TEA PARTY PATRIOTS:
Conservative groups wary of Obamacare contingency plans (Photo of Tea Party Patriots at SCOTUS rally / Quote by Kevin Broughton)
“Conservative groups are suspicious of GOP plans to temporarily keep Obamacare’s insurance subsidies flowing if they’re blocked this summer by the Supreme Court. For years, groups such as Club for Growth, Heritage Action and Americans for Prosperity have hounded Congress to do all it can to undermine the Affordable Care Act. At times, lawmakers have even been forced to table Obamacare-related bills over complaints that they appeared to be improving the law instead of repealing it entirely. Now there’s a chance the Supreme Court could throw a huge wrench in the law by ruling that a majority of the law’s insurance subsidies for low- and middle-income Americans are illegal. Worried that they’d be blamed for people losing subsidies midyear — and not being able to afford their health coverage — Republicans have floated some contingency plans to temporarily preserve the financial assistance… But no conservative groups have yet signed onto his plan. Kevin Broughton, a spokesman for the Tea Party Patriots, said there are things about the Sasse plan the group likes and things “we’re not sure about.” Republicans are currently working on building some consensus around the House and Senate proposals, to get to the point where more specific legislation could be introduced. A Ryan spokesman said members will release more details about their plan before the Supreme Court hands down a King decision in June. Some on the Hill are more optimistic about approving a response to a potential ruling striking the subsidies, even if it doesn’t involve repealing the entire health care law — something President Obama has said he won’t sign…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/conservative-groups-wary-of-obamacare-contingency-plans/article/2561337?custom_click=rss
HEALTHCARE:
What’s Behind the Congressional Budget Office’s Revised Obamacare Cost Estimates
“Yes, the March update to the Congressional Budget Office’s January 2015 estimates of the cost of Obamacare over the next decade contains some good news—overall projected costs have gone down. But, as the report explains, although CBO has changed many of its projections for Obamacare, little of the difference is actually attributable to Obamacare. Instead, changes in Obamacare projections stem from changes CBO made to insurance coverage estimates before 2014, based on updated data from household and employer surveys. In other words, CBO has adjusted what the coverage landscape looked like before Obamacare, so Obamacare’s impact on this different landscape now looks different. As the March update explains: The agencies have lowered the estimate of the total number of people with employment-based coverage, increased the estimate of the share of workers who were employed by businesses with 1,000 or more workers, and decreased the estimate of the number of people who had no health insurance at all. In addition, new data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services indicate higher Medicaid enrollment before 2014 than CBO and JCT had estimated earlier. In addition, CBO has changed its assumptions regarding health care cost growth over the next decade. Health care spending growth slowed again in 2013, as has been the trend since 2006 (prior to Obamacare). Typically, as a trend grows stronger, so does CBO’s confidence in the trend. With the new 2013 data, CBO projects the slowing of health care spending to continue at a somewhat greater degree than it assumed in previous years. Thus, CBO’s projections for private health care costs are now lower than previous reports. As a result, these changes in the assumptions also have an effect on Obamacare projections. Obamacare’s exchange subsidies are projected to cost less since health care costs are now projected to be lower. CBO estimates spending on Obamacare’s exchange subsidies will cost 20 percent less than estimated in its January projection, yet still cost $849 billion from 2016-2025. CBO also expects somewhat lower exchange enrollment, which contributes to lower projected costs as well. In addition, projected Medicaid spending from Obamacare’s provisions is now expected to be 8 percent lower over 2016-2025 than CBO estimated in January. This is mainly because the CBO has changed its estimate of Medicaid enrollment prior to the law’s Medicaid expansion, based on updated data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CBO now says there were about 2 million more people enrolled in Medicaid prior to 2014 than originally estimated. Thus, since more people were already enrolled, CBO lowered its projected gains in Medicaid enrollment as a result of the law and has lowered its spending projections as well. Obamacare is now projected to cost less than CBO projected in January, but it is because of factors outside of the law—not because Obamacare contains miraculous cost-saving policies.”
http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/11/cwhats-behind-the-congressional-budget-offices-revised-obamacare-cost-estimates/
Washington state’s ObamaCare exchange faces funding shortfall
“The Washington Health Benefit Exchange call center in Spokane is so busy that staffing has been quadrupled, with the center receiving up to 10,000 calls a day. The problem is not enough of those callers are actually signing up for insurance. The state has enrolled 160,000 paying customers in ObamaCare exchange health plans but that’s more than 50,000 short of goal, which has led to an extension of the enrollment deadline and a request that the Washington State Legislature fork over $125 million to fund the exchange. Republicans are angry because they were told the exchange would be self-sufficient by the end of this year. “I’m not advocating that they get the $125 million,” said Bruce Chandler of the Washington State House. “I don’t think the exchange has convinced us that that’s reasonable.” Leading Democrats were also skeptical. They were expecting a much lower subsidy as the exchange bridges from federal seed money to being able to fund itself through premium taxes and fees paid by insurance companies and customers. Much of the money the exchange wants would go toward more advertising. “I want to see what their outreach is,” said Democrat Ross Hunter of the Washington State House, “I don’t want a one-liner, because we’re going to make judgments about what is the effective amount of advertising.” Only 14 states, including Washington, are operating their own ObamaCare exchanges and many are struggling to make it without help from taxpayers.
New York’s governor wants a $69 million tax on non-exchange health insurance policies while Vermont has projected a $20 million shortfall by the end of 2015. There also is a bill in Rhode Island to scrap the state exchange and go with the federal exchange to avoid a $24 million hit to taxpayers. Massachusetts, which has been at this longer than anyone, does not have a general tax to fund its exchange, but does rely on a hefty cigarette tax and an employer’s tax. Thirty-six states are relying on Healthcare.gov. Officials in Washington state admit that so far they’ve relied on a lot of guess work…”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/11/washington-state-obamacare-exchange-faces-funding-shortfall/
HHS chief touts ties with private insurers
“Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell on Tuesday touted the government’s strengthened ties to private insurers and again called for their help to improve ObamaCare. Burwell told a group of insurance company executives on Tuesday that their relationship has been one of her “top priorities.” She added that she met with members of trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) the same afternoon that she officially took over HHS last year. The HHS chief called on private insurers to help make ObamaCare more affordable by giving customers more plans to pick from in 2015. “They want your products in more markets, with better deals and more features – and so do we,” she said. She also urged insurance companies to be more open with customers about what is included in their coverage. “When I travel and meet consumers, these are some of the issues they are most concerned about,” she said. “Consumers want to know if their doctor is in network and whether their medication is covered.” The private insurance sector has been a crucial ally for the Obama administration as it rolls out its healthcare law. The companies have helped add millions of people to ObamaCare rolls while reaping much of the rewards for the new customers. Insurance companies also stepped in to help limit the fallout after the disastrous launch of HealthCare.gov in fall 2013, soothing some of the discontent that some companies still harbored over the government’s new regulatory agenda. Companies had also been under fire during the initial passage of ObamaCare, which had also stirred tension. Under Burwell’s watch, the administration has already made strides in boosting choice and competition. In the second year of ObamaCare, 25 percent more insurers took part in the marketplace. Kevin Griffis, the department’s acting assistant secretary for public affairs, told reporters Tuesday that insurance companies have showed their faith in ObamaCare by continuing to add more plans. “Insurers themselves voted with their feet,” Griffis said on a conference call. “We don’t feel like we’ve had that sort of behavior from insurers if they didn’t feel like they had the right mix.”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235324-hhs-chief-touts-ties-with-private-insurers
Affordable Care Act enrollment
“A large percentage of people who signed up for healthcare coverage in the 37 states using the HealthCare.gov site are receiving subsidies to make their premiums affordable. Not included are the states that use their own online exchanges, such as California, where 1.4 million people are enrolled and 90% of them qualified for financial assistance.”
http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics/la-fi-g-affordable-care-act-enrollment-20150311-htmlstory.html
Top GOP senator tells White House to ‘stop celebrating’ on ObamaCare figures
“Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) is throwing cold water on the burst of good news for ObamaCare this week. Barrasso, the 4th ranking Senate Republican, mocked the Obama administration for holding an event at the White House this week to cheer new healthcare enrollment figures at a time when the law remains mostly unpopular nationally. “It’s time for the White House to stop celebrating and start thinking about the people,” Barrasso said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. He also criticized the administration for touting a report from the Congressional Budget Office on Monday, which found that ObamaCare was becoming cheaper in the long run. Those costs were dropping because of decreases in healthcare spending and a smaller-than-expected enrollment drive — which Barrasso said is nothing to celebrate. “Is the Obama administration pleased that the president’s healthcare law is so much less popular than the president and Democrats expected it to be?” Barrasso asked. “The Obama administration and every Democrat who voted for it should be embarrassed for it,” he added. Barrasso is leading the Senate’s working group to create an ObamaCare alternative…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235347-top-gop-senator-tells-white-house-to-stop-celebrating-on-obamacare-figures
Barrasso To WH: ‘Stop Celebrating’ Unpopular Obamacare
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/11/barrasso-to-wh-stop-celebrating-unpopular-obamacare/
Congress Won’t Unite Behind an Obamacare Alternative
They’ll give the GOP presidential nominee the flexibility to craft their own alternative.
“Former House speaker Newt Gingrich perhaps best illustrated the complex relationship between Republicans in Washington and the party’s presidential nominees when, in the spring of 2011, shortly after launching his campaign, he derided the budget drafted by then–Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), which had recently passed the House, as “right-wing social engineering.” The result was explosive. “You’re an embarrassment to our party,” one activist in Iowa told Gingrich, whose popularity dropped 27 points among Republican voters over the next two weeks. This time around, with Obamacare at the center of the policy battles in Washington, Republicans in Washington aren’t sure they want to force legislation written in the halls of Congress on the party’s presidential nominee. Ryan, now the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is working on a replacement plan that might unite House Republicans. But on the Senate side, there is more hesitancy to coalesce around a single Obamacare alternative. Some senior senators prefer to wait for a presidential nominee to propose a replacement plan, and so the upper chamber is hanging back. “Common sense tells me that you don’t want to do anything between now and the November elections to screw things up for the next presidential candidate,” Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) tells National Review. Various Senate Republicans have health-care-reform ideas, but majority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) hasn’t put his imprimatur on any particular attempt to “conceive an alternative” to Obamacare, according to one Senate aide. “McConnell’s big, big contribution to the entire thing has been keeping Republicans united against Obamacare,” the GOP aide says. In 2009, when some lawmakers feared opposing the president immediately after his 2008 victory, McConnell convinced several Republicans not to participate in the drafting of Obamacare, which would have nonetheless reflected liberal priorities. Democrats only resolved their health-care-policy differences after Obama took office, and it seems likely that Republicans likewise won’t settle on a single plan until they control the White House. “I think people have a sense that a presidential nominee would end up making some decisions that a Congress doesn’t have to make in a consensus way,” says Yuval Levin, a conservative policy expert with whom lawmakers frequently consult…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415261/congress-wont-unite-behind-obamacare-alternative-joel-gehrke
The ‘Un’-Affordable Care Act is a weak start
“Potential 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders has stated: “There is one major country on Earth that does not guarantee health care as a right for all. There is one major country on Earth that spends twice as much per capita on health care as almost any other. There is one major country on Earth where private insurance companies and drug companies earn huge profits. Guess which country.” As a physician in private practice I abhor each coming new year. This is the time when health care practices have to deal with patients with new insurance policies and former policies with stringent regulations. This year, more than any previous time, I’m noticing more and more folks who have high deductibles — allowed up to $6,600 with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). And for some folks that means they can’t see me or they have to greatly limit the number of times they can receive services from me. In some cases I have to refer middle class folks with these high deductibles to places with sliding scales, places I used to refer indigent folks with no insurance. Not seeking or delaying care can lead to delayed diagnoses and possible tragic consequences. And as Michael Moore has pointed out, now it’s the middle class who are hit with being under or poorly-insured while more indigent folks now have an expansion of Medicaid. The confusing mix of deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance and limitations on what services can be provided are now daily frustrations with our lack of guaranteed health care for all. A single-payer system of reimbursement for health care services has never seemed more in need, with 38 percent of Americans citing health care costs they pay out of pocket as a somewhat or significant level of stress, according to the physician website Doximity. Health care bills could go to one payer — an expansion and enhancement of Medicare — with a great reduction in administrative costs for paying the bills and for providers of health care and their offices. Single payer does not imply a system like the Veterans Administration, where all the providers are employees, but one that allows for private as well as employed practices. Other Iowans join me in their support for moving the ACA past the private insurance companies as the regulating and paying source. Maureen McCue, adjunct clinical professor at the University of Iowa, medical director of the Women’s Clinic, and Coordinator of the Iowa Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, wrote me: “Tinkering at the edges doing little to rein in the excesses of the profit-driven insurance system, pharmaceutical and biotech industries, and others. While allowing more citizens access to health insurance, the complexity of the new insurance mechanisms means accessing the health system itself has become ever more confusing and obtuse.” Dr. McCue offers hope for a change. “It doesn’t have to be this way. There are tried and true solutions. The world’s healthiest populations pay far less for medical services.” Douglas Steenblock is a physician from Marshalltown with extensive experience working in both the private and public sectors in his field of psychiatry. “It is unfortunate that Americans are so polarized when it comes to our medical system. Many people seem to think that any departure from our current profit-driven system represents ‘socialized medicine’ and that there is nothing in between the two extremes. I find it interesting that the ACA has been described as ‘government-run healthcare,’ when it is actually appears to be private healthcare run amok. The healthcare industry stands to profit handsomely from Obamacare, which explains why it was allowed to pass in the first place.” Former state Rep. Ed Fallon wrote me: “While some aspects of the ACA move us forward toward a more fair and just health care system, the insurance industry remains the entrenched powerhouse that pulls the purse strings and calls the shots.” Middle-class Iowans and Americans in general have much to gain from moving beyond the ACA. We will get to equitable health care for all in the U.S. It is simply the right thing to do.”
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2015/03/11/un-affordable-care-act-weak-start/24745551/
Affordable Care Act creates confusion for tax filers
“Dave Thompson isn’t surprised that more people are seeking tax help this year. He’s seen bigger crowds at Alabama State University’s free tax preparation program as the Affordable Care Act changed tax laws, adding benefits and penalties. “Any time you’ve got a major change to tax laws, like with the ACA, then you’re going to get an increase in people coming,” said Thompson, the head of the IRS Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program at ASU. “I’ve had people say they did theirs on Turbo Tax last year, but this year they aren’t sure.” As the tax deadline approaches, the crowds will likely only bet bigger. A nearby church stopped offering tax service this year, sending more people from the community to ASU. Impact Alabama runs a six-day-a-week, IRS-certified free tax preparation program at the old Cloverdale Junior High School, but it will only offer service on Wednesdays beginning today. ASU’s program provides service 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. each Saturday, or other days by appointment. The service is for people with an income of $53,000 or less. Thompson said about 10 to 20 percent of the people they’ve seen so far have been subject to a tax fine because they didn’t have health insurance for most of 2014. “That’s more than I expected,” he said. “I didn’t realize how many people did not have insurance out there. I was thinking one out of every 100.” He said the fine is normally about $95 for adults and about half that much that for kids. But some people also are eligible for big refunds because of the new ACA laws. Thompson said that’s led to an uptick in identity theft and tax fraud. There’s already been at least one massive fraud scare this year. Last month, the Alabama Department of Revenue flagged 16,000 state returns as potentially fraudulent after a surge in do-it-yourself tax filings using stolen personal information. States across the nation reported a similar spike, and most victims found out when they tried to file a state return and were rejected because someone else has already filed under their names. “We have a lot of fraud in Montgomery,” Thompson said. “Identity theft is up.”…”
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/local/2015/03/11/tax-prep-crowds-rise-aca-confusion/24747235/
Obamacare plaintiff’s attorney shares ‘worst moment’ in King v. Burwell oral arguments
“The man trying to convince the Supreme Court that Obamacare subsidies should be blocked in most states shared his takeaways Wednesday from last week’s oral arguments. The “worst moment,” said attorney Mike Carvin, was when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli appeared to jab the GOP-led Congress. When asked by Justice Antonin Scalia whether Congress could just reinstate the subsidies if the court blocks them, Verrilli responded “this Congress?” It was said in a “very snarky voice,” Carvin told attendees at a conference hosted by America’s Health Insurance Plans. “Which is terrific if you’re arguing on MSNBC, but if you’re arguing to nine justices who don’t think Congress gets less respect depending on partisan composition of the leadership, that was a very obstructionist kind of argument,” Carvin said. Carvin is representing the challengers in the high-stakes King v. Burwell case, which is attempting to block the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance subsidies for low and middle-income Americans in the 37 states relying on healthcare.gov instead of running their own insurance marketplaces. The court heard oral arguments on March 4 and is expected to hand down a ruling in June. The Obama administration says the healthcare law allows the insurance subsidies in all the states; the challengers say it doesn’t. Carvin called the administration’s position “insulting” to states because he says it contradicts the plain text of the law and thereby requires the Supreme Court to declare whether or not the states get the subsidies. “This … results in the view that [states] are populated by morons who couldn’t find their car in the garage without the help of the federal judiciary,” Carvin said…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-plaintiffs-attorney-shares-worst-moment-in-king-v.-burwell-oral-arguments/article/2561364?custom_click=rss
The Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision could do the most damage in the South
“If the Supreme Court rules this summer that federal-run Obamacare exchanges can’t provide health insurance subsidies, the results could be chaotic for those receiving the financial aid across the country — but especially in the South. About 11.7 million people have signed up for 2015 exchange plans, including 8.8 million who selected coverage in states with federal-run exchanges, the Obama administration announced Tuesday. The vast majority of those people are receiving subsidies, which on average cuts monthly premiums by 72 percent. Those size of the typical discount, though, varies by state. The following map shows just how far the average subsidy goes matters where you live. And it turns out that subsidies are the most valuable in the South. For example, the average subsidy in Alabama is $266, which covers 75 percent of a monthly premium for the average exchange plan in the state. The average credit in New Jersey is larger at $306, but that covers just 65 percent of the monthly premium for the average exchange plan in that state. About 86 percent of all enrollees are receiving subsidies, and the following map again shows that residents of southern states benefit the most. In Florida, 93 percent of the 1.6 million enrollees — the highest of any state — are getting federal help. In New Hampshire, 71 percent of enrollees are getting financial aid, which is the lowest rate of any state…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/11/the-supreme-courts-obamacare-decision-could-do-the-most-damage-in-the-south/
CHRIS CHRISTIE BRAGS ABOUT EXPANDING MEDICAID UNDER OBAMACARE
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/chris-christie-brags-about-expanding-medicaid-under-obamacare/
House Republican leaders mull $174 billion Medicare vote
“House Republican leaders are considering a vote next week on legislation that would abolish cuts to Medicare payments, a policy change that could cost upwards of $174 billion to enact. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his leadership team are quietly coordinating a bill, four sources say, in hopes of ending the decades-long battle over how much doctors and healthcare providers should be paid for treating Medicare patients. But bringing up the legislation would be a huge gamble because it could spark a revolt among fiscal conservatives who are likely to balk at legislation that adds to the deficit. A backlash on the right could force Boehner to rely on Democratic votes, once again thrusting House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) into the role of deal-maker. A Democratic aide said the GOP talks on a Medicare fix seemed to have “reached critical mass” this week…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235367-house-mulling-permanent-change-to-medicare-payment-formula
Medicare spending rises to highest total since 2003
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/medicare-spending-rises-to-highest-total-since-2003/article/2561399?custom_click=rss
IMMIGRATION:
Obama tax refunds for illegal immigrants to cost $2 billion over 5 years
“Illegal immigrants will file 800,000 claims for Earned Income Tax Credit refunds under President Obama’s new deportation amnesty, costing the government $2 billion over the next five years, Congress’s scorekeeper predicted this week as key lawmakers proposed legislation to cancel what’s become known as the “amnesty bonus.” Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the 11 Republican senators said giving illegal immigrants a tax credit for time when they were working illegally makes no sense and is unfair to taxpayers. “The tax code shouldn’t reward those who broke our immigration laws,” Mr. Grassley said. Mr. Obama’s November 2014 policy, which has been put on hold by a federal court, would apply to as many as 4 million illegal immigrants. They would be granted three years of tentative legal status and be given work permits and Social Security numbers. Being granted a Social Security number triggers certain benefits, including being eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit for up to three previous years as well as going forward. Mr. Grassley’s bill would halt that, prohibiting illegal immigrants from going back and claiming the EITC for previous years, as well as for the year in which they were granted the deportation amnesty, which the administration has dubbed “deferred action.”…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/11/irs-amnesty-bonus-tax-refunds-for-illegal-immigran/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Rio Grande rescues and deaths on the rise this year
“While the Rio Grande may seem serene on the surface, the current is quite strong and has taken lives along with it. “The speed at which you will succumb to the river is that, unless you are actually on scene like those agents were, that’s the only way you’re going to get rescued,” said Chief Douglas William, a deputy chief with the Mission Fire Department. “So we ask that you please find a better way – a safer way, so you can come to this country and live out your dreams.” The number of rescues has risen from 131 in fiscal year 2014 to 164 rescues this fiscal year to date, U.S. Border Patrol reports that. It’s an increase of 25 percent. The agency is crediting the increase in rescues to agents, new technology and state and local agencies. “We came across a raft floating in the water in the nighttime. There was a bunch of people that had flipped off the raft before we had encountered it and there was a dual drowning going on,” Border Patrol agent Steven Peters said during a news conference highlighting the risks of crossing the river. Peters dove into the river to save an immigration who went under. Follow agents attempted to save the other. “He was still conscious and breathing. The smugglers were telling me ‘God bless you Sir.’ So, that’s the first time I’ve ever been blessed by a coyote,” Peters said. However, not everyone crossing is rescued. This fiscal year, 55 immigrant died in the Rio Grande Valley sector, according to Border Patrol. Water-related deaths account for 15 fatalities. “Quite frankly, the economics in many of these countries are suffering and people are looking for a way to support their families and they are going to continue to come despite the fact that there are severe hazards out there,” said Chief Border Patrol Agent Kevin Oaks. Notifying relatives of those who died while crossing into the U.S. is the most difficult part of Guatemalan Consul Allan Perez’s job. “As I tell the living, when I’m interviewing them, ‘Don’t risk your life; don’t expose yourself. Be thankful that this time, you are going to go in a plane with your dreams broken and your head down, but be thankful that you are going to get back home alive and not in a box,” said Perez…”
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1172491#.VQCVKohNJhE
Birthright Citizenship: The New Immigration Scam
“…The New York Times notes that affidavits filed by law enforcement authorities “quote Chinese government sources as reporting that Chinese nationals had 10,000 babies in the United States in 2012, up from 4,200 in 2008.” For prosperous Chinese or residents of unstable countries like Russia, an American passport represents an invaluable safety net. Some estimate that as many as 40,000 children from all over the world are born under such circumstances in the U.S. each year. Over time, with family members climbing aboard, the total allowed into the country multiples. Once those babies turn 21, and if they are in the country, they can sponsor other family members to enter the U.S. Under our law, which promotes family unification, parents, siblings and minor children of a U.S. citizen are welcome. According to a report from John Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies, admitting family members account for most of the nation’s growth in immigration levels. Of the 1,130,818 immigrants who were granted legal permanent residency in 2009, a total of 747,413 (or, 66 percent) were family-sponsored immigrants. The commercial exploitation of our laws is repugnant and should be targeted. But the entire notion that any baby born on U.S. soil should become a citizen should be challenged as well. The lure of U.S. citizenship is incalculable, and has long encouraged illegal immigration. In a phone interview, Feere estimates that some 300,000 to 400,000 babies are born each year to people living in the country illegally. Pew puts the figure at 340,000. This obviously causes substantial growth in the undocumented population, which most would like to limit. Critics of the “amnesty” being offered to millions of undocumented persons by President Obama say that the offer will only encourage more illegal entrants – and entice even more families to have babies in the U.S. Obama’s plan provides protection against deportation for three years, and singles out the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the country for at least five years. Some 4 to 5 million immigrants fall under that umbrella, people who had children once inside the country — children who automatically became U.S. citizens. Advocates of immigration reform need to convince opponents that they will reduce the number of undocumented persons entering the country. While many preach border security, it would be more powerful to make illegal residency less attractive. Revoking the birthright citizenship would be a good start. Immigration advocates argue that automatic citizenship is protected by the 14th amendment of the Constitution, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Others say the history of that amendment suggests otherwise; the debate hasn’t stopped legislators from attempting to limit the practice…”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/03/11/Birthright-Citizenship-New-Immigration-Scam
The President Must Respect the Rule of Law
His immigration decrees are not just harmful and illegal; they’re unconstitutional.
“American immigration law is composed of thousands of pages, written by dozens of Congresses and federal agencies over a span of decades, and signed into law by numerous U.S. presidents. But President Barack Obama has decided that all that doesn’t matter, and that he can now rule by decree. Regardless of whether you support or oppose the president’s amnesty plan, the simple fact remains that, in the United States, no individual may or should have that much unchecked power. It flies in the face of the rule of law, which in any government is all that stands between freedom and tyranny. The rule of law is at the very heart of the case that Texas filed against President Obama in December, an action that has been joined by 25 other states, forming a bipartisan coalition. These plaintiffs are concerned about the president’s unilateral use of executive power to accomplish through edict what he could not achieve legislatively. And that’s why the full injunction that we won from U.S. district judge Andrew Hanen is so important: It has stopped the president from single-handedly enacting what is effectively a whole new system of laws, in the process granting amnesty to millions of people who came to this country illegally. Before the court issued its injunction, the federal government was hard at work hiring staff and preparing to distribute forms and information for millions of illegal immigrants to apply for work authorizations. As the court’s opinion made abundantly clear, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to “put the genie back in the bottle” and undo this step once it has been taken. That was, of course, before last week’s admission by the administration that it had already begun granting expanded employment authorizations to illegal immigrants, in direct contradiction of what it told a U.S. federal court. It’s also important to remember that the president’s illegal action is a slap in the face to all the people who have tried to come to the United States through established, legal means. The president aims to reward instead those who felt the law shouldn’t apply to them. All that is disturbing, but more disturbing still is when any president usurps power by circumventing the legislative process to create new laws by decree. No president can legally do that. Our founders considered such assertions of power to be the essence of tyranny. That’s why Texas and our fellow states stood up and challenged the president’s unconstitutional and illegal actions. President Obama’s autocratic directives would have had a major impact on every state. They would have placed stresses on our economy, our schools, our public-safety programs — practically every aspect of society. But not only did President Obama leave the states out of the discussion; he circumvented Congress as well, cutting our representatives in Washington out of the process completely. It’s not surprising that Congress has been hesitant to fund DHS after President Obama’s actions, seemingly agreeing to restore funding only after our injunction was in place….”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415209/president-must-respect-rule-law-ken-paxton
Rand Paul’s Epic Rant: ‘I’m Not Particularly Happy With Being Lectured to by the Administration About the Constitution’
“Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) excoriated several top Obama administration officials on Wednesday for telling Congress how the Constitution works at a Senate hearing, when the administration itself has routinely ignored the Constitution. “I’m not particularly happy with being lectured to by the administration about the Constitution,” Paul said. “This is an administration who I believe has trampled the Constitution at many turns.” “This is an administration that seeks to legislate when it is not in their purview, whether it be immigration, whether it be health care, or whether it not be a war that’s been going on for eight months without congressional authorization,” he said, referring to the war against the Islamic State. Paul’s remarks seemed to be prompted by Secretary of State John Kerry, who criticized Senate Republicans at the hearing for sending an open letter to Iran that said any agreement on Iran’s nuclear program would at some point have to be approved by Congress. “To write to the leaders in the middle of a negotiation… to write them and suggest that they’re going to give a constitutional lesson, which by the way was absolutely incorrect, is quite stunning,” Kerry said. “This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of American foreign policy.” Paul was one of the 47 senators who signed the letter, and replied by saying that letter was really a message to the Obama administration that it doesn’t understand that Congress has a role to play here. “The message I was sending was to you,” Paul said. “The message was to President Obama, that we want you to obey the law, we want you to understand the separation of powers.” “I signed it to an administration that doesn’t listen, to an administration that at every turn tries to go around Congress, because you think you can’t get your way,” he added. “The president says, ‘oh, the Congress won’t do what I want, so I’ve got a pen and I’ve got my phone and I’m going to do what I want.’ The letter was to you.”…”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/11/rand-pauls-epic-rant-im-not-particularly-happy-with-being-lectured-to-by-the-administration-about-the-constitution/
AARON SCHOCK, OTHER IL REPUBLICANS PUSH COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
“Embattled Republican Congressman Aaron Schock and four other Illinois Republicans are again making the call for “comprehensive” immigration reform saying that an amnesty-like “path to citizenship” is the only way forward. Speaking before a business group in Illinois that favors amnesty, Schock urged voters to put pressure on Republicans to join with Obama in pushing comprehensive immigration reform. “It’s naive to think that the 11 to 12 million people are going to disappear,” Schock said to the Illinois Business Immigration Coalition on Monday. In the last several months, Rep. Schock has been accused of corruption and come under increasing pressure due to his high living on the taxpayer’s dime and has had to issue a series of apologies and repayments for flights, concerts, office redecorating, and other expenses that he once charged to the taxpayer to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. Voices on both sides of the political spectrum are now calling for his ouster from Congress. Liberal Salon.com proclaimed Schock “toast” and noted that news only continues to get worse for him. Even the conservative National Review recently called on Schock to resign. At the immigration forum, Schock was joined in his call for reform and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants by Republicans Rep. Adam Kinzinger and Bob Dold, as well as Senator Mark Kirk and Illinois’s new Governor Bruce Rauner. In his comments, Senator Kirk—a long-time advocate for amnesty—called for reform to let illegal immigrants “come out of the shadows.” “Comprehensive immigration reform is imperative to ensuring the 525,000 people in Illinois can come out of the shadows, put down permanent roots and invest in Illinois,” Kirk said. “The way to base their rights and privileges is to lock them in with an actual statute that respects them as future Americans and allows them to keep families together permanently.”…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/aaron-schock-other-il-republicans-push-comprehensive-immigration-reform/
USC study cites political risk to GOP for opposing immigration plan
“A new USC report warns of possible political blowback if Republicans continue to try to block the expansion of President Obama’s deportation relief program. The report, released Wednesday by the USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, looked at the demographics of children whose parents would benefit from Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, which was put on hold last month by a Texas judge. The report found that 5.5 million U.S. citizens live in a household with a mother or father who would be eligible for work permits and a temporary stay of deportation under Obama’s program. Nearly 600,000 of them currently have the right to vote, the report found, and 1.7 million will be eligible to vote in 2020. The report’s authors, who are outspoken advocates for Obama’s signature immigration initiative, said those voters may be turned off by recent efforts by Republican leaders to stop the expansion of deferred action. “People remember,” said Manuel Pastor, the director of the USC center and a co-author of the report. “I think the heated debate over the last couple of years will probably have long-lasting political impacts.” He and his co-authors warn in the report: “For those bent on reversing the president’s actions, it is important to remember that by 2020, these children will make up 1.7 million voters in the nation who will have memories of how particular political leaders treated their loved ones in a critical moment of transition in our immigration policy.” A Pew Research Center poll from December found the public is divided over Obama’s plans to expand the deferred action program. It found that 50% of Americans disapprove of the expansion while 46% approve of it. Whether people support the program depends largely on their political party, the poll found, with eight in 10 Republicans disapproving of it and seven in 10 Democrats in favor of it. Dozens of states sued to stop the planned rollout of DAPA, which would offer protection for up to 3.7 million parents of U.S.-born citizens or legal permanent residents, as well as the expansion of a similar program for immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. The states, led by Texas, accused Obama of presidential overreach. They complained that they would be stuck footing the bill for services such as driver’s licenses for those who take advantage of the program. A federal judge ordered a temporary halt to the expansion of the program last month. The Republican-controlled Congress also attempted to block the expansion by refusing to fund the programs, although that plan backfired. While Republican leaders say the expansion will result in high costs for states, supporters of Obama’s action on immigration say protecting millions of people from deportation will have the opposite effect. The report said participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program saw wage increases as they moved from the informal to the formal labor market. It said DAPA families in California could see their total earnings increase by around $1.6 billion within the first couple of years of its implementation. It found that 17% of all minor children in California have at least one parent who could qualify for DAPA. It found that 93% of those children are U.S. citizens…”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-obama-immigration-usc-20150310-story.html
Sweeping Texas border security bill narrows immigrant scope
“A sweeping Texas border security bill that Hispanic pastors worried could target their congregants now includes tighter language over immigrants who are in the country illegally. The bill unanimously passed a House committee Wednesday after assurances that someone wouldn’t be arrested for driving their grandmother who is in the U.S. illegally to a hospital. Lawmakers say the bill was tweaked to clarify that human smugglers are the target. Hispanic religious leaders had packed a Capitol hearing to oppose original language that made it a crime to “recklessly” transport or harbor someone in the U.S. illegally. Pastors expressed concern over being arrested for picking up churchgoers on Sunday mornings. Hiring more state troopers is also part of the comprehensive border security measure. The bill now moves to the full Texas House…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/11/sweeping-texas-border-security-bill-narrows-immigr/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Missouri House OKs ban on scholarships for some immigrants
“Immigrant students living in Missouri illegally could not receive scholarships or in-state tuition under a bill approved Wednesday by the state House, a measure that Republicans tout as needed to protect resources for U.S. citizens but Democrats call “discrimination.” At issue are students who qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, created by President Barack Obama in 2012 to stop the deportation of children who were brought to the country illegally by their parents. Missouri had about 6,000 to 7,000 K-12 such students in 2012, according to the Pew Research Center. The Missouri bill, approved 111-41, would stop a new state Department of Higher Education rule set to take effect March 30 that clarifies those immigrant students can receive the A+ Scholarship. Those who graduate from a Missouri high school with at least a 2.5 grade-point average, good attendance and satisfy various other requirements would qualify for the A+ Scholarship under the new rule. But money for that program already is strained, and students receiving the scholarship for the current semester will need to pay for one credit, Higher Education Department spokeswoman Liz Coleman said. Bill sponsor Rep. Scott Fitzpatrick said granting the scholarship to immigrant students will “reduce benefits paid to Missouri citizens.” The bill also would require colleges and universities charge those students the international rate of tuition…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/11/missouri-house-oks-ban-on-scholarships-for-some-im/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Protesters block traffic in front of Attorney General office
“More than 100 immigration and progressive activists swarmed Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s office building on Wednesday, demanding that he remove Nevada from a lawsuit challenging a presidential order that would spare about 5 million immigrants from deportation. Progressive groups including the Las Vegas Culinary Union and the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada rallied members both inside and outside the Republican attorney general’s office, blocking traffic and shouting through bullhorns to “Deport Laxalt.” The demonstration came a few weeks after activists visited his Las Vegas office to deliver a symbolic deportation order protesting the lawsuit. “We will continue to do this until Adam Laxalt takes us off this lawsuit,” said immigration activist Astrid Silva. Protesters began by crowding into the lobby of Laxalt’s office and shouting for him to meet with them. Laxalt’s chief of staff, Nicholas Trutanich, said the attorney general was not there but would be willing to meet with a small group of demonstrators in the future. Protesters then moved into a crosswalk and blocked traffic on a portion of Carson Street directly in front of the Capitol, while a mariachi band played and others chanted in English and Spanish. Carson City Sheriff Ken Furlong shook hands with activists and joined officers from other agencies who diverted traffic around the protest. Democratic Senators Kelvin Atkinson and Ruben Kihuen joined the protesters and called for Laxalt to drop the lawsuit…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/11/activists-protest-in-attorney-general-office-over-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Federal Agents Raid Schools in Los Angeles Catering to Foreign Students
Schools allegedly collected millions of dollars from foreigners who came to U.S. on student visas but didn’t study
“Federal agents Wednesday raided a network of schools based here that the government alleges was part of a scheme that collected millions of dollars from foreigners who came to the U.S. on student visas but never studied. The agents arrested three individuals who ran four schools the government said served as a front for the purported scheme. They were charged in Los Angeles federal court with conspiracy to commit visa…”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-agents-raid-schools-in-los-angeles-catering-to-foreign-students-1426105401?mod=fox_australian
Officials say owner of sham schools in California issued fraudulent paperwork to foreigners
“Three people were arrested Wednesday on charges of running four sham vocational schools in Southern California that issued fraudulent paperwork enabling foreigners to stay in the country and netted as much as $6 million a year. Hee Sun Shim, 51, of Beverly Hills; and Hyung Chan Moon, 39, and Eun Young Choi, 35, of Los Angeles, were arrested on a 21-count indictment, the U.S. attorney’s office said in a statement. Authorities said students from South Korea and China who were previously enrolled elsewhere transferred to Prodee University and related schools but never attended classes, paying up to $1,800 for a six-month enrollment to get fraudulent paperwork in support of their student visas. Federal investigators said they were tipped off after inspectors made an unannounced visit to Prodee in 2011 and saw only one class in session with three students, though records showed hundreds were enrolled. “We had students who were hundreds, thousands of miles away,” said Claude Arnold, special agent in charge of homeland security investigations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles. “There was absolutely no education going on at the school.” It was not immediately clear whether the defendants had attorneys who could respond to the allegations. They were due to make their first court appearance Thursday. No one answered at two phone numbers listed for Prodee University. Federal authorities have been cracking down on schools they say solely operate to help foreigners procure student visas. Last year alone, immigration authorities flagged 150 of some 9,000 schools certified to accept foreign students for investigation, many of them in California…”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/11/officials-say-owner-sham-schools-in-california-issued-fraudulent-paperwork-to/
Feds allege major immigration fraud in L.A. trade schools
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-feds-allege-sweeping-immigration-fraud-in-la-trade-schools-20150311-story.html
Feds: 3 collected millions in fraudulent school scheme
http://gantdaily.com/2015/03/11/feds-3-collected-millions-in-fraudulent-school-scheme/
Jeb’s Immigration Wingman
“All things being equal, Lindsey Graham would like to be president. The South Carolina senator visited New Hampshire this week, pursuing the dodgy mix of running for the Republican presidential nomination while championing comprehensive immigration reform. From the Associated Press: “The South Carolina senator said Republicans need to work with Democrats to craft a plan that secures the border and creates a path to legal status for the 11 million people who are living in the U.S. illegally. He says asking those people to leave on their own is not realistic.” Therein lies a triple offense against the Republican party base. First: saying Republicans should work with the reviled Democrats. Second: supporting a path to legalization for the equally reviled 11 million. And third: rubbing it in that 11 million human beings are unlikely to dematerialize within U.S. borders anytime soon. Until January, when Graham announced his 2016 exploratory committee, Jeb Bush was clearly the lead heretic in the Republican presidential contest. Like Graham, Bush supports eventual legal status for those 11 million. Ostensibly, Bush and Graham (and, in theory at least, former New York Governor George Pataki) are now vying for the same Republican primary voters. There are unlikely to be enough of their ilk to go around. In a recent Bloomberg Politics-Saint Anselm College poll in New Hampshire, 41 percent of likely Republican primary voters characterized Bush’s immigration stance as a “deal killer” for the nomination; only 22 percent considered it “not a real problem.” Graham is widely considered to be among the longest of presidential longshots. He hopes to catapult himself into the top tier with a strong showing in New Hampshire followed by victory in South Carolina. Any success Graham does enjoy seems likely to come at Bush’s expense. “He pulls away from Jeb Bush, doesn’t he?” said South Carolina Representative Mick Mulvaney in a piece by David Weigel of Bloomberg Politics. Then again, Graham might be less of a threat to Bush and more of an ally — and example. Graham prevailed in his own contested primary re-election last year despite standing by his support for immigration reform. His primary opposition was weak and fractured, but even in South Carolina, a path to legalization was not a “deal killer” in the end. In 2012, immigration reform with a path to citizenship or legalization was deemed beyond the pale in the Republican presidential primary. The congressional wing of the GOP has only hardened its opposition since then. Bush’s position on immigration (not to mention his support for Common Core educational standards) may or may not be out of bounds this time. But it seems doubtful that Graham will hurt Bush’s cause too much. It might even help Bush to have an ideological wingman in the race strongly making the case that immigration reform belongs in the conservative catechism. Political scientist David Karol of the University of Maryland doesn’t buy that Graham can much alter the shape of Republican debate on such a visceral issue. “The idea that people are focused on politics enough to watch a primary debate yet have immigration attitudes sufficiently malleable that a marginal presidential candidate changes their minds is not plausible to me,” he e-mailed…”
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-11/lindsey-graham-jeb-bush-s-immigration-wingman
SPENDING/BUDGET/ECONOMY:
Taxpayers To Foot The Bill For Hillary’s ‘Convenience’
“Hillary Clinton said in a press conference Tuesday that she opted to use her personal email instead of her government email for her own “convenience.” “When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two,” Clinton told reporters after her speech to the United Nations. Clinton’s convenience could cost U.S. taxpayers millions as The State Department now has to sift through over 55,000 pages of emails she sent from her private account during her tenure as secretary of state. Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo told Bloomberg News the effort at The State Department to sort through the emails could involve “hundreds and hundreds of man hours,” and would cost more than a million dollars, based on his past experience. Clinton said the “vast majority” of her work emails were sent to government employees at their government addresses, so they would already be in the state department’s system. However, if Clinton used her government email, like she insisted her employees do, all of her emails would be easily accessible…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/11/taxpayers-to-foot-the-bill-for-hillarys-convenience/
Sorry, Democrats, but the federal tax code disproportionately hits the wealthy
“Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., wrongly asserted Wednesday that the federal tax code is regressive, hurting low-income workers more than the rich. During a Senate Budget Committee Hearing on the benefits of a balanced budget, Merkley sparred with former Gov. John Engler, R-Mich., the president of the Business Roundtable. Merkley asked Engler, “Why should low-income or middle-income Americans pay a higher tax rate for every $1,000 they earn than the rich?” “I thought our tax code was progressive,” Engler responded. Merkley replied, “Well then you’re deeply misinformed and I encourage you to read up a little on it.” To the contrary, Merkley is the one deeply misinformed about how progressive the federal tax code is. The wealthy pay far higher tax rates than the poor do. The highest fifth of income earners pay the government 12 times more of their income than the lowest fifth of income earners. The top one percent of income earners are hurt even more by the tax code, paying an average federal tax rate of 29 percent, compared to the two percent paid by the lowest-fifth. Some tax breaks are claimed more often by high-income earners, such as the home mortgage interest deduction. But the size of these deductions and credits does not offset the higher tax rates the wealthy pay. The progressiveness of the federal tax code is largely driven by the individual income tax, which provides nearly half of all federal revenue. The top fifth of income earners pay an average individual income tax rate of 14 percent, while the bottom fifth instead face an average rate of negative eight percent. Part of the debate over the tax code’s progressiveness stems from the payroll taxes that go toward Social Security. Payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount each year, with a maximum taxable earnings of $118,500 in 2015. Since every dollar earned above that maximum is payroll tax-free, some low-income earners pay a higher payroll tax rate than high-income earners…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sorry-democrats-but-the-federal-tax-code-disproportionately-hits-the-wealthy/article/2561389?custom_click=rss
Re: Some Thoughts about the Lee-Rubio Tax Plan
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415249/re-some-thoughts-about-lee-rubio-tax-plan-ramesh-ponnuru
The One Thing Rubio-Lee Needs
<a href="http: