by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
I like CNSNews, because they provide straightforward number-crunching on fiscal minutia that is tedious yet important data. This week as we enter the 8th year of Obama’s term, they have calculated that federal debt has increased more than $70,000 per household during the 7 years Obama has held office thus far.
From CSNNews:
“The debt of the federal government increased by $8,314,529,850,339.07 in President Barack Obama’s first seven years in office, according to official data published by the U.S. Treasury.
That equals $70,612.91 in net federal borrowing for each of the 117,480,000 households that the Census Bureau estimates were in the United States as of September.
During President George W. Bush’s eight years in office, the federal debt increased by $4,899,100,310,608.44, according to the Treasury. That equaled $44,104.65 in net federal borrowing for each of the 111,079,000 households that, according to the Census Bureau, were in the country as of Jan. 20, 2009, the day that Bush left office and Obama assumed it.
In the fifteen years from the beginning of Bush’s first term to the end of Obama’s seventh year in office, the federal debt increased $13,213,630,160,947.51.
That $13,213,630,160,947.51 increase in the debt during the Bush-Obama years equals $112,219.57 for each of the 117,748,000 households that were in the country as of September.
When Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the federal debt was 5,727,776,738,304.64. When Obama took office eight years later, on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal debt was 10,626,877,048,913.08.
As of Jan. 20, 2016, when Obama completed his seventh year in office, the federal debt was $18,941,406,899,252.15.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
After nearly 8 years of listening to Obama talk incessantly about the need for the wealthy to “pay their fair share,” Hillary Clinton has picked up the mantle in her new tax proposal unveiled this week.
Clinton spoke about the need for “an additional 4 percent tax on people making more than $5 million per year, calling the tax a “fair share surcharge.” It is reminiscent of the failed “Buffet Rule” proposal put forth by Obama a few years back.
According to a Clinton staffer, “This surcharge is a direct way to ensure that effective rates rise for taxpayers who are avoiding paying their fair share, and that the richest Americans pay an effective rate higher than middle-class families.”
The tax proposal is calculated to bring in $150 billion on revenue over a ten-year span. Nowhere does it calculate the cost of implementing such a plan, additional paperwork, hours spent on compliance and enforcement, and so forth. As a revenue raiser, it amounts to $15 billion a year for the federal government, pocket change really — something that could be more easily attained by cutting the size and scope of many federal budgets.
It’s not really about revenue anyway. It’s more about pandering to a segment of voters, vilifying the high income earners and stirring up class warfare. It was the one message that resonated most with Obama supporters in 2012; he continuously and intentionally railed against “millionaires and billionaires”, and talked about “the wealthy paying their fair share” in order to create a divide and separate that particular fiscal population from the rest of “mainstream America”. Hillary is merely following the leftist playbook and recycling stale ideas as her candidacy flounders.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the constitutionality of union fees. The case involves an Orange County teacher who has sued to strike down the mandatory fees which pay for both collective bargaining and union activities.
The current law is governed by a 1977 SCOTUS ruling which stated that “public employees can be required to pay a “fair share” fee to reflect the benefits all workers receive from collective bargaining. But at the same time, employees who object cannot be forced to pay for a union’s political activities.” Teachers must pay $650/year for collective bargaining, but can opt out of the nearly $350/year that funds political lobbying and spending by the union — by requesting a refund.
This arrangement is being reexamined, with Justice Kennedy describing ” the mandatory fees as ‘coerced speech’ that violates the 1st Amendment.” The fundamental question, “according to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is ‘whether or not individuals can be compelled to support political views that they disagree with.'”
A ruling is expected in June. If the mandatory fees are struck down, the unions will undoubtedly face financial difficulty, as it can no longer compel citizens to pay up. How this plays out in a Presidential election year will be even more interesting.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
In a stunning report issued today by the Wall Street Journal, it was revealed that Obama has continued to spy on certain international allies even after pledging not to more than two years ago. The Wall Street Journal “conducted interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.S. intelligence officials. Government officials representing Israel, Germany and France all declined to comment to the Journal. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the NSA also declined.”
While conducting the surveillance, “the National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups.”
What’s more, the White House wished avoid both political risk and a permanent record on the matter, and ceded their authority to the NSA to achieve those ends. “White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold.”
The entire report is worthwhile to read in its entirety. I have reprinted it below:
President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.
But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The U.S., pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Mr. Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Mr. Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill.
The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears—an “Oh-s— moment,” one senior U.S. official said—that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.
White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ”
Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.
Before former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed much of the agency’s spying operations in 2013, there was little worry in the administration about the monitoring of friendly heads of state because it was such a closely held secret. After the revelations and a White House review, Mr. Obama announced in a January 2014 speech he would curb such eavesdropping.
In closed-door debate, the Obama administration weighed which allied leaders belonged on a so-called protected list, shielding them from NSA snooping. French President François Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders made the list, but the administration permitted the NSA to target the leaders’ top advisers, current and former U.S. officials said. Other allies were excluded from the protected list, including Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of NATO ally Turkey, which allowed the NSA to spy on their communications at the discretion of top officials.
Privately, Mr. Obama maintained the monitoring of Mr. Netanyahu on the grounds that it served a “compelling national security purpose,” according to current and former U.S. officials. Mr. Obama mentioned the exception in his speech but kept secret the leaders it would apply to.
Israeli, German and French government officials declined to comment on NSA activities. Turkish officials didn’t respond to requests Tuesday for comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the NSA declined to comment on communications provided to the White House.
This account, stretching over two terms of the Obama administration, is based on interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.S. intelligence and administration officials and reveals for the first time the extent of American spying on the Israeli prime minister.
Taking office
After Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials gave his national-security team a one-page questionnaire on priorities. Included on the form was a box directing intelligence agencies to focus on “leadership intentions,” a category that relies on electronic spying to monitor world leaders.
The NSA was so proficient at monitoring heads of state that it was common for the agency to deliver a visiting leader’s talking points to the president in advance. “Who’s going to look at that box and say, ‘No, I don’t want to know what world leaders are saying,’ ” a former Obama administration official said.
In early intelligence briefings, Mr. Obama and his top advisers were told what U.S. spy agencies thought of world leaders, including Mr. Netanyahu, who at the time headed the opposition Likud party.
Michael Hayden, who led the NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency during the George W. Bush administration, described the intelligence relationship between the U.S. and Israel as “the most combustible mixture of intimacy and caution that we have.”
The NSA helped Israel expand its electronic spy apparatus—known as signals intelligence—in the late 1970s. The arrangement gave Israel access to the communications of its regional enemies, information shared with the U.S. Israel’s spy chiefs later suspected the NSA was tapping into their systems.
When Mr. Obama took office, the NSA and its Israeli counterpart, Unit 8200, worked together against shared threats, including a campaign to sabotage centrifuges for Iran’s nuclear program. At the same time, the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies targeted one another, stoking tensions.
“Intelligence professionals have a saying: There are no friendly intelligence services,” said Mike Rogers, former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Early in the Obama presidency, for example, Unit 8200 gave the NSA a hacking tool the NSA later discovered also told Israel how the Americans used it. It wasn’t the only time the NSA caught Unit 8200 poking around restricted U.S. networks. Israel would say intrusions were accidental, one former U.S. official said, and the NSA would respond, “Don’t worry. We make mistakes, too.”
In 2011 and 2012, the aims of Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama diverged over Iran. Mr. Netanyahu prepared for a possible strike against an Iranian nuclear facility, as Mr. Obama pursued secret talks with Tehran without telling Israel.
Convinced Mr. Netanyahu would attack Iran without warning the White House, U.S. spy agencies ramped up their surveillance, with the assent of Democratic and Republican lawmakers serving on congressional intelligence committees.
By 2013, U.S. intelligence agencies determined Mr. Netanyahu wasn’t going to strike Iran. But they had another reason to keep watch. The White House wanted to know if Israel had learned of the secret negotiations. U.S. officials feared Iran would bolt the talks and pursue an atomic bomb if news leaked.
The NSA had, in some cases, spent decades placing electronic implants in networks around the world to collect phone calls, text messages and emails. Removing them or turning them off in the wake of the Snowden revelations would make it difficult, if not impossible, to re-establish access in the future, U.S. intelligence officials warned the White House.
Instead of removing the implants, Mr. Obama decided to shut off the NSA’s monitoring of phone numbers and email addresses of certain allied leaders—a move that could be reversed by the president or his successor.
There was little debate over Israel. “Going dark on Bibi? Of course we wouldn’t do that,” a senior U.S. official said, using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname.
One tool was a cyber implant in Israeli networks that gave the NSA access to communications within the Israeli prime minister’s office.
Given the appetite for information about Mr. Netanyahu’s intentions during the U.S.-Iran negotiations, the NSA tried to send updates to U.S. policy makers quickly, often in less than six hours after a notable communication was intercepted, a former official said.
Emerging deal
NSA intercepts convinced the White House last year that Israel was spying on negotiations under way in Europe. Israeli officials later denied targeting U.S. negotiators, saying they had won access to U.S. positions by spying only on the Iranians.
By late 2014, White House officials knew Mr. Netanyahu wanted to block the emerging nuclear deal but didn’t know how.
On Jan. 8, John Boehner, then the Republican House Speaker, and incoming Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed on a plan. They would invite Mr. Netanyahu to deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress. A day later, Mr. Boehner called Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador, to get Mr. Netanyahu’s agreement.
Despite NSA surveillance, Obama administration officials said they were caught off guard when Mr. Boehner announced the invitation on Jan. 21.
Soon after, Israel’s lobbying campaign against the deal went into full swing on Capitol Hill, and it didn’t take long for administration and intelligence officials to realize the NSA was sweeping up the content of conversations with lawmakers.
The message to the NSA from the White House amounted to: “You decide” what to deliver, a former intelligence official said.
NSA rules governing intercepted communications “to, from or about” Americans date back to the Cold War and require obscuring the identities of U.S. individuals and U.S. corporations. An American is identified only as a “U.S. person” in intelligence reports; a U.S. corporation is identified only as a “U.S. organization.” Senior U.S. officials can ask for names if needed to understand the intelligence information.
The rules were tightened in the early 1990s to require that intelligence agencies inform congressional committees when a lawmaker’s name was revealed to the executive branch in summaries of intercepted communications.
A 2011 NSA directive said direct communications between foreign intelligence targets and members of Congress should be destroyed when they are intercepted. But the NSA director can issue a waiver if he determines the communications contain “significant foreign intelligence.”
The NSA has leeway to collect and disseminate intercepted communications involving U.S. lawmakers if, for example, foreign ambassadors send messages to their foreign ministries that recount their private meetings or phone calls with members of Congress, current and former officials said.
“Either way, we got the same information,” a former official said, citing detailed reports prepared by the Israelis after exchanges with lawmakers.
During Israel’s lobbying campaign in the months before the deal cleared Congress in September, the NSA removed the names of lawmakers from intelligence reports and weeded out personal information. The agency kept out “trash talk,” officials said, such as personal attacks on the executive branch.
Administration and intelligence officials said the White House didn’t ask the NSA to identify any lawmakers during this period.
“From what I can tell, we haven’t had a problem with how incidental collection has been handled concerning lawmakers,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He declined to comment on any specific communications between lawmakers and Israel.
The NSA reports allowed administration officials to peer inside Israeli efforts to turn Congress against the deal. Mr. Dermer was described as coaching unnamed U.S. organizations—which officials could tell from the context were Jewish-American groups—on lines of argument to use with lawmakers, and Israeli officials were reported pressing lawmakers to oppose the deal.
“These allegations are total nonsense,” said a spokesman for the Embassy of Israel in Washington.
A U.S. intelligence official familiar with the intercepts said Israel’s pitch to undecided lawmakers often included such questions as: “How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”
NSA intelligence reports helped the White House figure out which Israeli government officials had leaked information from confidential U.S. briefings. When confronted by the U.S., Israel denied passing on the briefing materials.
The agency’s goal was “to give us an accurate illustrative picture of what [the Israelis] were doing,” a senior U.S. official said.
Just before Mr. Netanyahu’s address to Congress in March, the NSA swept up Israeli messages that raised alarms at the White House: Mr. Netanyahu’s office wanted details from Israeli intelligence officials about the latest U.S. positions in the Iran talks, U.S. officials said.
A day before the speech, Secretary of State John Kerry made an unusual disclosure. Speaking to reporters in Switzerland, Mr. Kerry said he was concerned Mr. Netanyahu would divulge “selective details of the ongoing negotiations.”
The State Department said Mr. Kerry was responding to Israeli media reports that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to use his speech to make sure U.S. lawmakers knew the terms of the Iran deal.
Intelligence officials said the media reports allowed the U.S. to put Mr. Netanyahu on notice without revealing they already knew his thinking. The prime minister mentioned no secrets during his speech to Congress.
In the final months of the campaign, NSA intercepts yielded few surprises. Officials said the information reaffirmed what they heard directly from lawmakers and Israeli officials opposed to Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign—that the prime minister was focused on building opposition among Democratic lawmakers.
The NSA intercepts, however, revealed one surprise. Mr. Netanyahu and some of his allies voiced confidence they could win enough votes.
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The State Department, in tandem with the IRS, will soon have the ability to “block Americans with ‘seriously delinquent’ tax debt from receiving new passports and will be allowed to rescind existing passports of people who fall into that category.” This new law will likely begin in January 2016.
The roots of this new law began back in 2012, a report issued by the GAO suggested the possibility of tying tax collection to passport issuance, in an effort to collect revenue. Soon thereafter, Senator Harry Reid introduced a bill in Congress that did just that, with a threshold of $50,000 in delinquency. The bill been attempted several times in Congress over the last few years.
Most recently, the new rule proposal is tucked into a highway-funding bill (HR22) that currently sits in committee and is likely to be voted on sometime in December.
Though there will be exceptions to the rule (emergency and humanitarian travel, for instance), valid criticisms of the rule were raised earlier this year in Forbes. For instance the proposal “isn’t limited to criminal tax cases or even situations where the government fears you are fleeing a tax debt. In fact, if the bill is passed you could have your passport revoked merely because you owe more than $50,000 and the IRS has filed a notice of lien.
A $50,000 tax debt is easy to amass today. In addition, tax liens are pretty standard. The IRS files tax liens routinely when you owe taxes. It’s the IRS way of putting creditors on notice so the IRS eventually gets paid. In that sense, the you-can’t-travel idea seems extreme. Some commentators noted that a far smaller sum of unpaid child support can trigger similar passport action. Others attack the proposal as potentially unconstitutional.”
The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the new law would raise about $400 million over the next decade.
A serious problem, however, looms for millions of U.S. citizens living abroad. Passports, obviously, are essential for travel, residency permits, banking, school, and work visas; yet, the IRS has documented trouble with getting mail properly to ex-pats.
The Wall Street Journal mentioned noted that ” a report issued in September by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, or Tigta, a watchdog agency, found that the IRS sent 855,000 notices to U.S. citizens abroad in 2014. According to the report, ‘IRS data systems aren’t designed to accommodate the different styles of international addresses, which can cause notices to be undeliverable.’
The Tigta report said that ‘current IRS processes for addressing international mail issues are ineffective or nonexistent.’ In response, the IRS said that Tigta’s recommendations wouldn’t overcome the agency’s ‘budgetary, statutory, and operational constraints.’ ”
The implementation of this new law will be worthwhile to watch in the coming months, especially as it will likely affect those living abroad.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
A must read from the Washington Examiner today on the subject of Obamacare, insurance companies, and bailouts. I republished the article in full.
The Department of Health and Human Services attempted to reassure private insurers on Thursday that they’ll be able to recover losses from participating in Obamacare by claiming it was an “obligation” of the U.S. government to bail them out.
At issue is a provision within the law known as the risk corridors program. Under the program, which runs from 2014 through 2016, the federal government is to collect money from health insurers doing better than expected and use those funds to provide a federal backstop to other insurers who incur larger than expected losses from rising medical claims. The idea was to provide training wheels to insurers in the first years of Obamacare’s implementation, and to take away any incentive for insurers to cherry pick only the healthiest customers.
Republicans, fearing that this could turn into an open-ended government bailout in the event of industry-wide losses, included a provision in last year’s spending bill that limited the program, requiring HHS to pay out only from the pool of money collected, rather than supplementing it with other sources of government funding. President Obama signed that bill.
Now that insurers have been able to look at medical claims, what they’ve found is that enrollees in Obamacare are disproportionately sicker, and losses are piling up. For the 2014 benefit year, insurers losing more than expected asked for $2.87 billion in government payments through the risk corridors program, but HHS only collected $362 million from insurers performing better than expected. Thus, the funds available to the federal government only amounts to 12.6 percent of what insurers argue that they’re owed.
So insurers are not happy. And now the industry lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans — which happens to be helmed by Marilyn Tavenner, who previously oversaw the implementation of Obamacare as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — is aggressively fighting for more money.
In a statement issued Thursday, the same day that the nation’s largest insurer, UnitedHealth announced it may exit Obamacare due to mounting losses, Tavenner said, “We’ve been very clear with the administration about the serious challenges facing consumers and health plans in this Exchange market. Most recently, nearly 800,000 Americans have faced coverage disruptions as a result of the significant and unexpected shortfall with the risk corridors program. When health plans cannot rely on the government to meet its obligations, individuals and families are harmed as a result. The administration must act to ensure this program works as intended and consumers are protected.”
In an effort to reassure the industry, CMS, the HHS agency Tavenner previously led, issued guidance reiterating that HHS would use money collected from insurers in 2015 and possibly 2016 to make up the $2.5 billion shortfall that exists in 2014.
But what happens if there still isn’t enough money, and after 2016, the program is taking in less than the money sought by insurers?
HHS said it, would “explore other sources of funding for risk corridors payments, subject to the availability of appropriations. This includes working with Congress on the necessary funding for outstanding risk corridors payments.”
The agency further added: “HHS recognizes that the Affordable Care Act requires the Secretary to make full payments to issuers, and HHS is recording those amounts that remain unpaid following our 12.6 percent payment this winter as fiscal year 2015 obligation of the United States government for which full payment is required.”
In reality, this doesn’t mean much at all. Risk corridor payments for 2016 won’t be due until mid-2017, and by that point, it will be an issue for a future Congress and future president. Nothing that a previous administration’s HHS said in 2015 will really matter.
That said, this is another demonstration that for all of Obama’s sanctimonious rhetoric about taking on insurance companies. In reality, his signature legislative achievement was to put government in bed with private insurers. And now that his pet project backfired, he wants taxpayers to take care of those very insurance companies he spent years railing against.
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.
