by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
A few weeks ago, the Feds trotted out a statistic aimed to bolster support for the fledgling Obamacare legislation. While many Obamacare exchange groups have discontinued coverage or announced double-digit premium rate hikes, federal officials announced that the uninsured rate is now below 10% in the first time in history.
What the Obama Administration failed to announce and Wall Street Journal writer Louise Radnofsky did not know or mention, is that a reduction from 16% to 9.1% falls below what the predicted success claims were supposed to be. Obamacare was written and executed on the premise that the uninsured would fall to 5%, which was supposed to be justification for implementing such an onerous, convoluted, expansive law.
Now, six years later, we can add the 9.1% statistic to the pile of other Obamacare stats that missed their targets repeatedly; By this time, “the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that President Obama’s centerpiece legislation would result in an average of 201 million people having private health insurance in any given month of 2016. Now that 2016 is here, the CBO says that just 177 million people, on average, will have private health insurance in any given month of this year—a shortfall of 24 million people.
Additionally, the CBO has significantly altered its estimates for what 2016 would have looked like if Obamacare had never been passed. In 2013, the CBO projected that, in the absence of Obamacare, 186 million people would have had private health insurance in 2016, and 34 million people would have been on Medicaid or CHIP. The CBO now maintains that, in the absence of Obamacare, only 168 million people would have had private health insurance in 2016 (a reduction of 18 million people from its 2013 projection), while 55 million people would have been on Medicaid or CHIP (an increase of 21 million people from its 2013 projection). Somehow the hypothetical non-Obamacare world has changed between 2013 and 2016 projections. (The CBO doesn’t explain how this could have happened.)”
We don’t need to be celebrating these hollow victories. We need to be relentlessly reminding the electorate that this monstrosity, crafted and voted on by our Democrat Senators, has been one enormous failure after another — administratively and financially.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
As a tax practitioner, I have been following the IRS scandal since the beginning. Here’s the latest update — the list of IRS target have been released, 3 years later. From the Washington Times:
More than three years after it admitted to targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, the IRS has finally released a near-complete list of the organizations it snagged in a political dragnet.
The tax agency filed the list last month as part of a court case after a series of federal judges, fed up with what they said was the agency’s stonewalling, ordered it to get a move on. The case is a class-action lawsuit, so the list of names is critical to knowing the scope of those who would have a claim against the IRS.
But even as it answers some questions, the list raises others, including exactly when the targeting stopped, and how broadly the tax agency drew its net when it went after nonprofits for unusual scrutiny.
The government released names of 426 organizations. Another 40 were not released as part of the list because they had already opted out of being part of the class-action suit.
That total is much higher than the 298 groups the IRS‘ inspector general identified back in May 2013, when investigators first revealed the agency had been subjecting applications to long — potentially illegal — delays, and forcing them to answer intrusive questions about their activities. Tea party and conservative groups said they was the target of unusually heavy investigations and longer delays,
Edward D. Greim, the lawyer who’s pursuing the case on behalf of NorCal Tea Party Patriots and other members of the class, said the list also could have ballooned toward the end of the targeting as the IRS, once it knew it was being investigated, snagged more liberal groups in its operations to try to soften perceptions of political bias.
“As we have identified in our filings in this case, important questions still exist regarding changes to the IRS‘ case listings that occurred after theIRS learned that the [inspector general] and congressional investigations had begun,” he said. “Based on these changes, which to date remain unexplained, a very real possibility — if not probability — exists that theIRS modified its targeting in light of the investigations, packing its own internal lists of targeted groups to support its preferred narrative, including by adding ideologically diverse groups.”
He said if that did happen, it would have “tainted” the list the IRS has now released.
The IRS declined to comment, saying its filing spoke for itself.
A series of investigations found the IRS did ask intrusive questions and did delay applications for years, in violation of policy. But so far no investigation has found any order from the White House to conduct the targeting.
‘Tea’ and ‘patriot’ groups
Sixty of the groups on the list released last month have the word “tea” in their name, 33 have “patriot,” eight refer to the Constitution, and 13 have “912” in their name — which is the monicker of a movement started by conservatives. Another 26 group names refer to “liberty,” though that list does include some groups that are not discernibly conservative in orientation.
Among the groups that appear to trend liberal are three with the word “occupy” in their name.
And then there are some surprising names, including three state or local chapters of the League of Women Voters — a group with a long history of nonprofit work.
Some of the most active and prominent tea party groups snared in the targeting aren’t on the class-action list. At least some of them opted not to be part of the joint legal action to preserve their own lawsuits.
Congressional Republicans say IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who was brought in by President Obama to clean up the agency after the targeting scandal, has failed — and even misled Congress during the investigation. Some Republicans are even pursuing impeachment against Mr. Koskinen, accusing him of defying a subpoena for former senior IRSexecutive Lois G. Lerner’s emails by allowing computer backup tapes to be destroyed.
Even outside of impeachment, the House GOP has proposed a new round of budget cuts for the IRS, aimed at trying to deliver a message that Mr. Koskinen’s tenure has been unacceptable.
And the tax agency is still defending itself in a series of court cases. In addition to the NorCal class action case, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., is currently considering an appeal by tea party groups who argue the targeting is still going on.
“One thing remains clear: Continued litigation is the only way to force theIRS‘ hand in order to expose its targeting scheme that was coordinated with the help of the DOJ and other federal agencies so that we can obtain justice for those patriotic Americans who were unconstitutionally targeted by their own government,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing some of the plaintiffs in the appeals case.
In yet another case, the conservative group Cause of Action has been pursuing the IRS to turn over documents the group believed would show White House officials requesting secret taxpayer information on conservatives.
But in a filing Friday, the IRS said it has conducted a final search and can’t find any evidence that the White House either asked for or received protected information.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
The Libertarian Party just nominated Gary Johnson for President and William Weld for Vice President on the Libertarian Party ticket at their convention.
This is very interesting. With these two men who have extensive governing experience, we have clearly the best candidates running for office but they won’t win because they just won’t get enough traction. It will be interesting to see if they pull more from the Democrats or the Republicans.
Polls show them between 8-12% right now. If they get to 15%, they are allowed to participate in the debates. For the sake of healthy policy discussion during the election season, I hope they meet that threshold.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
You can count on Bernie Sanders to be consistent. He loves pointing to Sweden as the hallmark of Socialist success. But a recent compelling article in Reason magazine does an excellent job laying out the history of Sweden’s economic failures and successes, and shows how Sweden’s current approach to business and has rendered their economy more free and flourishing than the United States.
Some key points:
- Real wages in Sweden fell by around 5 percent between 1975 and 1995. Nominal wages increased, but runaway inflation devoured it.
- But in the early 1990s Sweden began to abandon its brief detour into Bernienomics. It deregulated, privatized, reduced taxes, and opened the public sector to private providers. The two decades that followed saw real wages increase by almost 70 percent.
- In the summary Fraser Institute rankings, Sweden and Denmark are more economically free than the United States when it comes to legal structure and property rights, sound money, free trade, business regulation, and credit market regulations. We don’t have the multitude of occupational licensing laws that block competition in the United States.
The article is worth reading in its entirety. If Bernie truly believes Sweden is a blueprint for success, he would do well to pay attention to the Sweden of today, and not the Sweden of 40-50 years ago, when he was coming-of-age in his Socialist beliefs. If Bernie wants America to be like Sweden — America would need a good dose of deregulation and lower taxes, exactly the opposite of what Bernie espouses for America! Perhaps then the American economy would finally begin to recover, because freer markets mean a freer economy and a freer people.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Obamacare futures continue to worsen in recent weeks. A couple of weeks ago, UnitedHealth Group chose to exit the majority of Obamacare exchanges because it expects roughly 2/3 billion in losses. Next, Aetna announced that it might break even this year, but called for Congressional fixes to ensure sustainability in the marketplace.
The immediate fix, however, will be another round of premium rate hikes — with some expecting to be more than 10%. However, timing may play a key in the November elections; the rate hikes will hit when Obamacare open enrollment begins on November 1, just days before the presidential and Congressional elections. If high premium rate hikes happen as expected, voters may express their resentment at the ballot box.
Some notes on the current state of insurers and exchanges:
**”Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, which dominate many state exchanges, saw profits plummet by 75 percent between 2013 and 2015, according to an analysis by A.M. Best Co. A chief reason for the financial woes: “the intensity of losses in the exchange segment.””
**Health Care Service Corp., which operates Blue plans in five states, dropped out of New Mexico’s exchange for this year after regulators refused to approve rate hikes as big as the company sought. In Texas, Illinois and two other states where HCSC does business, medical costs for individual customers exceeded premiums by more than $1.3 billion last year.
**Just over half of the 23 nonprofit startups seeded with Obamacare loan dollars have collapsed after hemorrhaging red ink. The 11 surviving plans continue to struggle, with more than $400 million in combined losses last year.
**New York-based Oscar, the much ballyhooed, tech-savvy startup bankrolled with billions in venture capital dollars, is sputtering. Medical costs for Oscar’s individual customers in New York, where it has the most customers, outstripped premiums by nearly 50 percent last year, according to financial filings.
**Just 28 percent of HealthCare.gov customers for 2016 were between the ages of 18 and 34, significantly below the 35 percent threshold typically considered necessary for a balanced marketplace.
Health and Human Services has yet to put out fresh numbers on the amount of enrollees who have actually paid premiums. The enrollment numbers were already widely off the mark from the predicted CBO numbers calculated when Obamacare was passed. Though many think Obamacare is an issue that has expired with the American electorate, it is certain to become more important in the days leading up to election day in November.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Everything we were promised with Obamacare has yet to come to fruition: keep your plan! lower prices! tens of millions insured! and a litany of other broken promises and predictions.
Obamacare was signed into law on March 23, 2010. The Weekly Standard took the time to perform a thorough examination on the current state of Obamacare, an audit perhaps, comparing what was promised and what has been delivered. Their findings are sobering. It also offers some remedies of the most egregious maladies plaguing this particular legislation. I have reprinted the article in its entirety below, because it is chock-full of good information:
Three years ago, on the eve of Obamacare’s implementation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that President Obama’s centerpiece legislation would result in an average of 201 million people having private health insurance in any given month of 2016. Now that 2016 is here, the CBO says that just 177 million people, on average, will have private health insurance in any given month of this year—a shortfall of 24 million people.
Indeed, based on the CBO’s own numbers, it seems possible that Obamacare has actually reduced the number of people with private health insurance. In 2013, the CBO projected that, without Obamacare, 186 million people would be covered by private health insurance in 2016—160 million on employer-based plans, 26 million on individually purchased plans. The CBO now says that, with Obamacare, 177 million people will be covered by private health insurance in 2016—155 million on employer-based plans, 12 million on plans bought through Obamacare’s government-run exchanges, and 9 million on other individually purchased plans (plus a rounding error of 1 million).
In other words, it would appear that a net 9 million people have lost their private health plans, thanks to Obamacare—with a net 5 million people having lost employer-based plans and a net 4 million people having lost individually purchased plans.
None of this is to say that fewer people have “coverage” under Obamacare—it’s just not private coverage. In 2013, the CBO projected that 34 million people would be on Medicaid or CHIP (the Children’s Health Insurance Program) in 2016. The CBO now says that 68 million people will be on Medicaid or CHIP in 2016—double its earlier estimate. It turns out that Obamacare is pretty much a giant Medicaid expansion.
To be clear, the CBO—which has very generously labeled Obamacare’s direct subsidies to insurance companies as “tax credits,” even though sending money to insurers doesn’t lower anyone’s taxes—isn’t openly declaring that Obamacare has reduced the number of people with private health insurance or that it has doubled the number of people on Medicaid or CHIP. Rather, the CBO maintains that Obamacare has actually increased the number of people with private health insurance by 9 million and has increased the number of people on Medicaid or CHIP by (just) 13 million. But it would seem that the only reason the CBO can make these claims is that it has moved the goalposts.
That is, the CBO has significantly altered its estimates for what 2016 would have looked like if Obamacare had never been passed. In 2013, the CBO projected that, in the absence of Obamacare, 186 million people would have had private health insurance in 2016, and 34 million people would have been on Medicaid or CHIP. The CBO now maintains that, in the absence of Obamacare, only 168 million people would have had private health insurance in 2016 (a reduction of 18 million people from its 2013 projection), while 55 million people would have been on Medicaid or CHIP (an increase of 21 million people from its 2013 projection). Somehow the hypothetical non-Obamacare world has changed a lot in the past three years. (The CBO doesn’t explain how this could have happened.)
Even the CBO’s revised figures for a non-Obamacare world, however, can’t gloss over the fact that Obamacare has failed to hit its target for private health insurance by 24 million people. To see that, one must simply compare Obamacare’s new tally of 177 million to its 2013 target of 201 million.
The CBO doesn’t release retroactive scoring of Obamacare. Try finding, for example, tallies from the federal government (whether from the CBO or otherwise) on what Obamacare has actually cost so far. Rather, the CBO is like a handicapper who predicts the results of horseraces, but then never bothers to publish the races’ actual results.
Now that it’s clear enough, however, that Obamacare is basically an expensive Medicaid expansion coupled with 2,400 pages of liberty-sapping mandates, it’s time for a winning Obamacare alternativeto emerge, one along the lines of what Ed Gillespie almost rode to victory in the Virginia Senate race. Such an alternative should address the longstanding inequity in the tax code—between employer-based and individually purchased insurance—while adhering to four basic notions:
1. It shouldn’t touch the tax treatment of the typical American’s employer-based plan.
2. It should close the tax loophole on the employer side—which says that the more you spend (on insurance), the more you save (in taxes)—by capping the tax exclusion at $20,000 for a family plan (while letting anyone with a more expensive plan still get the full tax break on that first $20,000).
3. It should offer a simple tax break for individually purchased insurance that isn’t income-tested and thus doesn’t pick winners and losers (in marked contrast with Obamacare, which is all about picking winners and losers.)
4. It shouldn’t provide direct subsidies to insurance companies like Obamacare does. (The federal government provides a tax break for mortgage interest paid—it doesn’t directly pay a portion of people’s mortgage bills. Likewise, it shouldn’t directly pay people’s health insurance bills as if it were some kind of “single payer.”)
In addition, anyone crafting an Obamacare alternative should keep this important point in mind and express it publicly: Far from being the gospel truth, the CBO’s scoring is more like a wild guess that will never be checked against future reality.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Obama weighed in on the current Apple-government dispute, saying that access should be made necessary.
From Reuters:
U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday made a passionate case for mobile devices to be built in such a way as to allow government to gain access to personal data if needed to prevent a terrorist attack or enforce tax laws.
Speaking at the South by Southwest festival in Texas, Obama said he could not comment on the legal case in which the FBI is trying to force Apple Inc. to allow access to an iPhone linked to San Bernardino, California, shooter Rizwan Farook.
But he made clear that, despite his commitment to Americans’ privacy and civil liberties, a balance was needed to allow some intrusion when needed.
“The question we now have to ask is: If technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there is no key, there’s no door at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer, how do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?” he said.
“What mechanisms do we have available to even do simple things like tax enforcement because if in fact you can’t crack that at all, government can’t get in, then everybody is walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket.”
The Justice Department has sought to frame the Apple case as one not about undermining encryption. A U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation court order issued to Apple targets a non-encryption barrier on one iPhone.
The FBI says Farook and his wife were inspired by Islamist militants when they shot and killed 14 people on Dec. 2 at a holiday party in California. The couple later died in a shootout with police.
“Setting aside the specific case between the FBI and Apple, … we’re going to have to make some decisions about how do we balance these respective risks,” Obama said.
“My conclusion so far is you cannot take an absolutist view.”
Obama was speaking at the South by Southwest festival in Austin about how government and technology companies can work together to solve problems including making it easier for people to vote.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS
New Jersey governor Chris Christie has announced his endorsement of Donald Trump for President. Is he really so clueless? Perhaps he is just so annoyed because he lost to the real candidates that he is having a temper tantrum.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Charles Koch applauds Bernie Sander’s recognition of cronyism in government, and he is right. Cronyism has no place in our system. Koch makes a particular note about ethanol integrity — which he opposes in spite of ethanol mandates — against the likes of Harry Reid and others who try to denigrate the Kochs.
Koch’s article in the Washington Post is worthwhile to read in its entirety; it’s not pro-Bernie, but raises important and correct notes about the function of government as well as economics.
~
“As he campaigns for the Democratic nomination for president, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) often sounds like he’s running as much against me as he is the other candidates. I have never met the senator, but I know from listening to him that we disagree on plenty when it comes to public policy.
Even so, I see benefits in searching for common ground and greater civility during this overly negative campaign season. That’s why, in spite of the fact that he often misrepresents where I stand on issues, the senator should know that we do agree on at least one — an issue that resonates with people who feel that hard work and making a contribution will no longer enable them to succeed.
The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believes that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunities and a level playing field.
I agree with him.
Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers. This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States. These are complicated issues, but it’s not enough to say that government alone is to blame. Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies.
Consider the regulations, handouts, mandates, subsidies and other forms of largesse our elected officials dole out to the wealthy and well-connected. The tax code alone contains $1.5 trillion in exemptions and special-interest carve-outs. Anti-competitive regulations cost businesses an additional $1.9 trillion every year. Perversely, this regulatory burden falls hardest on small companies, innovators and the poor, while benefiting many large companies like ours. This unfairly benefits established firms and penalizes new entrants, contributing to a two-tiered society.
Whenever we allow government to pick winners and losers, we impede progress and move further away from a society of mutual benefit. This pits individuals and groups against each other and corrupts the business community, which inevitably becomes less focused on creating value for customers. That’s why Koch Industries opposes all forms of corporate welfare — even those that benefit us. (The government’s ethanol mandate is a good example. We oppose that mandate, even though we are the fifth-largest ethanol producer in the United States.)
It may surprise the senator to learn that our framework in deciding whether to support or oppose a policy is not determined by its effect on our bottom line (or by which party sponsors the legislation), but by whether it will make people’s lives better or worse.
With this in mind, the United States’ next president must be willing to rethink decades of misguided policies enacted by both parties that are creating a permanent underclass.
Our criminal justice system, which is in dire need of reform, is another issue where the senator shares some of my concerns. Families and entire communities are being ripped apart by laws that unjustly destroy the lives of low-level and nonviolent offenders.
Today, if you’re poor and get caught possessing and selling pot, you could end up in jail. Your conviction will hold you back from many opportunities in life. However, if you are well-connected and have ample financial resources, the rules change dramatically. Where is the justice in that?
Arbitrary restrictions limit the ability of ex-offenders to get housing, student or business loans, credit cards, a meaningful job or even to vote. Public policy must change if people are to have the chance to succeed after making amends for their transgressions. At Koch Industries we’re practicing our principles by “banning the box.” We have voluntarily removed the question about prior criminal convictions from our job application.
At this point you may be asking yourself, “Is Charles Koch feeling the Bern?”
Hardly.
I applaud the senator for giving a voice to many Americans struggling to get ahead in a system too often stacked in favor of the haves, but I disagree with his desire to expand the federal government’s control over people’s lives. This is what built so many barriers to opportunity in the first place.
Consider America’s War on Poverty. Since its launch under President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, we have spent roughly $22 trillion, yet our poverty rate remains at 14.8 percent. Instead of preventing, curing and relieving the causes and symptoms of poverty (the goals of the program when it began), too many communities have been torn apart and remain in peril while even more tax dollars pour into this broken system.
It is results, not intentions, that matter. History has proven that a bigger, more controlling, more complex and costlier federal government leaves the disadvantaged less likely to improve their lives.
When it comes to electing our next president, we should reward those candidates, Democrat or Republican, most committed to the principles of a free society. Those principles start with the right to live your life as you see fit as long as you don’t infringe on the ability of others to do the same. They include equality before the law, free speech and free markets and treating people with dignity, respect and tolerance. In a society governed by such principles, people succeed by helping others improve their lives.
I don’t expect to agree with every position a candidate holds, but all Americans deserve a president who, on balance, can demonstrate a commitment to a set of ideas and values that will lead to peace, civility and well-being rather than conflict, contempt and division. When such a candidate emerges, he or she will have my enthusiastic support.”
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
As we mourn the loss of the magnanimous Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, questions inevitably rise about the pending cases in the Supreme Court. Scotusblog has issued the following release:
“What happens to this Term’s close cases? (Updated)
The passing of Justice Scalia of course affects the cases now before the Court. Votes that the Justice cast in cases that have not been publicly decided are void. Of course, if Justice Scalia’s vote was not necessary to the outcome – for example, if he was in the dissent or if the majority included more than five Justices – then the case will still be decided, only by an eight-member Court.
If Justice Scalia was part of a five-Justice majority in a case – for example, the Friedrichs case, in which the Court was expected to limit mandatory union contributions – the Court is now divided four to four. In those cases, there is no majority for a decision and the lower court’s ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case. Because it is very unlikely that a replacement will be appointed this Term, we should expect to see a number of such cases in which the lower court’s decision is “affirmed by an equally divided Court.”
The most immediate and important implications involve that union case. A conservative ruling in that case is now unlikely to issue. Other significant cases in which the Court may now be divided include Evenwel v. Abbott (on the meaning of the “one person, one vote” guarantee), the cases challenging the accommodation for religious organizations under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, and the challenge to the Obama administration’s immigration policy.
The Court is also of course hearing a significant abortion case, involving multiple restrictions adopted by Texas. In my estimation, the Court was likely to strike those provisions down. If so, the Court would still rule – deciding the case with eight Justices.
Conversely, the Court was likely to limit affirmative action in public higher education in the Fisher case. But because only three of the liberal Justices are participating (Justice Kagan is recused), conservatives would retain a narrow majority.
There is also recent precedent for the Court to attempt to avoid issuing a number of equally divided rulings. In Chief Justice Roberts’s first Term, the Court in similar circumstances decided a number of significant cases by instead issuing relatively unimportant, often procedural decisions. It is unclear if the Justices will take the same approach in any of this Term’s major, closely divided cases.”
The unfortunate death of one of the greatest legal minds and constitutional scholars will certainly make the race to the White House, and even Congress, especially contentious. This country has lost a legacy.
