TEA PARTY PATRIOTS:
On free trade, tea partyers and the left want the same thing
They’re both trying to stop the Obama administration from fast tracking a deal — but they don’t coordinate to make it happen.
“…America wins because we do a better job of creating those products, we have better innovation and we have smarter marketers. That’s what we think of when we think of free trade,” says Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government. “We don’t think of, ‘you’re allowed to sell another 100,000 chickens into Japan.’ That’s just cutting a deal for how much of a market you’re allowed to infiltrate.” Manning has tried to bring other tea party groups into the anti-fast track campaign by arguing that Obama shouldn’t be trusted negotiating trade deals in secret — calling it “Obamatrade,” in a reference to the derisive term for the Affordable Care Act — and got most of the major organizations to sign on to a letter to that effect in mid-January. But when it comes to burning up the phone lines on Capitol Hill, they just don’t care about trade as much as they do about things like immigration and the national debt. “It’s not a real hot issue, frankly,” said Tea Party Patriots spokesman Kevin Broughton…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/06/on-free-trade-tea-partyers-and-the-left-want-the-same-thing/
HEALTHCARE:
HealthCare.gov improving as New York seeks $69M tax for its Affordable Care Act website
“As New York debates a new tax on health insurance to help pay for the Affordable Care Act, federal regulators say a website attached to the law is improving. That is according to the new report from the Government Accountability Office, which outlined management of HealthCare.gov, the website handling the federal Affordable Care Act marketplaces, called exchanges. Meanwhile, New York is among the 16 states that run their own exchange website, NYstateofhealth.ny.gov. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed a new tax on health insurance to help run that website and related Affordable Care Act programs in New York. Health insurers are fighting that proposed tax, saying it seeks to collect $69 million and would likely pass along cost hikes to consumers. As for the federal website, the new report details how and why regulators botched the rollout of HealthCare.gov, which crashed under the weight of millions of people shopping for health insurance. The report also describes upgrades in the infrastructure tied to the website running more smoothly during the enrollment for 2015, which ended last month…”
http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/blog/health-care/2015/03/healthcare-gov-improving-as-new-york-seeks-69m-tax.html
Why the Supreme Court should scrap ObamaCare’s federal exchange subsidies
“Yesterday’s oral arguments for King vs. Burwell, the latest legal challenge to ObamaCare before the Supreme Court, confirmed one thing: The law, as written, is a complete mess. The justices might be tempted to take it upon themselves to straighten it out to avoid disrupting coverage for millions of Americans, but that’s really not their job. The Obama administration will no doubt disagree, but the most appropriate — and the least political — course for the justices would be to overrule the contested portion of the law and let Congress rewrite it. At issue in the lawsuit is the legality of the billions of dollars in subsidies that the Internal Revenue Service is doling out through federal exchanges in about 35 states that refused to set up their own exchanges. The challengers claim that the law explicitly limits these subsidies to state, not federal, exchanges. As evidence, they point to Section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act, which states that subsidies should flow through exchanges “established by the State” — not “for the State” or “within the State” or myriad similar constructions. The logic behind this, they note, was to give states an incentive to establish their own exchanges, saving Uncle Sam the herculean task of doing so in 50 states. Also, the administration was eager to avoid the impression that it was engineering a federal takeover of the health care system, something that might well have scared away enough legislators to derail the law, given that it squeaked through narrowly on a strict party line. The administration hotly disputes this. It notes that Section 1311 can’t be interpreted in isolation from the broader purpose and structure of the law. Federal exchanges that are barred from handing out subsidies are doomed to fail, they point out, hardly something Congress could have intended. Why? Because they would attract only sick patients, especially since the cost of coverage on them is fairly high — thanks to ObamaCare’s mandates requiring insurance companies to offer guaranteed coverage, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Hence, young and healthy patients, despite being mandated to purchase coverage, could well decide to simply pay a penalty and sit it out, sending the exchange into an adverse selection death spiral as coverage prices rise, driving more healthy people out of the market…”
http://theweek.com/articles/542632/why-supreme-court-should-scrap-obamacares-federal-exchange-subsidies
As Supreme Court Weighs Health Law, G.O.P. Plans to Replace It
“The legal campaign to destroy President Obama’s health care law may be nearing its conclusion, but as the Supreme Court deliberates over the law’s fate, the search for a replacement by Republican lawmakers is finally gaining momentum. Senior Republicans in Congress hope that by June, the Supreme Court will invalidate the subsidies that 7.5 million Americans in 34 states have been given to purchase health insurance through the federal Healthcare.gov website. But the prospects of legal victory have also raised practical and political fears that Republicans will take the blame for the health care crisis that would follow. A legislative scramble is underway. On Monday, Representatives Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, Fred Upton of Michigan and John Kline of Minnesota, the chairmen of the powerful committees that control health policy, proposed what they called an “off ramp” from the Obama health act that would let states opt out of the law’s central requirements. On the other side of the Capitol, Senators John Barrasso of Wyoming, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, all Republicans, offered their own plan this week to provide temporary assistance to those who would lose their subsidies and new freedom to all states to redesign their health care marketplaces without the strictures and mandates of the health care law. Even a freshman, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, proposed a major but temporary expansion of Cobra — the program that allows workers to extend their employer-based health benefits after leaving a job — to ensure that people do not lose insurance coverage as Washington rushes to find an alternative. “Finally there are a whole bunch of people stepping up to the plate,” Mr. Sasse said on Thursday. These bridge plans would evaporate if the Supreme Court sides with the administration, but many of their ideas — and even broader plans that are emerging — will live on regardless of the court’s verdict. Aides to senior House Republicans said Thursday that committee chairmen were meeting now to decide whether a budget plan — due out the week of March 16 — will include parliamentary language, known as reconciliation instructions, that would allow much of a Republican health care plan to pass the filibuster-prone Senate with a simple majority. Representative Tom Price of Georgia, the House Budget Committee chairman, said that reconciliation language would be kept broad enough to allow Republican leaders to use it later in the year however they see fit, whether that is passing health care legislation over a Senate filibuster or focusing on taxes or other matters. “We are fully prepared to say there is a better way to solve this problem than force people to buy insurance they don’t need or don’t want,” he said Thursday. Advocates of the president’s health care law — and some health care experts who have analyzed the Republicans’ proposal — say the emerging plans would simply put the health care system back to where it was before the law, with too many people uninsured and too many sick people driving the system toward collapse.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/us/as-supreme-court-weighs-health-law-gop-plans-to-replace-it.html?_r=1
Study: No Shortage Of Free-Market Alternatives To Obamacare
“As the Supreme Court considers whether to restrict Obamacare subsidies, a new report seeks to refute the false perception that conservatives have not offered any credible alternatives. The Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments Wednesday in the case of King v. Burwell, which hinges on a provision of Obamacare stipulating that only plans purchased through state-based exchanges are eligible for subsidies. President Obama and his supporters contend that the restriction is a simple linguistic oversight, but lawmakers who participated in the law’s creation said it was very much intentional. Should the Court invalidate subsidies for millions of policies purchased through federal health care exchanges, Congress will face significant pressure to create an alternative to Obamacare, and with newly minted majorities in both chambers, Republicans will bear the brunt of the responsibility. In a study released Wednesday, Dr. David Hogberg, health care policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research, summarized a dozen free-market health care proposals — four advanced by Republican politicians and eight originating from conservative think tanks—that could end up performing that role. “There are a lot of great ideas out there, from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute to Rep. Tom Price and the Republican Study Committee,” Hogberg said in a press release. “Unfortunately, most of the media has ignored them, so most Americans are unaware that free-market alternatives to Obamacare exist.”…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/06/obamacare-free-market-alternatives/
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA URGES GOP TO MOVE FAST TO ELIMINATE OBAMACARE
“In a recent interview, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said conservatives and Republicans could move quickly to eliminate parts of Obamacare after the Court issues a decision in a case being heard this month, causing some to hope that the decision might end up dealing a blow to the president’s take over of the nation’s health care system. Scalia noted that lawmakers could move very quickly to amend and eliminate parts of Obama’s health care insurance law if the Court strikes down the subsidies issued by the federal insurance exchange. At issue is the straight language in Obamacare that maintains that government subsidies to help citizens afford the more expensive coverage forced on them by the president’s law are only available to states that set up state-based Obamacare exchanges. Lawmakers wrote Obamacare expecting that every state would set up the exchanges, but a later Supreme Court decision determined that the federal government could not force the states to create an exchange if they didn’t want to. 37 states ended up opting out of the state-based Obamacare exchanges. The law is clearly written to provide only those states with state-based exchanges with subsides. But when 37 states opted out of the exchanges, Obama decided on his own that all citizens would be eligible for subsidies through the federal exchange. It is this unilateral decision that the current case, King v. Burwell, seeks to overturn. Republicans in both the House and the Senate have already offered basic ideas on how to replace subsidies if they are lost by a Supreme Court decision that invalidates Obama’s subsidies. House members have proposed tax credits to help citizens in non-exchange states to pay for their health care insurance policies forced upon them by Obamacare. The exact amount of that tax credit has not been decided. The House is also proposing to allow states to fully opt out of the Obamacare mandates. For its part, the Senate has proposed a temporary program of financial assistance for lower income insurance buyers so that they can keep their insurance while Congress works out a solution to the issue. Democrats, though, claim that neither house will be able to muster the votes to put dents in Obamacare no matter what the Court decides. Regardless, both houses of Congress are in a waiting game until the Supreme Court releases its ruling in June…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/06/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-urges-gop-to-move-fast-to-eliminate-obamacare/
Did Samuel Alito Throw Republicans An Obamacare Lifeline At The Supreme Court?
“As we await a decision in the big Obamacare Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell, progressive pundits have continued to predict a health care apocalypse if the Court sides with challengers to the Obama administration. That’s a wild exaggeration. But there will be some disruption, and Republicans in Congress have been debating the best way to mitigate that disruption. That’s where Associate Justice Samuel Alito comes in. At oral arguments on Wednesday, Alito hinted at another way to overturn illegal subsidies while avoiding near-term problems for the newly insured…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/03/06/did-samuel-alito-throw-republicans-an-obamacare-lifeline-at-the-supreme-court/
Justice Scalia boosts Republican hopes in ObamaCare challenge
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/234820-justice-scalia-boosts-gop-hopes-in-obamacare-challenge
Left’s strategy on Obamacare case: Attack rather than argue
“One side in the debate over the latest Obamacare lawsuit claims that the word “state” includes the federal government and that a reference to Section 1311 of the law should be read to include Section 1321. And get this: that’s the side sputtering about opponents’ “absurd,” “preposterous” and “dishonest” arguments. The King v. Burwell case is odd, and the jurisprudence around it is complex. The Obama administration needs to defend the IRS’s decision to extend tax credits to insurance plans bought on the federal exchange, although the law as written provides for tax credits only for plans purchased through “through an Exchange established by the State under 1311″ of Obamacare. Section 1311 describes state establishment of exchanges. Section 1321 explains that the federal government will set up an exchange for the people in states that don’t create their own. At one point in Tuesday’s oral arguments, Justice Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, “So you’re saying that by cross-reference to 1311, they really mean ‘1311 and 1321’?” Verilli replied, “Yes.” Beyond the plain text of the legislation, Justices need to weigh many factors, such as proper deference to executive interpretation, the importance of legislative history. Obscure but crucial doctrines of jurisprudence come into play, such as the Pennhurst doctrine and the principle of “constitutional avoidance.” It’s a tough case. But if you read the liberal press, you would think the court has the choice between ruling for the government and simply selling its soul to the devil. One liberal journalist wrote that plaintiffs “are trying to kill” patients who benefit from Obamacare. Read the New Republic, Slate, or other liberal websites, and they call the plaintiff’s arguments “preposterous,” “dishonest,” “ludicrous” and other adjectives unfit for print. Some write that a ruling for the plaintiffs would undermine “the legitimacy of the court.” This is standard fare from the Left today. It’s what they did on the last big Supreme Court case, and it’s the way they wage the culture war. Rather than try to persuade, they castigate the other side as lying wretches and try to make people afraid to associate with views they find distasteful. Much of the liberal commentariat is simply done arguing with the Right. Paul Krugman, the economist-turned liberal blogger, is very upfront about this. In a recent article headlined “The Closed Minds Problem,” Krugman declares (with some unintended irony) that the time for “a genuine intellectual dialogue,” over economic policy is behind us. “I don’t know of any economics or politics sites on that side that regularly provide analysis or information I need to take seriously,” Krugman has written…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lefts-strategy-on-obamacare-case-attack-rather-than-argue/article/2561128?custom_click=rss
7 Best Moments from the Oral Argument in King v. Burwell
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/415015/7-best-moments-oral-argument-king-v-burwell-jonathan-keim
More on Parsing Justice Kennedy
“In addition to the posts and essay I recommended yesterday, anyone wanting to sort through the federalism concerns that Justice Kennedy expressed at oral argument in King v. Burwell might find of interest these Forbes pieces by Avik Roy and Michael F. Cannon. Roy, in offering seven reasons why Obamacare subsidies for state exchanges are not coercive, concludes that “if you understand how Obamacare’s insurance markets work, it’s clear that Kennedy should side with Obama’s challengers.” Cannon points out that the IRS, in testimony to Congress, conceded that Obamacare “has some contradictory language in it” on exchange subsidies—and thus took a position that conflicts with the Obama administration’s current litigation stance that the text is somehow clearly in its favor…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/415002/more-parsing-justice-kennedy-ed-whelan
New Hampshire strikes deal for Medicaid expansion
“New Hampshire on Friday became the sixth state to earn approval from the federal government to launch its own version of the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion. The plan will help about 35,000 uninsured people to buy private insurance plans. The program was negotiated by both the state’s Democratic governor, Maggie Hassan, and its GOP-controlled legislature. “The New Hampshire Health Protection Program is reducing health care cost-shifting onto our families and businesses, strengthening the health of our workforce, and boosting our economy,” Hassan wrote in a statement. Medicaid expansion, which became optional for states after a Supreme Court ruling in 2012, has been opposed by most conservatives for fear of federal overreach and rising costs. Under ObamaCare, all costs of an expanded Medicaid program are covered by the federal government for the first several years. But conservatives fear that states will be left with a far bigger budget problem. States face no deadline to expand Medicaid, though healthcare experts have said 2015 is the best chance of convincing the remaining dozen states that have not yet expanded the program before the 2016 election. The state is the sixth to earn a waiver from the federal government for the Medicaid expansion, just weeks after Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican, announced that he’d also struck a deal. Pence had spent more than a year negotiating with the Obama administration.”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/234876-new-hampshire-strikes-deal-for-medicaid-expansion
Franken offers bill to reduce VA backlog
“Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) has reintroduced legislation to cut down the backlog for disability claims at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act of 2015 would allow veterans who have backlogged claims — those pending for more than 125 days — to visit local, non-VA doctors for their initial disability exam. The VA currently has more than 214,000 backlogged disability claims. The department has vowed to end the backlog by the end of 2015, though some veterans advocates are skeptical. Franken suggested that his legislation would help veterans who are waiting “far too long” by cutting down on wait times at VA facilities and speeding up disability diagnoses. “We know that our veterans’ battles don’t always end when they return home,” Franken said in a statement. “Too many return with mental and physical disabilities incurred while protecting our freedoms. “Our legislation would help the VA speed up the claims process that is making far too many veterans wait far too long to get help they need,” he added. The legislation would also require the VA to issue a report in approximately six months tracking the department’s implementation of the legislation. The department would also have to issue an annual report tracking what disabilities from exams by local doctors were commonly being rejected by the VA. Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a former soldier, is also reintroducing companion legislation in the House. “I recognize this problem was not created, nor will it be solved, overnight, but we can and must do better,” he said. “Our bipartisan legislation will enhance the VA’s current efforts to break the backlog by helping them become more efficient, and will help veterans get the benefits-and the care-they deserve quicker.” The VA has been under a congressional microscope after allegations surfaced last year at a Phoenix facility that VA officials had created a secret list to hide the wait times of veterans seeking medical treatment. Walz and Franken introduced similar legislation in 2013…”
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/234872-franken-offers-bill-to-reduce-va-backlog
IMMIGRATION:
Bill would prevent illegal immigrants from using tax credit
“Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) unveiled a bill this week that would prevent illegal immigrants from qualifying for the earned income tax credit. Conservatives have been warning of “amnesty bonuses” for illegal immigrants who are shielded from deportation through President Obama’s executive actions. Illegal immigrants eligible for the delayed deportation programs through the executive actions would receive Social Security numbers and could therefore qualify for the earned income tax credit (EITC). Therefore, it is possible for some immigrants who have obtained work permits through the program could receive thousands of dollars in tax credits if they file tax returns. The measure offered by McHenry, the chief deputy House majority whip, is titled the “No Free Rides Act.” “This is simply unacceptable. By introducing the No Free Rides Act we ensure these illegal immigrants will not receive any more benefits intended to help American families,” McHenry said in a statement. Families with three or more children could receive maximum tax credits of $24,000 over four years in certain circumstances. But individuals who qualify for the EITC are more likely to receive smaller amounts.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/234861-bill-would-prevent-illegal-immigrants-from-using-tax-credit
Obama Administration Asks Judge to Expedite Consideration of Immigration Order Stay (continuation of previous article)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/20306-obama-administration-asks-judge-to-expedite-consideration-of-immigration-order-stay
House Dems vow to protect Boehner from a conservative coup
“After Tuesday’s big cave on amnesty, with more than two-thirds of his own caucus opposing the bill he brought to the floor, it’s really the least Democrats can do. John Boehner, Democratic Speaker of the House. Democrats from across an ideological spectrum say they’d rather see Boehner remain atop the House than replace him with a more conservative Speaker who would almost certainly be less willing to reach across the aisle in search of compromise. Replacing him with a Tea Party Speaker, they say, would only bring the legislative process — already limping along — to a screeching halt. “I’d probably vote for Boehner [because] who the hell is going to replace him? [Ted] Yoho?,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Wednesday, referencing the Florida Tea Party Republican who’s fought Boehner on a host of bipartisan compromise bills… “Then we would get Scalise or somebody? Geez, come on,” said [Rep. Raul] Grijalva, who referenced House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). “We can be suicidal, but not stupid.”… Other Democrats suggested they would side with Boehner for one simple reason: They’re hoping to move bipartisan legislation this Congress and see Boehner as a more moderate leader with a penchant for compromise. It takes a majority of the whole House to oust him so if Democrats aren’t willing to play ball with tea partiers on this, there’s not a prayer of dumping him. But … why wouldn’t Democrats play ball? If I were Pelosi and staring at five more years of Republican rule in the House (at a minimum), I’d be thinking less about ways to entrench the GOP majority with successful bipartisan bills and more about how to convince voters that the party’s at war with itself and incapable of governing. The obvious way to do that is to join in ousting Boehner, see him replaced by a conservative like Scalise (or a squishier conservative like Kevin McCarthy), and then watch the new Speaker dig in against everyone — including Mitch McConnell, who’ll be pushing back against tea-party pressure by urging House Republicans to compromise with the Senate, and with Democrats, on major legislation. The worst-case scenario for Pelosi after all that is that the new Speaker quickly betrays the right and joins her, McConnell, and Reid to get bills to Obama’s desk, leaving conservative morale crushed. Best-case scenario: The new Speaker ends up butting heads over and over with McConnell and his Senate caucus, producing 18 more months of gridlock but jumpstarting a juicy media narrative about Republican civil war and paralysis which Democrats can run on in 2016. That won’t put Pelosi back in the majority (yet) but it’s something to build on in 2018 and 2020…”’ http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/06/house-dems-vow-to-protect-boehner-from-a-conservative-coup/
Dems vow to protect Boehner from conservative coup
“Tea Party Republicans contemplating a bid to oust Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) shouldn’t count on Democrats to help them unseat the Speaker. And without their support, there is no chance to topple Boehner in this Congress. A number of right-wing Republicans, long wary of Boehner’s commitment to GOP efforts attacking President Obama’s policy priorities, have openly considered a coup in an attempt to transfer the gavel into more conservative hands. But Democrats from across an ideological spectrum say they’d rather see Boehner remain atop the House than replace him with a more conservative Speaker who would almost certainly be less willing to reach across the aisle in search of compromise. Replacing him with a Tea Party Speaker, they say, would only bring the legislative process — already limping along — to a screeching halt. “I’d probably vote for Boehner [because] who the hell is going to replace him? [Ted] Yoho?” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Wednesday, referencing the Florida Tea Party Republican who’s fought Boehner on a host of bipartisan compromise bills. “In terms of the institution, I would rather have John Boehner as the Speaker than some of these characters who came here thinking that they’re going to change the world,” Pascrell added. Liberal Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) agreed that, for Democrats, replacing Boehner could lead to a worse situation. “Then we would get Scalise or somebody? Geez, come on,” said Grijalva, who referenced House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). “We can be suicidal but not stupid.” Boehner, who has grappled with dissent from the Tea Party wing since he took the Speaker’s gavel in 2011, has seen opposition to his reign grow this year, even as he commands the largest GOP majority since the Hoover administration. That’s led to talk of a new coup, something that is more difficult to pull off after the election of a Speaker on each Congress’s first day of business. Any lawmaker can file a motion to “vacate” a sitting Speaker, a move that would force a vote of the full House. The effort would almost certainly fail, as the conservatives would need the overwhelming support of Democrats to win a majority. But it would be an embarrassing setback to Boehner and his leadership team, who entered the year hoping their commanding new majority would alleviate some of the whipping problems that had plagued them in the past. The new push back against Boehner began in the earliest stages of the new Congress when 25 conservatives voted in January to strip him of the Speaker’s gavel. Boehner’s troubles have only mounted since then, as conservatives have thwarted a number of his early legislative priorities, including a border security bill, an anti-abortion measure and a proposal to limit the federal government’s role in public education — all considered by GOP leaders to be easy-pass bills that would highlight their new power in Obama’s final two years in the White House. More recently, Boehner’s decision this week to pass a “clean” bill funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has exacerbated conservatives’ concerns about his leadership. As proof of the discontent, 167 Republicans bucked their leadership by opposing the DHS package. Their votes protested Boehner’s move to strip out provisions undoing Obama’s executive actions shielding millions of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. from deportation. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) called Boehner’s capitulation “a sad day for America.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/234766-dems-would-back-boehner-in-coup-attempt
Pelosi shows Democrats how to wield power despite House GOP majority
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-shows-democrats-how-to-wield-power-despite-house-gop-majority/2015/03/06/75a77308-c34a-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html
Boehner Shouldn’t Expect Pelosi’s Help on Immigration Policy
She isn’t likely to extend a helping hand on a Republican strategy for rewriting border and interior security laws that Democrats consider costly and ineffective, and that don’t address immigrants already in the U.S.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-06/boehner-shouldn-t-expect-pelosi-s-help-on-immigration-proposals
26 States Want Investigation Of Obama’s Amnesty
“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking a judge to allow an investigation of the closed-door workings of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, following the discovery that 100,000 illegal immigrants had secretly been given three-year amnesty documents well before a promised start date. “The Obama Administration appears to have already been issuing expanded work permits, in direct contradiction to what they told a federal judge previously in this litigation,” Paxton said in a Thursday statement describing his legal request, which was signed by the governors or attorneys general of 26 states. “The circumstances behind this must be investigated, and the motion we seek would help us determine to what extent the Administration might have misrepresented the facts in this case,” he added. The judge has frozen Obama’s amnesty since Feb. 16, pending the future decisions of appeals court judges. Without the judge’s decision, Obama’s deputies already would be preparing work permits and tax rebates for illegals. Paxton’s hardball response was cheered by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. ”I commend Attorney General Paxton for continuing to hold the Obama Administration accountable, and I’m confident an investigation would find the Administration knowingly or recklessly misled a Federal Court in issuing thousands of amnesty documents illegally,” he said Thursday. “President Obama has continued to show complete disregard for the Rule of Law by acting beyond his Constitutional authority at every stage of this process,” he added. The judge, Andrew Hanen, showed his skepticism about the administration in a 2014 case, when he said border officers were being used by the administration to illegally transfer foreign children from Central America to their parents living illegally in U.S. cities. On Feb. 16, Hanen froze Obama’s two-part amnesty, which was intended to provide residency, work permits and tax rebates to at least four million illegals, after concluding it likely violated the federal government’s rule-making process. The amnesty for roughly 1 million younger illegals is called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and it was launched in June 2012, five months before the 2012 election. Obama’s November amnesty extends the work permits given to the younger illegals from two years to three years. The amnesty for roughly 4 million parent illegals is called DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. Obama’s plan would give them work permits, tax rebates, Social Security numbers, drivers’ license and a fast-track to citizenship…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/06/26-states-want-investigation-of-obamas-amnesty/
States say Obama administration misled judge on immigration
“A coalition of states suing to stop President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration alleges the government misled a judge about not implementing part of the plan before the judge temporarily halted it. The allegation was made in court documents filed Thursday in response to a Justice Department filing that acknowledged some deportation reprieves were granted before the Feb. 16 injunction. Government attorneys had previously said officials wouldn’t accept such requests under Obama’s action until Feb. 18. However, the DOJ claims in its court filing Tuesday that the 100,000 immigrants who were granted three-year reprieves and work permits were already eligible under a previous immigration plan from 2012. The states are asking the judge for access to more information about the actions…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/6/states-say-obama-administration-misled-judge-on-im/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Mexican Drug Cartels Caused the Border Crisis
And the Obama administration falsely took credit for stopping it.
“Mexico’s warring drug cartels helped orchestrate the massive influx of unaccompanied alien children that streamed through the Rio Grande Valley last summer, according to a leaked report from the Texas Department of Public Safety. Contrary to the narrative articulated by the Obama administration and promoted by major news organizations, the children did not enter the country entirely “unaccompanied.” How, when, and where the alien children crossed into the United States appears to have been determined by transnational criminal organizations who exercise control over much of the southern border, according to the leaked report first obtained by the Houston Chronicle. Intelligence gathered by the Texas Department of Public Safety shows the cartels were making strategic decisions at the border in response to the actions of former Governor Rick Perry. When Perry deployed the National Guard to the border in the middle of the crisis in late-July of 2014, the cartels immediately responded. “As of August 2014, the cartels had told the “river bosses” to stop sending unaccompanied alien children across from Mexico to the U.S. due to the deployment of the military to the U.S. border,” the report says. “Illegal alien family units were still being sent.” The Obama administration immediately began taking credit for this development the very next month. U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner Gil Kerlikowske celebrated the news of fewer unaccompanied alien children crossing the southern border as directly attributable to President Obama. “The President and his Administration responded with an aggressive, coordinated Federal response focused on stepped up deterrence, enhanced enforcement, stronger foreign cooperation, and greater capacity for affected Federal agencies to ensure that our border remained secure,” Kerlikowske wrote. “As a result, and as Secretary Jeh Johnson reported last week, the number of Central American migrants trying to illegally cross the Southwest border continues to decline including unaccompanied children and families.” But the leaked report demonstrates that it was Perry who played the biggest role in stemming the tide of illegal immigrant children flowing into the U.S., not the Obama administration. In response to Perry’s efforts to secure the border, the cartels stepped up their surveillance and scouting activities to uncover vulnerabilities in the system. The report says the cartels began conducting “reverse interviews of law enforcement” to learn the officers’ working schedules and the scope of their operations. Further inland, a “network of spies for the cartels” observed the officers and conducted photographic and video surveillance at hotels where some illegal immigrants were being stashed. The report finds that the cartels used houses, ranches, hotels, apartments, and businesses located inside the U.S. to move illegal immigrants into the country without gaining attention. While the stash houses for humans, drugs, and other contraband were most prevalent near the border, one Houston-area stash house held 115 illegal aliens who were held captive by gang members wielding guns, Tasers, paddles, and other weapons. Despite the elaborate gang activities detailed in the report, the Obama administration continues to describe the southern border as becoming more secure each and every day. Soon after the massive influx tapered off last year, Kerlikowske said, “Our border has been and remains more secure than it has been in decades.” But the leaked report shows the spurious nature of the Obama administration’s claim…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414969/mexican-drug-cartels-caused-border-crisis-ryan-lovelace
7,000 immigrant children ordered deported without going to court
“More than 7,000 immigrant children have been ordered deported without appearing in court since large numbers of minors from Central America began illegally crossing the U.S. border in 2013, federal statistics show. The high number of deportation orders has raised alarm among immigrant advocates, who say many of those children were never notified of their hearing date because of problems with the immigration court system. In interviews and court documents, attorneys said notices sometimes arrived late, at the wrong address or not at all. In some cases, children were ordered to appear in a court near where they were initially detained, rather than where they were living, attorneys said…”
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-children-deported-20150306-story.html#page=1
Rowe business group rallies forces for immigration reform
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150305/BLOGS02/150309857/rowe-business-group-rallies-forces-for-immigration-reform
SPENDING/BUDGET/ECONOMY:
FEBRUARY TIES RECORD: 92,898,000 AMERICANS NOT IN THE WORKFORCE
“The month of February tied December’s record number of Americans not participating in the workforce, according to data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the BLS, last month 92,898,000 Americans ages 16 and over were neither employed nor had made “specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week.” The number of people out of the workforce increased by 354,000 last month and the labor force participation rate dipped slightly to 62.8 percent. While participation in the workforce declined — due to varying factors from potentially discouraged workers to baby boomers hitting retirement age — the BLS said the economy added 295,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent, down from 5.7 percent in January. The White House boasted about the jobs gains but noted that more needs to be done to increase middle class wages. “With another strong employment report, we have now seen twelve straight months of private-sector job gains above 200,000—the first time that has happened since 1977,” Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in a statement. “Moreover, 2014 was the best year for job growth since the late 1990s and 2015 has continued at this pace. But additional steps are needed to continue strengthening wages for the middle class.” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) used the jobs report as an opportunity to promote the recently vetoed Keystone pipeline and criticize Obama’s proposal to tax 529 college savings plans. He argued that the middle class has been “left behind by the president’s policies.” “Simply put, most Americans aren’t seeing the positive economic news translate into improvements in their daily lives,” Boehner said in a statement.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/06/february-ties-record-92898000-americans-not-in-the-workforce/
Jobless claims rise to 320,000
“First-time claims for unemployment benefits rose to 320,000 for the week ending February 28, the Labor Department reported Thursday. The number was well above the roughly 295,000 expected by Wall Street and higher than the 313,000 reported the previous week. It was the highest mark since May of 2014. The four-week moving average for claims rose from294,500 to304,750. The weak readings for the past two weeks come amid tough winter conditions in some states that may have slowed commerce. Just one state, however, with an unusual number of unemployment claims in the latest week attributed the rise to inclement weather: Kentucky. One concern would be if the slight rise in jobless claims reflects a slowing in the jobs recovery, which accelerated through the end of 2014 and into 2015, with over 300,000 jobs created on average in the past three months. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is scheduled to release the jobs report for February on Friday morning. Private-sector economists expect roughly 230,000 new payroll jobs, down from 257,000 in January, and for the unemployment rate to tick down by a tenth of a percentage point to 5.6 percent…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jobless-claims-rise-to-320000/article/2561085
62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months
“The labor force participation rate hovered between 62.9 percent and 62.7 percent in the eleven months from April 2014 through February, and has been 62.9 percent or lower in 13 of the 17 months since October 2013. Prior to that, the last time the rate was below 63 percent was 37 years ago, in March 1978 when it was 62.8 percent, the same rate it was in February.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/628-labor-force-participation-has-hovered-near-37-year-low-11-months
BLACK UNEMPLOYMENT RATE NEARLY TWICE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE ON EVE OF SELMA ANNIVERSARY
“On the eve of the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, the unemployment rate among African Americans remains more than twice that of white Americans and nearly twice the national average. According to the latest jobs figures released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the African American unemployment rate for the month of February was 10.4 percent, compared to the white unemployment rate of 4.7 percent and national average of 5.5 percent. The latest African American unemployment rate represents a slight uptick over the January figure of 10.3 percent. Whites experienced a slight decline in unemployment from January’s rate of 4.9 percent and the national average also dipped from 5.7 percent. While the White House boasted about February’s job gains of 295,000 jobs and its 5.5 percent unemployment rate Friday morning, it did acknowledge the “unacceptably high” unemployment rates among African American and Hispanic populations. In a statement about the jobs data Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, argued that while the African American and Hispanic unemployment is nearly down to pre-recession levels, it is still too high. He pointed to proposals from President Obama as efforts to help. “This is why the President has proposed a number of policies—including the My Brother’s Keeper initiative for young men of color and tax relief for working families—to help reduce disparities in labor market outcomes,” Furman said…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/06/black-unemployment-rate-nearly-twice-the-national-average-on-eve-of-selma-anniversary/
Economy adds 295,000 new jobs, unemployment at 5.5 percent in February
“The U.S. economy added 295,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate fell from 5.7 percent to 5.5 percent, extending the winter’s mounting labor market gains. The February jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics exceeded investors’ expectations, which were generally for 230,000 new jobs created. Revisions for December and January subtracted 18,000 jobs from those months. The past three months have seen job gains average nearly 290,000, above the 272,000 pace for the past 12 months and nearly a third higher than the rate for 2013. At 5.5 percent, the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since May of 2008. Friday’s report, however, did not contain the hints of wage growth accelerating that many analysts were looking for. The household survey conducted by the Census Bureau showed that average hourly earnings were up 2 percent on the year, below last month’s mark. An uptick in wages could be the first sign of a tightening labor market finally translating into bigger take-home pay, after half a decade of mostly stagnant average earnings. Job creation has surged even despite some factors that could have stalled a broader economic recovery during the winter. “Inclement weather over the past month, which has coincided with unseasonably cold temperatures across much of the country, could have been a factor weighing on economic activity over the past few weeks,” Deutsche Bank economists Joseph LaVorgna and Brett Ryan wrote before Friday’s release. Disruptions over a labor dispute at West Coast ports also slowed down work. But those factors did not appear to weigh down February’s payrolls…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy-adds-295000-new-jobs-unemployment-at-5.5-percent-in-february/article/2561147
US added 295,000 jobs in February as unemployment rate dips to 5.5 percent
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/06/us-added-25000-jobs-in-february-as-unemployment-rate-slips-to-55-percent/
February jobs report shows 295,000 jobs added, jobless rate 5.5%
“The US economy had another month of relatively strong job creation, adding 295,000 jobs in February while reducing the nominal unemployment level to 5.5%. It’s the fourth month in a row of good numbers, although January’s previous 257,000 level was revised downward to 239,000 by the BLS. The status of workforce participation didn’t budge from its 36-year low, however, and recent economic indicators may signal tighter times ahead for American workers: Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 295,000 in February, and the unemployment rate edged down to 5.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in food services and drinking places, professional and business services, construction, health care, and in transportation and warehousing. Employment in mining was down over the month. Both the unemployment rate (5.5 percent) and the number of unemployed persons (8.7 million) edged down in February. Over the year, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons were down by 1.2 percentage points and 1.7 million, respectively. (See table A-1.) Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for teenagers decreased by 1.7 percentage points to 17.1 percent in February. The jobless rates for adult men (5.2 percent), adult women (4.9 percent), whites (4.7 percent), blacks (10.4 percent), Asians (4.0 percent), and Hispanics (6.6 percent) showed little or no change. The US economy needs to add around 150,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth. Until 2014, job creation had largely only done that — kept pace. Over the last several months, though, we are seeing actual job growth, even if it’s not spectacular. One would expect to see that impact the workforce participation rate, but so far it hasn’t. The labor force participation rate didn’t change at all, though, even with the boost in job creation: The civilian labor force participation rate, at 62.8 percent, changed little in February and has remained within a narrow range of 62.7 to 62.9 percent since April 2014. The employment-population ratio was unchanged at 59.3 percent in February but is up by 0.5 percentage point over the year. The numbers of those not in the labor force, seasonally adjusted, continued to grow as well (Household survey, A-1). In February it hit 92.9 million people, up 1.5 million people from a year earlier and 3.45 million from February 2013. It rose 354,000 just in the past month, outstripping the 295,000 jobs added. This tends to grow anyway, but the rate at which it’s growing shows why the U-3 and even U-6 may not be capturing the real scope of the labor problem in the US…”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/06/february-jobs-report-shows-295000-jobs-added-jobless-rate-5-5/
A winter break: 295,000 more jobs in Feb.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/03/06/jobs-report-march-2015/24488143/
Seasonally Adjusted Jobs Numbers Offer Cold Comfort
The tradition of modifying employment data based on the weather is obsolete.
“The U.S. economy lost more than 2.7 million jobs between the middle of December and the middle of January, but the big news from the January jobs report was that the economy added 275,000 jobs during the same period. Why the discrepancy? The Bureau of Labor Statistics touts “seasonally-adjusted” figures, which attempt to measure how recurring seasonal events affect employment. The raw figures are available to researchers, but the adjusted figures are the priority in public announcements. Yet reporting a statistically adjusted figure as if it were original data is a mistake, and a significant distortion of reality that only adds to public distrust of the government and the media. People know that jobs were scarcer in January than in February, even if the government told them the opposite. Seasonally adjusted figures also contribute to less effective policy-making. The Labor Department reported on Feb. 26 that applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose to a six-week high. This would not have been a surprise if observers had paid attention to the drop in employment between December and January. Seasonal-adjustment factors were developed seven decades ago for an economy that predominantly produced goods. Construction shut down in winter and automobile manufacturing closed in January. So employment fell and the monthly estimates were adjusted upward for an annual rate. Today’s economy is a service economy, with far less weather-related employment variation. For example, when seasonal adjustment began, total American employment fell almost 10% due to bad weather in the winter months. Now it is less than 2%. January’s seasonal adjustment implies that reduced levels of employment and output will automatically return to higher levels when spring arrives. There will be nothing automatic about the return of the almost three million jobs lost. In fact, the largest declines in employment were in retail trade and professional service, neither of which is weather related…”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/daniel-quinn-mills-seasonally-adjusted-jobs-numbers-offer-cold-comfort-1425600846
56,023,000: Record Number of Women Not in Labor Force
“A record 56,023,000 women, age 16 years and over, were not in the labor force in February. Not only was that a record high, but it’s also the first time the number has exceeded 56 million, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). To be counted as ‘not in the labor force,’ according to the BLS, one must not have a job or have looked for one in the past four weeks. In January 2015, there were 55,756,000 women not in the labor force, which means that 267,000 women dropped out of the labor force since then. The labor force participation rate, which is the percentage of those who are participating in the labor force by either having a job or looking for one in the past four weeks, declined in February. According to the BLS, 56.7 percent of women were participating in the labor force in February, a drop from 56.8 percent in January. In the last year, since February 2014, the labor force participation rate for women has fluctuated within a range of 56.6 percent to 57.2 percent, and February’s percentage of 56.7 falls on the low end of that scale. The BLS labor force numbers begin with the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, which consists of all people 16 years or older who were not in the military or an institution. For women, that number was 129,252,000. Of those people, there were 73,230,000 women in the labor force, meaning they participated by either having a job or looking for one. This brings the participation rate to 56.7 percent. Of those 73,230,000 women participating in the labor force, 69,291,000 had a job in February, and 3,939,000 did not – making them the nation’s unemployed. The 3,939,000 job seekers were 5.4 percent of the 73,230,000 women actively participating in the labor force bringing the unemployment rate to 5.4 percent. While the number of unemployed women decreased over the month from 4,076,000 in January to 3,939,000 in February, the number of employed women also decreased from 69,332,000 in January to 69,291,000 in February…”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/56023000-record-number-women-not-labor-force
Improper payments jumped $125 billion for federal government last year
“The federal government lost ground last year in reducing improper payments from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and tax credits for the working poor, experiencing a nearly 18 percent increase in the costs. A report this week from the Government Accountability Office said the U.S. government forked over an estimated $124.7 billion to ineligible recipients in 2014, representing the first jump in four years. The highest amount for the Obama administration occurred in 2010, with an estimated $125.6 million in losses. Medicare reported the highest number of improper payments last year, with the program accounting for nearly $60 billion in incorrect disbursements. Rounding out the top three were the Earned Income Tax Credit with $17.7 billion in lost revenue and Medicaid at $17.5 billion. “With outlays for major programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, expected to increase over the next few years, it is critical that actions are taken to reduce improper payments,” the report said. However, the GAO also said federal agencies “continue to face challenges, such as statutory limitations and compliance issues” in stemming the losses. Congress has taken steps in recent years to address improper payments, namely through legislation from 2002 that requires agencies to report how much the problem costs the government. Agencies must also try to recoup the incorrect disbursements and take action to reduce them under a pair of amendments enacted during the Obama administration. Some efforts to fix the problem have raised created controversy. A Washington Post report last year revealed that the Social Security Administration and Treasury Department have intercepted taxpayers’ refunds to settle their parents’ decades-old debts, raising questions about whether the practice is just…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/03/06/improper-payments-jumped-125-billion-for-federal-government-last-year/
Lew to Congress: US hits debt limit on March 16, needs to be raised ASAP
“Unless Congress takes action, the U.S. will hit its debt limit on Mar. 16, but will begin taking “extraordinary measures” on Mar. 13 to finance the government on a temporary basis, according to the U.S. Treasury. In a Friday morning letter to House Speaker John Boehner and other House and Senate leaders, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said that his office will be forced to suspend the issuance of State and Local Government Series securities on Mar. 13 unless the debt limit is decreased. “Accordingly, I respectfully ask Congress to raise the debt limit as soon as possible,” Lew wrote in his letter. The Treasury secretary emphasized that “increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments,” but rather “simply allows the government to pay for expenditures Congress has already approved.” Congress passed the Temporary Debt Limit Extension Act in February 2014, which suspended the statutory debt limit through Mar. 15 of this year.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102459024#
Jack Lew officially asks for a debt ceiling increase
“Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on Friday initiated the first move in what is likely to be a long and contentious showdown over the federal debt ceiling, calling on House Speaker John Boehner to lift the limit before March 16, when it becomes binding. “I respectfully ask Congress to raise the debt limit as soon as possible,” Lew said in a letter to Boehner dated Friday. Congress suspended the debt limit in a deal last February, with the federal debt at $17.2 trillion. The suspension ends on March 15, and the new limit will be whatever the national debt is on Monday, March 16, meaning that the limit will be binding on that day. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that the debt subject to the limit is now roughly $18.1 trillion. After March 16, the Treasury will be able to avoid default by effectively moving money around in federal accounts. It has enough “extraordinary measures,” which have been used routinely in debt limit fights in recent years, to continue paying the government’s debts into October or November, the Congressional Budget Office projected…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jack-lew-officially-asks-for-a-debt-ceiling-increase/article/2561152?custom_click=rss
Treasury chief begins ‘extraordinary measures’ to avoid debt default
“Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is preparing to deploy “extraordinary measures” to avoid default as the nation’s debt limit again takes effect. In a letter to Speaker John Boehne