TEA PARTY PATRIOTS:
The Speaker strikes back (Op-ed by Jenny Beth Martin)
“House Speaker John Boehner’s latest volley in his petty war against conservatives in the GOP conference – while saying much more about himself than the men he’s targeting – provides a great opportunity for a discussion about Congress’ stewardship of taxpayer dollars. In the aftermath of the failed attempt to displace him in January, Boehner moved into recrimination mode with considerable dispatch. For his sin of allowing colleagues to place his name in nomination for speaker, Rep. Dan Webster (R-Fla.) was bounced from the Rules Committee, along with his Sunshine State colleague, Rich Nugent (R-Fla.). Texan Randy Weber (R) had his name removed as a sponsor of legislation for casting his vote for Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). Just a few weeks after whining on 60 Minutes that conservatives were raising funds by attacking him, Boehner said nothing as his former lackey, Barry Jackson, spent $300,000 on radio ads against his House colleagues. Their crime? Opposing yet another Boehner cave to the White House, this time on executive amnesty. For Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) and Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), keeping your word to your constituents means getting trashed on your hometown airwaves. Or, in the case of Gohmert and Iowa’s Steve King (R), your name disappears from the manifests of House-sponsored foreign travel. Both were scheduled to meet with Egypt’s President al-Sisi, only to have their travel…un-approved. A likely unwitting bit of candor, though, from an (of course) unnamed House leadership aide provides a good starting point for a discussion about the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. “Members earn the right to go on taxpayer-funded travel,” the anonymous aide told Roll Call. “Those rewards aren’t going to be handed out to members who oppose the broader GOP team on a regular basis.” An interesting choice of words: Rewards. Earn the right. It is certainly arguable that there is value in having Congressional leaders meet with foreign heads of state, particularly in the case of Egypt; President al-Sisi is standing firm in the War on Terror, and takes a harder line on radical Islam than do our own president and members of his party….”
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/238119-the-speaker-strikes-back
Jenny Beth Martin: Tea Party’s Values ‘Resonate with Americans’
“The number of tea party Republicans eyeing the White House in 2016 speaks volumes about the impact of the movement, Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin said Wednesday on Newsmax TV’s “America’s Forum.” “It shows that the tea party movement, which is only six years old, that our values of personal freedom, economic freedom, and a debt-free future resonate with Americans,” she said. “We’ve elected senators and now these senators are stepping up and running for president of the United States.” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, both identified with the tea party movement, have declared their candidacies, while a third, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, is expected to announce his intention to run. Martin said she’s not worried about tea party candidates splitting the movement’s votes. “What we actually are going to see is that the movement enhances because we have so many people out there talking about our values as they run for president,” she said. There are a host of good options, she said, declining to name her pick. “We’ve got quite a few candidates who have a very good shot at unifying the GOP,” she said. “The most important thing to remember is that our values are what unify the GOP. The Republican Party has, for as long as I have been involved in the Republican Party as an activist, before this tea party movement started, I thought they stood for smaller government and that’s what the tea party is about. “So the more that the Republican Party embraces tea party values, the more unified the Republican Party is going to be.”…”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Jenny-Beth-Martin-Tea-Party-2016-election/2015/04/08/id/637197/
HEALTHCARE:
The Penalty for Going Without Obamacare Soars Nearly 250% Over 2014 Fee
“The fee for not having health insurance coverage in 2015 will increase to 2% of your annual household income or up to $975 per family, $325 per adult and $162.50 for each child under the age of 18 years, whichever is higher. That’s twice as much as the maximum penalty in 2014, when the fee was 1% of your annual household income, or $95.00 per adult and $47.50 per child under the age of 18 years. The maximum penalty per family in 2014 looks like a bargain now at $285, a hike of nearly 250%. The fee will continue to get stiffer in 2015 when it will cost families 2.5% of their annual household income or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child under age 18, the federal government’s way of incentivizing uninsured Americans to get health care coverage. Whether through the incentive to avoid the penalties or the need to get health care coverage to protect their personal finances and have access to doctors and hospitals, as of February 22, 2015, nearly 11.7 million consumers had signed up for health insurance coverage in the government’s marketplace, according to a report released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. More than half (55%) paid monthly premiums of $100 or less after tax credits, totaling $1,200 a year or less for coverage. Despite the relative affordability of health insurance and a requirement to pay a stiff penalty for not having coverage, many Americans eschew Obamacare. According to a new analysis by Avalere Health, many Americans are still opting to go without health insurance coverage. Enrollment drops off as the level of income increases, despite the fact that many of these consumers still qualify for subsidies. Enrollment at exchanges using HealthCare.gov were at 76% of eligible individuals whose incomes were between 100% and 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) but dropped to 30% of individuals whose FPL was between 201% and 250% and sunk down to 2% of individuals whose annual incomes were over 400% of the FPL…”
https://www.mainstreet.com/article/the-penalty-for-going-without-obamacare-soars-nearly-250-over-2014-fee
Tax season: Time to finally pay that Obamacare penalty
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102567232
Report: 63 Percent of Business-Owners Believe Obamacare Will Hurt Their Bottom Line
“Approximately 63 percent of “business owners, decision makers, and human resource professionals” believe Obamacare will hurt their business in the future, according to a survey conducted last month by Express Employment Professionals, a temporary staffing agency. “What they’re telling us is that the law isn’t just affecting their bottom line,” said Bob Funk, Express Employment Professionals CEO, in a statement. “It’s limiting their desire to hire new workers.” The survey found that more and more businesses harbor concerns about the future because of Obamacare. Approximately 62 percent of respondents expected the law would harm job creation in the future, and a majority of respondents at businesses with 45-49 full-time employees said they would try to keep their full-time staff under the law’s 50-person threshold in order to avoid the requirement to provide health insurance.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416629/report-63-percent-business-owners-believe-obamacare-will-hurt-their-bottom-line-ryan
Business Viewpoint with Dason Gwartney: Many employers feel ill effect of health law
“Employers today are faced with understanding more than 85 acronyms related to government regulations and compliance. Employers can be responsible for more than 30 required benefit notices and filings each year. Staying informed of compliance requirements is more than a full-time job. Particularly when an employee in a midsized company bears more than one title on the nameplate , e.g., human resources director, payroll administrator and benefits manager.
However, what you don’t know can hurt you. According to data released this week by the ADP Research Institute, more than one-third of midsized business owners reported being fined for not complying with laws pertaining to workforce management. In fact, the majority of those found to be in noncompliance could not say how many fines they received or how much was paid in penalties. Fines relative to noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) can be $100 per day per employee with a minimum of $2,500 if not corrected prior to an audit, and as much as $15,000 if the failure to comply with mandates is not corrected within a minimal time period. Time and again, when speaking with midsized business owners, I find the majority of concerns are focused on increasing government regulations and the overall cost of benefits. However, what many business owners do not realize is the greatest risk is compliance with the ACA, DOL and ERISA, just a few example acronyms I mentioned previously. Many businesses have separate software for payroll, attendance and benefits management with no easy way to combine data from all three. Furthermore, these employers do not have the human resources departments or computer systems comparable to large companies, making it harder to handle the paperwork. To add to the complexity, employers will also be required to complete IRS forms using information from all of these different sources. On average, complying with the law costs midsized to small businesses more than $15,000 a year, according to a survey released a year ago by the National Small Business Association…”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/businessviewpoint/business-viewpoint-with-dason-gwartney-businesses-feel-ill-effect-of/article_95c5961b-7bcd-54c3-8ec9-a03320cb2af7.html
Americans Slightly More Positive Toward Affordable Care Act
“Americans’ views about the Affordable Care Act are more positive now than they were last fall, although overall attitudes remain more negative than positive. Half of Americans now disapprove of the 2010 law, while 44% approve — the narrowest gap since October 2013. By comparison, last November, just after the strong Republican showing in the midterm elections, 56% of Americans disapproved and 37% approved…”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182318/americans-slightly-positive-toward-affordable-care-act.aspx
Obama scores ObamaCare 8 out of 10
“President Obama gives his signature health law a rating of 8 out of 10. “And the reason I don’t put it at a 10 is because you can always improve something,” he said in an interview with ABC News published Wednesday. Obama touted the administration’s analysis, based on Gallup survey data, that 16 million people have gained health coverage because of ObamaCare. “Sixteen million people or more have health insurance that didn’t have it before,” Obama said. He added that has led to the lowest uninsured rate “since we started keeping records.” The same analysis finds that the uninsured rate has fallen from 20.3 to 13.2 percent…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/238174-obama-obamacare-gets-8-out-of-10-rating
Obama gives Obamacare an 8 out of 10
“President Obama says he would give Obamacare, his signature domestic initiative, an eight out of 10 on the grading scale. “The reason I don’t put it at a 10 is because you can always improve something,” Obama told ABC News in an interview published Wednesday. The White House has been more bullish lately about public acceptance of the largest overhaul to the healthcare system in decades, even as the American public remains divided about the Affordable Care Act. Polls repeatedly show that more Americans oppose the law than support it. “Sixteen million people or more have health insurance that didn’t have it before,” Obama told ABC, adding that this is the lowest rate of uninsured Americans “since we started keeping records.” The White House has preferred to keep the focus on the drop in the uninsured rate, deflecting GOP questions about the rising cost of healthcare and the inability of some consumers to keep their preferred coverage…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-gives-obamacare-an-8-out-of-10/article/2562694?custom_click=rss
Obama: Health law deserves an ‘8’ out of 10
“President Obama gives his signature health law an “8” on a scale from 1 to 10, saying there is still room to improve the 2010 overhaul that’s been a political flashpoint since passage. In an ABC News interview published Wednesday, Mr. Obama touted the Affordable Care Act’s progress in cutting the uninsured rate. “Sixteen million people or more have health insurance that didn’t have it before,” he said. He also said the law’s price tag has been cheaper than projected, although he’s upset that many states have not expanded the Medicaid program for the poor. Obamacare calls on states to extend the federal-state program to those earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty law. The federal government picks up 100 percent of the expansion’s cost in 2014-2016, before scaling back its contribution to 90 percent in 2020 and beyond. But the Supreme Court made expansion optional, so only 28 states and the District of Columbia have augmented their programs….”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/8/obama-health-law-deserves-8-out-10/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Obama Scores Obamacare: 8 Out Of 10
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/obama-thinks-obamacare-is-an-8-out-of-10/
The Head Of Colorado’s Obamacare Exchange Thinks It May Ultimately Fail
“The board chair of Colorado’s Obamacare exchange said in off-the-cuff remarks Wednesday that the state-run operation may not be able to cut it financially. Sharon O’Hara, board chair of Connect for Health Colorado, was pushing the board’s pick for a new CEO of the exchange for state lawmakers’ approval Wednesday when she made the comments, according to Denver’s 9 News. O’Hara expressed confidence in Robert Malone’s ability to right the troubled exchange’s finances — if it’s possible at all. “If this is doable,” O’Hara said, “he can make it happen.” When pressed on her qualifier by Republican state Sen. Beth Martinez Humenik, the chairwoman admitted that she’s not sure of the exchange’s viability. “I have my doubts on good days,” O’Hara said. “Today is not one of my good days.”…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/the-head-of-colorados-obamacare-exchange-thinks-it-may-ultimately-fail/
DESPITE OBAMACARE, CALIFORNIANS USING ERS MORE FOR NON-EMERGENCIES
“According to the Los Angeles Times, Californians have actually increased their use of emergency rooms for diagnosis of medical problems rather than using ERs for actual emergencies. That problematic scenario supposedly drove statewide support for Obamacare; overburdened emergency rooms were being used en masse by those without health insurance, thanks to provisions under California law that mandate coverage via emergency room without regard to insurance. According to a study from the journal Health Affairs, from 2005 to 2011, injury-related visits to non-federal ERs declined markedly, nearly 1 percent, but the number of total ER visits increased markedly. That means that non-emergency visits relating to problems such as mental illness, nervous system disorders, stomach pain, and gastrointestinal disease jumped over 13 percent. Such visits were centralized among those without insurance and those with Medicaid. The authors summed up: California EDs are providing increasing amounts of care for complex emergencies related to chronic conditions, infections, and even non-specific symptoms. This trend reflects both changes in the population disease burden and the ED’s more central role in healthcare compared to its original charge to treat injured patients and provide charity care. Obamacare in California, known as Covered California, was supposed to alleviate stressors to the emergency room system. Kaiser Health News and NPR reported in early 2014 that ER doctors were attempting to enroll patients in Obamacare specifically to avoid overburdening ERs with non-emergency visits. In September 2014, CBS News optimistically reportedthat “Obamacare could be a tonic for overtaxed ERs.”…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/08/despite-obamacare-californians-using-ers-more-for-non-emergencies/
Organized efforts helped Florida became the capital of Obamacare enrollment
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article17729108.html
GOP governor’s resistance to Obamacare is so strong that it’s jeopardizing his quest for tax cuts
“A battle over the Medicaid expansion has erupted among Republicans in Florida, and it has created a strange situation: Republican legislators are urging GOP Governor Rick Scott to accept the expansion, but he is reluctant to do so, even though it is imperiling his drive for tax cuts. Scott can’t seem to decide which priority is more important: Turning away federal money to expand health care for hundreds thousands of his own constituents; or cutting taxes. Okay, that’s a bit of a glib oversimplification. But it’s not really that far from what is really happening. In an interview with me, Republican state senate president Andy Gardiner — the leader of Senate Republicans, who want the Medicaid expansion — essentially confirmed that the resistance to it is putting tax cuts, and the entire state budget, in peril. “It really puts everything at risk,” Gardiner said. “It jeopardizes the tax cuts, it jeopardizes increases in education funding, it jeopardizes our priorities.” The short version of the dispute is as follows. Florida has been negotiating with the Obama administration over expanding Medicaid in the state to some 800,000 people under the Affordable Care Act. But Governor Rick Scott seriously complicated things the other day when he pulled back his previous support for the expansion. Scott did this in reaction to the fact that the federal government is on the verge of ending some of the billions in Medicaid funding for another program — the Low-Income Pool, or LIP — which funnels money to hospitals for low-income patients. The feds have said Florida should transition over to getting that money from the Medicaid expansion. But Scott argued that, because the feds are pulling back funding for LIP, that shows they can’t be trusted to follow through in providing federal money for the Medicaid expansion, which will eventually mean the state will be on the hook for its cost. But this impasse is putting in jeopardy the negotiations that are currently underway over the state’s budget. Gardiner, the leader of state senate Republicans, says that without the federal money from either LIP (which is in doubt) or the Medicaid expansion (which is being offered, but being resisted by Scott and state House Republicans), the push for $673 million in tax cuts, as well as increases in education funding, “could be impacted.”…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/08/gop-governors-resistance-to-obamacare-is-so-strong-that-its-jeopardizing-his-quest-for-tax-cuts/
As SCOTUS Weighs Obamacare Exchanges, HealthCare.gov Retains More Clients
“Government exchanges run by states are retaining lower rates of health plan subscribers than marketplaces run by the federal government, according to a new report. The so-called “federally-facilitated exchange states,” which use the HealthCare.gov website to offer coverage, “reenrolled” about four in five, or 78% of their 2014 enrollees for this year’s signup period, according to Avalere Health, a Washington-based research and health policy firm tracking the Affordable Care Act. By comparison, state-run exchanges generally had lower retention with those that were part of the Avalere analysis retaining 69% of 2014 health plan subscribers. In California, which has the highest enrollment last year, the state-run exchange retained just 65% of their 2014 enrollees, Avalere said. “Federally-facilitated exchange states significantly outperformed their state-run counterparts in 2015,” Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at Avalere said in a statement accompanying the analysis. The analysis showing what exchanges were better at retention comes as the Supreme Court weighs the latest challenge to the ACA in the case known as King v. Burwell, which looks at whether wording in the health law disqualifies states that didn’t establish their own exchanges. If the court rules to eliminate the subsidies for those who purchased on the federal exchange, subsidized enrollment would fall to 4.1 million from 13.7 million, according to a RAND Corp analysis. A ruling is expected in June. Reasons for the greater attrition among enrollees who used state-based exchanges aren’t clear but it could have to do with a better working federal exchange in this most recent open enrollment period. “Some of the higher 2015 enrollment may be attributed to initial technological issues with HealthCare.gov that may have depressed 2014 enrollment, however that alone does not explain why state-run exchanges did so poorly, relative to the federally-facilitated exchange states,” Avalere’s Pearson added…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/04/08/as-scotus-weighs-obamacare-exchanges-healthcare-gov-retains-more-customers-than-states/
Obama: No Plan B if Supreme Court cuts Obamacare
“Surely President Barack Obama hoped that his suggestion that asthma rates have increased as a result of climate change would be the newsiest nugget to emerge from his interview with CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. That is apparently the latest front in the perennial quest to make the issue of global warming both relatable and pressing for the broader public, and Dr. Gupta lent that claim substantial credence. But the most compelling bit that Gupta drew out of the president during their exclusive interview was Obama’s admission that there is no plan to move forward if the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell and strips illegal federal subsidies from millions of Affordable Care Act beneficiaries….”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/08/obama-no-plan-b-if-supreme-court-cuts-obamacare/
Obama: Healthcare law critics make their ‘last gasp’ in Supreme Court
“President Obama said Wednesday that the current Supreme Court case against his signature healthcare law could be its final significant legal challenge. “I think this is sort of the last gasp of folks who’ve been fighting against this for ideological reasons,” Obama said in an interview with CNN. The case, King v. Burwell, could eliminate tax credits for nearly 8 million people living in states that declined to set up their own ObamaCare exchange. Administration officials have repeatedly stressed that a ruling against ObamaCare — which would impact 34 states — would cripple the law. As Republicans scramble to create a back-up plan in case King v. Burwell goes their way, the Obama administration has maintained that there are no policy measures to limit the potential fallout. “The truth is, is that there aren’t that many options available if, in fact, they don’t have tax credits,” Obama said. “They can’t afford to get the health insurance that’s being provided out there.” The Supreme Court case, which will likely be decided in June, rests on the language in ObamaCare related to insurance subsidies, which the president defended as “pretty straightforward.” Conservatives argue that the law’s wording indicates that people can only receive subsidies if they bought insurance through an exchange “established by the state.” Democrats have said the four-word clause has been taken out of context, arguing that they never intended to limit subsidies to only some states. “I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to adopt the arguments of those who are arguing that, somehow, tax credits given to people who live in Texas don’t apply where somebody who lives in Massachusetts does get the tax credits,” Obama said, repeating his previous explanation of the origin of the King v. Burwell controversy. Obama stressed that the healthcare law is already working to expand access and reduce costs for millions of people in the U.S. — something he believes the Supreme Court justices are likely to take into account….”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/238210-obama-court-case-is-last-gasp-by-healthcare-law-critics
8 Big Questions About the VA’s Newest Scandal: Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars Spent on ‘Relocation Expenses’
“In late March, the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Inspector General told Congress it would investigate how the VA managed to spend more than a quarter of a million dollars to help a top official relocate to Philadelphia VA office. That huge payment was about 20 times the normal relocation subsidy that the VA typically spends, prompting more anger in Congress about what seems to be the latest management failure at the broken VA. In the last week or so, several more questions have been raised about the payment, including whether the VA is secretly inflating the value of the homes of these officials as a farewell present when they move. But so far, the VA has failed to provide any denials or explanations, regardless of who’s asking. House aides said they’ve had no luck getting straight answers from the VA about how the payment was made, and while the VA has provided some information to TheBlaze, that information has been general in nature and fails to paint a full picture of what happened. To catch readers up on what is quickly becoming the latest scandal to hit the beleaguered agency, below is a summary of what’s known so far, and the several outstanding questions that have yet to be answered…”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/08/8-big-questions-about-the-vas-newest-scandal-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars-spent-on-relocation-expenses/
VA makes little headway in fight to shorten waits for care
“A year after Americans recoiled at new revelations that sick veterans were getting sicker while languishing on waiting lists — and months after the Department of Veterans Affairs instituted major reforms costing billions of dollars — government data shows that the number of patients facing long waits at VA facilities has not dropped at all. No one expected that the VA mess could be fixed overnight. But The Associated Press has found that since the summer, the number of vets waiting more than 30 or 60 days for non-emergency care has largely stayed flat. The number of medical appointments that take longer than 90 days to complete has nearly doubled.
Nearly 894,000 appointments completed at VA medical facilities from Aug. 1 to Feb. 28 failed to meet the health system’s timeliness goal, which calls for patients to be seen within 30 days.
That means roughly one in 36 patient visits to a caregiver involved a delay of at least a month. Nearly 232,000 of those appointments involved a delay of longer than 60 days — a figure that doesn’t include cancellations, patient no-shows, or instances where veterans gave up and sought care elsewhere. A closer look reveals deep geographic disparities. Many delay-prone facilities are clustered within a few hours’ drive of each other in a handful of Southern states, often in areas with a strong military presence, a partly rural population and patient growth that has outpaced the VA’s sluggish planning process. Of the 75 clinics and hospitals with the highest percentage of patients waiting more than 30 days for care, 12 are in Tennessee or Kentucky, 11 are in eastern North Carolina and the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, 11 more are in Georgia and southern Alabama, and six are in north Florida. Seven more were clustered in the region between Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Colorado Springs, Colorado. Those 47 clinics and hospitals represent just a fraction of the more than 1,000 VA facilities nationwide, but they were responsible for more than one in five of the appointments that took longer than 60 days to complete, even though they accounted for less than 6 percent of patient visits. That has meant big headaches for veterans like Rosie Noel, a retired Marine gunnery sergeant who was awarded the Purple Heart in Iraq after rocket shrapnel slashed open her cheek and broke her jaw…”
http://www.lancasterfarming.com/agriculturalinformation/ap/VA-makes-little-headway-in-fight-to-shorten-waits-for-care
IMMIGRATION:
Court declines to lift hold on Obama’s immigration actions
“A federal judge denied the federal government’s request to lift a hold on President Obama’s controversial immigration actions in an opinion released Tuesday night. Judge Andrew Hanen wrote that the government misled the court by revealing last month it had granted expanded work permit renewals to 100,000 illegal immigrants before the court blocked the administration from implementing its new policies. He added that a new hearing in March only “reinforced” his February decision to issue a “stay” to block those new policies, meant to delay deportations for millions of immigrants in the country illegally and provide them with the opportunity to apply for work permits. “It is obvious that there is no pressing, emergent need for this program,” he wrote as part of the rationale for not allowing the administration to immediately implement its new policies. Hanen also issued a second order that slammed the Justice Department for “misconduct” in its delay of informing the court about the expanded work permit grants. He cited transcripts from hearings to argue that there was an understanding that the administration had not implemented any new immigration policies before Hanen’s initial ruling, even though the Department of Homeland Security had already begun processing expanded work permit renewals. That order called on the government to file all drafts of the March advisory that addressed those work permits, as well as all metadata, and a detailed timeline to show when each person learned about the expanded renewals. The administration has argued that it announced those changes in a November memo, just days after Obama announced his intention to implement new immigration policies. Because the memo had been released months before, Homeland Security has argued that the decision to expand work permit renewals was already public. A group of more than 20 states has challenged the president’s immigration actions as an executive overreach. Hanen ruled in February the courts should decide the constitutionality of the policies before implementation. The federal government had contended the Texas district court judge didn’t have the jurisdiction to block all of the policies, just the ones that impact Texas, essentially creating different immigration standards for the interim. But Hanen dismissed that argument as inconsistent with the Constitution, which calls for “uniform” immigration laws. He added that the government had argued in a 2012 Supreme Court case on Arizona’s controversial immigration laws that certain policies hurt its ability to maintain a “comprehensive and unified system” of laws. “There is a lengthy history of precedent concerning the need for a uniform approach to immigration, and this Court sees no reason to depart from those cases,” he wrote…”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/238165-court-declines-to-lift-hold-on-obamas-immigration-policies
Judge Denies Federal Government’s Request to Lift Hold on Obama’s Immigration Action
“A federal judge on Tuesday denied a Justice Department request to lift a temporary hold on President Barack Obama’s executive action that sought to shield millions of immigrants from deportation. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen refused to stay his Feb. 16 decision that granted a preliminary injunction requested by 26 states. The U.S. government wants the injunction lifted — allowing Obama’s action to proceed — while it appeals Hanen’s ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans. The Justice Department has already asked the 5th Circuit to lift the injunction. The appeals court was scheduled to hear arguments on whether the injunction should be lifted on April 17. The coalition of 26 states has filed a lawsuit to overturn Obama’s executive actions, which would spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. The states, led by Texas, argue that the action is unconstitutional and would force them to invest more in law enforcement, health care and education. The injunction is intended to stall Obama’s actions while the lawsuit progresses through the courts. Justice Department attorneys argue that keeping the temporary hold harms “the interests of the public and of third parties who will be deprived of significant law enforcement and humanitarian benefits of prompt implementation” of the president’s immigration action…”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/08/judge-denies-federal-governments-request-to-lift-hold-on-obamas-immigration-action/
Request to lift hold of Obama immigration action denied
“A federal judge in Texas late Tuesday kept a temporary hold on President Barack Obama’s executive action that sought to shield millions of immigrants from deportation, rejecting a U.S. Department of Justice request that he allow the action to go ahead. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville refused to lift the preliminary injunction he granted on Feb. 16 at the request of 26 states that oppose Obama’s action. Hanen’s latest ruling confirms the status quo – that the Obama administration is temporarily barred from implementing the policies that would allow as many as 5 million people in the U.S. illegally to remain. The Justice Department had already appealed to a higher court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, to lift Hanen’s injunction. The appeals court was scheduled to hear arguments on whether the injunction should be lifted on April 17. In his order Tuesday denying the government’s request, Hanen said the government hasn’t “shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation.” There was no immediate comment from the White House…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/8/request-to-lift-hold-of-obama-immigration-action-d/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Federal judge denies request to lift hold on Obama immigration action
“A federal judge in Texas denied a Justice Department request Tuesday to lift his temporary hold on President Obama’s executive action shielding potentially millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen refused to set aside his Feb. 16 decision granting a preliminary injunction requested by 26 states. The U.S. government wants the injunction lifted — allowing Obama’s action to proceed — while it appeals Hanen’s ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans. In his order Tuesday denying the government’s request, Hanen said the government hasn’t “shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation.” There was no immediate comment from the White House. The Justice Department has already asked the 5th Circuit to lift the injunction. The appeals court was scheduled to hear arguments on whether the injunction should be lifted on April 17. In that case, the AFL-CIO has filed a brief in support of the administration — though some labor groups have voiced concern about the impact illegal immigration has on U.S. jobs, the AFL-CIO and other unions also represent undocumented workers who already are here…”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/08/federal-judge-denies-request-to-lift-hold-on-obama-immigration-action/
Federal judge declines to lift immigration order
“A federal judge in Texas declined late Tuesday night to lift an order he issued in February that temporarily blocked President Barack Obama’s controversial immigration actions from going into effect. In a 15 page ruling, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen said he “remains convinced” that his original findings — halting programs meant to ease deportation threats to millions of eligible undocumented immigrants– were correct. The ruling, a victory for Texas and 25 other states bringing the challenge, will come as no surprise to Justice Department lawyers who have already asked a federal appeals court to lift the February order. A three judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments on the issue on April 17. In a separate order Tuesday night, Hanen expressed displeasure with the government for misleading the Court as to the timing of the implementation of one of the programs. “Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts,” Hanen said. In a statement Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling saying, “The Obama Administration’s blatant misrepresentations to the court about its implementation of expanded work permits for illegal immigrants under the President’s lawless amnesty plan reflects a pattern of disrespect for the rule of law in America,” Hanen asked the government to supply more information on the issue by April 21…”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/immigration-order-texas-judge-obama/
Federal Court Slaps Down Request To Let Obama’s Amnesty Move Forward
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/federal-court-slaps-down-request-to-let-obamas-amnesty-move-forward/
Obama’s DOJ Loses Another Round in Immigration Battle in Texas
“And gets badly singed for its misbehavior. Federal district court judge Andrew Hanen slammed the Obama administration with a solid one-two punch late last night. In one order, he refused to lift the preliminary injunction barring implementation of the president’s immigration amnesty plan. In a second order, Hanen said that the “attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts” about the implementation to the court. On February 23, the Justice Department filed a “Motion to Stay” the injunction pending an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hanen denied that motion, saying not only that his original ruling was correct, but that subsequent events had “reinforced” the correctness of his original decision. Hanen cited President Barack Obama’s own words as part of this reinforcement. Speaking at a town hall after the injunction order had been issued, the president said that any government official who did not halt the deportation of anyone who qualifies under his new plan would suffer the “consequences.”…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416677/obamas-doj-loses-another-round-immigration-battle-texas-hans-von-spakovsky
Texas judge rejects Justice Dept. request to lift block on Obama’s immigration action
“A Texas court will not lift its hold on President Obama’s immigration executive action. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas — a city which borders Mexico — rejected a Department of Justice request to remove a temporary block on the immigration plan which would have shielded millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. The block has been in place since February and garnered support of 26 U.S. states, which filed a subsequent lawsuit against the Obama administration for exceeding his powers. Texas Attorney General Ken Patton accused the Obama administration of misleading the court on early implementation of expanded work permits to some 100,000 illegal immigrants. “Any premature implementation could have serious consequences, inflicting irreparable harm on our state, and this ruling is key in determining the extent to which the federal government did not present the full truth in this case,” Paxton said. The Justice Department already petitioned the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in March to lift Hanen’s hold, which has not yet decided on whether to do so…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/texas-judge-rejects-justice-dept.-request-to-lift-block-on-obamas-immigration-action/article/2562688?custom_click=rss
Federal judge slams Obama lawyers in immigration case
“A federal judge has issued a scathing rebuke to lawyers for the Obama administration in a case involving the president’s unilateral immigration action. In an order issued Tuesday night, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who had put a temporary hold on the action, not only refused to lift the hold — he also came very near to accusing administration lawyers of flat-out lying to him. The administration’s assertions in the immigration case have been “misleading,” “troublesome,” and “belied by the facts,” Hanen wrote. “Any number of federal judges, given this misconduct, would consider striking the government’s pleadings.” Doing so would effectively end the case altogether, and Hanen wrote that he had decided not to take that action because the issues at stake are of great national importance. The case was brought by the attorneys general of 26 states seeking to stop the president’s decision to grant quasi-legal status and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants. The controversy that angered Judge Hanen involved the timing of the president’s new measures. Administration lawyers told the court that the first part of the president’s action, expansion of DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was scheduled to begin Feb. 18, 2015. The second part, known as DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, was scheduled to go into effect in mid-May…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-judge-slams-obama-lawyers-in-immigration-case/article/2562687?custom_click=rss
Judge keeps his hold on Obama immigration action in place
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-keeps-his-hold-on-obama-immigration-action-in-place/
Video: Judge denies WH request to lift hold on executive-amnesty program
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/08/video-judge-denies-wh-request-to-lift-hold-on-executive-amnesty-program/
Federal Judge Refuses to Lift Injunction Against Obama’s November Executive Amnesty
“Federal judge Andrew Hanen has declined to lift his injunction against President Obama’s November executive amnesty, ruling yesterday that the government has not “shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation.” The ruling is a temporary victory for the 26 states, led by Texas, that have filed suit against the president’s Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA). The decision comes after an uncomfortable March hearing in which Judge Hanen scolded Department of Justice lawyers for assuring him, over two-and-a-half months of court proceedings, that the Department of Homeland Security was not acting on the president’s order — only to reveal, in early March, that DHS had received and accepted approximately 108,000 applications for deferred action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) expansion contained in the president’s November order. Judge Hanen threatened sanctions against the DOJ, but refrained from issuing any this week, writing, “The parties’ arguments should be decided on their relative merits according to the law, not clouded by outside allegations that may or may not bear on the ultimate issues in this lawsuit.” The government has appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule Judge Hanen and lift the injunction. That court will hear arguments on April 17…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416640/federal-judge-refuses-lift-injunction-against-obamas-november-executive-amnesty-ian
Judge accuses Obama lawyers of misleading him, refuses to restart amnesty
Federal judge refuses appeal to let deportation halt continue, relying on Obama’s own words
“President Obama’s new deportation amnesty will remain halted, a federal judge in Texas ruled Tuesday night in an order that also delivered a judicial spanking to the president’s lawyers for misleading the court. Judge Andrew S. Hanen, who first halted the amnesty in February, just two days before it was to take effect, said he’s even more convinced of his decision now, particularly after Mr. Obama earlier this year said he intends for his policies to supersede federal laws. Judge Hanen pointed to Mr. Obama’s comments at a February town hall when the president warned immigration agents to adhere to his policies or else face “consequences.” “In summary, the chief executive has ordered that the laws requiring removal of illegal immigrants that conflict with the 2014 DHS directive are not to be enforced, and that anyone who attempts to do so will be punished,” Judge Hanen wrote. “This is not merely ineffective enforcement. This is total non-enforcement,” the judge continued, saying that Mr. Obama’s own descriptions of how he is carrying out his policies have hurt his case. Mr. Obama in November announced a new amnesty for illegal immigrant parents whose children are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. The amnesty could apply to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/7/obama-motion-immediately-restart-amnesty-rejected-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
White House criticizes ruling on Obama’s immigration action
“A federal judge has wrongly prevented “lawful, commonsense policies” from taking effect by blocking President Barack Obama’s executive action that seeks to shield millions of immigrants from deportation, the White House said Wednesday. The administration released a statement criticizing U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s decision to keep a temporary hold on the president’s policies. The U.S. Department of Justice had asked Hanen to lift the stay, but the Texas judge refused in a ruling late Tuesday night. Hanen initially granted a preliminary injunction on Feb. 16 at the request of 26 states that oppose Obama’s action. The states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit challenging the order. Hanen’s latest ruling upholds the status quo: The Obama administration is temporarily barred from implementing policies that would allow as many as five million people in the U.S. illegally to remain. The Justice Department had already appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen’s injunction. The appeals court was scheduled to hear arguments April 17. In his order late Tuesday, Hanen said the government hasn’t “shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation.”…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/8/judge-denies-request-to-let-immigration-action-tak/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Team Obama fires back: Justice Dept. lawyers insist they didn’t lie to court over amnesty
“The Justice Department denied Wednesday that it had lied to a federal judge about President Obama’s deportation amnesty, with a spokeswoman saying they “emphatically disagree” with the court’s decision granting limited legal discovery requiring them to turn over private documents showing their decision-making in the case. The reaction came just hours after Judge Andrew S. Hanen said Justice Department lawyers misled him when they said none of the president’s new amnesty was in effect, when in actuality the immigration service was already granting an extended three-year amnesty to Dreamers. Judge Hanen also refused to lift his own injunction halting the amnesty, saying Mr. Obama’s own words have left the court even more convinced that the policy violates federal laws. Emily Pierce, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, took issue with both parts of the ruling. “We emphatically disagree with the district court’s order regarding the government’s statements,” she said, defending against the charges of misleading. As for the judge’s refusal to lift his own injunction, Ms. Pierce said the administration has already asked a federal appeals court to review that ruling, and they will “continue to pursue the appeal.”…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/8/justice-dept-lawyers-we-didnt-lie-about-amnesty/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Obama immigration battle moves to 5th Circuit after judge upholds stay
“The White House lashed out Wednesday at a federal judge in Texas who refused to lift his order putting President Obama’s executive action on immigration on hold, saying the court “has wrongly continued to prevent those lawful, common-sense policies from taking effect.” In a pair of rulings late Tuesday night, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen refused a government request to allow the Obama programs to resume while broader issues are being litigated. The move, which was expected, leaves the status of up to 5 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally unchanged. A coalition of 26 states led by Texas is fighting Obama’s executive action, announced in November. The action expanded the pool of people who could receive some legal immigration standing to include the parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Obama also wanted to increase from two years to three years the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, designed to help so-called Dreamers. “The district court in Texas has wrongly continued to prevent those lawful, common sense policies from taking effect — even in the many states where local leaders and law enforcement officials have said they support the executive actions and expect their communities to benefit from them,” said a White House representative speaking on background. “The Department of Justice has appealed the district court’s decision and sought an emergency stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.” Texas officials praised the rulings by Hanen, a sharp critic of immigration policies in the past. “As the judge has affirmed, once put into effect, President Obama’s executive amnesty program will be virtually impossible to reverse,” Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton said in a statement. “Any premature implementation could have serious consequences, inflicting irreparable harm on our state, and this ruling is key in determining the extent to which the federal government did not present the full truth in this case.”…”
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-immigration-ruling-20150408-story.html#page=1
Networks Ignore Judge Denying Obama Administration Request to Lift Injunction on Amnesty
http://cnsnews.com/video/newsbusters/networks-ignore-judge-denying-obama-administration-request-lift-injunction-amnesty
Liberal Law Profs Take Their Best Shot at Defending Obama’s Amnesty, Fail
The administration’s defenders make an unconvincing case.
“Recently, law professors from around the country published a statement calling Judge Andrew Hanen’s decision to enjoin President Obama’s amnesty decrees “deeply flawed” and legally suspect. In their letter, the professors target several passages from the February 16 opinion, including one questioning the Executive’s authority to apply deferred action on a mass scale. “The government must concede,” Judge Hanen wrote, “that there is no specific law or statute that authorizes DAPA.” But, the professors respond, “the government need not concede anything here, because there is strong legal authority for deferred action in general, and for DAPA and DACA in particular as forms of deferred action.” (Emphasis mine). To assert that deferred action needn’t have any statutory basis, the professors cite a Supreme Court decision from 1999, Reno v. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Commission. Their claim that Reno gives full enforcement-discretion to the Executive, is, however, in the words of attorney David Rivkin’s recent congressional testimony, “flat-out wrong.”…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416589/liberal-law-profs-take-their-best-shot-defending-obamas-amnesty-fail-ian-smith
403 HAVE APPLIED TO HAVE CENTRAL AMERICAN RELATIVES BROUGHT TO U.S. THROUGH OBAMA ADMIN PROGRAM, NO LIMIT ON APPROVALS
“More than 400 people have applied to have their children living in Central America be brought to the United States as refugees or parolees through the Obama administration’s recent Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole Program and there is no limit on the number of immigrants who could be approved, Breitbart News has learned. The State Department and Department of Homeland Security announced the — until recently — relatively obscure program in November following an unprecedented surge in unaccompanied minors illegally coming to the U.S. from Central America last year. The program began taking applications from parents seeking to bring their children living in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to the U.S. in December. “Its important to think of this as part, just part of, an integrated effort to stop children from coming illegally though Mexico here,” Simon Henshaw, the State Department’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, explained in an interview with Breitbart News. He pointed to other factors such as strengthening the U.S. border as well as collaboration with Mexico and Central America to improve economic and security conditions as part of the effort. Through the program, the Central American children of parents who are seen as lawfully present in the U.S. — including illegal immigrants who have been granted deferred status — can come to the U.S. as either refugees or parolees. The government has not set a limit on how many children can to come to the U.S. through the program. “It’s how many apply,” Henshaw said. “There is no cap. That being said, the numbers have been pretty low, actually lower than we expected so that hasn’t become an issue.” To be sure, there is a worldwide limit on how many refugees the U.S. accepts annually. “[T]he worldwide cap is 70,000 and any refugees from this program would be included in that number,” State Department spokesman Dan Langenkamp explained in an email to Breitbart News…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/08/403-have-applied-to-have-central-american-relatives-brought-to-u-s-through-obama-admin-program-no-limit-on-approvals/
Former DOJ Official: Non-Citizens Registered To Vote Through Motor Voter Registration Forms
“Local state government officials are registering non-U.S. citizens as valid voters — even when the non-citizens say they are not Americans on their voter registration forms, a former Justice Department attorney tells The Daily Caller. J. Christian Adams, a former United States Department of Justice official in the Civil Rights Division will show the Supreme Court in a brief later this month that non-citizens are registering to vote through the government’s motor voter program. The motor voter act became law during the Clinton administration as an easier way to register voters through their local Department of Motor Vehicles offices, but Adams says the program is failing to weed out those who are not American citizens. “The bigger problem is that when they get those drivers licenses, there’s a government social services agency that is compelled under motor voter to offer voter registration,” Adams says. “For example, I’m representing a client — the American Civil Rights Union. We’re about to file a brief to the Supreme Court that shows actual voter registrations of people who on their voter registration forms that they’re not citizens, but they’re still getting registered to vote.” Adams says they are going to file documents showing the names and addresses of non-citizens who were registered to vote, despite marking on forms they were not Americans, in their brief. Adams notified the Justice Department’s voting section and public integrity offices of the issue in letters sent to both DOJ divisions, but he says they have not acted on the information. TheDC sent an inquiry to the DOJ, but did not receive a response. “[These will be] the actual voter registrations forms through motor voter,” he said, noting, “The point is, because of motor voter in issuing these alien document cards, you’re going to have non-citizens moving on to the voter rolls. It’s inevitable,” said Adams noting, “The Justice Department protects the lawless, because there’s a political benefit to this administration to allow lawlessness to occur. Because if those people who lawlessly are on the voter rolls go to vote, there’s probably a 9 in 10 chance they’re voting for Democrats.”…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/former-doj-official-non-citizens-registered-to-vote-through-motor-voter-registration-forms/
States flouting post-9/11 ID law, giving cards to illegal immigrants that mirror licenses
“After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the REAL ID Act to prevent foreign nationals from fraudulently obtaining a U.S. driver’s license — by requiring that any ID issued based on unverifiable foreign documents look different in “design or color” from an official driver’s license. That way, TSA and other law enforcement would know the ID holder might not be who they say they are. But more than a decade later, several state and local governments are openly flouting the law, issuing ID cards that are barely distinguishable from a bona fide driver’s license. That means those with mere ID cards, like illegal immigrants, might be able to pass off their cards as a driver’s license at the airport and elsewhere — creating a huge gap in security. Examples include Washington, D.C., and Colorado. For card-holders in the nation’s capital, a small star in the corner is the only visual cue that distinguish