.
