HEALTHCARE:
Obamacare is benefitting the biggest hospitals and insurers, and that’s not a good thing
“These days, when liberals defend Obamacare, they often say something along the lines of, Look, Obamacare can’t be that bad, even big business likes it! A writer at the liberal Mother Jones defended Obamacare by pointing out that the largest hospital chain in America is fighting to save the law. Wendell Potter, at the Center for Public Integrity, seems to think it’s a rebuke to Obamacare’s critics that the nation’s largest health insurer is making bank off the law: Anyone who still thinks the Affordable Care Act was a “government takeover of health care” should consider this headline from the news pages of last Thursday’s Investor’s Business Daily: UnitedHealth Profit Soars On Obamacare, Optum—April 16, 2015 That’s from a Wall Street publication whose editorial writers have rarely missed an opportunity to bash the health care reform law. This is an odd sort of reasoning: Growing profits of the biggest companies (often accompanied by industry consolidation) shows that federal regulation and subsidy of those industries is successful. Maybe this is how liberals think you argue like a conservative. On the other hand, it’s not altogether surprising to hear liberals, who tend to favor centralization and worry about the chaos of pluralism and competition, to applaud “rationalization” of industry through consolidation and stability in favor of diminished competition. And Obamacare, by all appearances, is a major factor in the industry’s push to consolidation. But consolidation in health care is dangerous. An op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, by physician Marty Makary, lays out the dangers of hospital consolidation: A study of more than 150 hospital-owned and physician-owned organizations published last October in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that patient costs are 19.8 percent higher for physician groups in multi-hospital systems compared with physician-owned organization…. As a busy surgeon, I have serious concerns about the race to consolidate America’s hospitals because of the risk that very large organizations may govern without valuing the wisdom of their front-line employees. Big Government often benefits Big Business to the detriment of competition, and thus consumers…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-is-benefitting-the-biggest-hospitals-and-insurers-and-thats-not-a-good-thing/article/2563308?custom_click=rss
Obamacare Is Paying Hospitals to Make Patients Happy. It’s Actually a Horrible Thing.
“The customer is always right? Not when it comes to hospitals. In 2012, Obamacare rules forced Medicare to start paying hospitals some $850 million less — the deal being that the money would be returned, with bonuses, to hospitals that got high marks from patients on satisfaction surveys while hospitals with low scores would be penalized. But there’s a huge problem: Happy patients aren’t healthier. They actually tend to die sooner. Alexandra Robbins laid out the perverse situation in the Atlantic Friday, explaining how patients would give hospitals bad scores for really dumb reasons. She wrote: The vast majority of the thirty-two-question survey, known as HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) addresses nursing care. For example, in a section about nurses, the survey asks, “During this hospital stay, after you pressed the call button, how often did you get help as soon as you wanted it?” Patients have complained on the survey, which in previous incarnations included comments sections, about everything from “My roommate was dying all night and his breathing was very noisy” to “The hospital doesn’t have Splenda.” A nurse at the New Jersey hospital lacking Splenda said, “This somehow became the fault of the nurse and ended up being placed in her personnel file.” An Oregon critical-care nurse had to argue with a patient who believed he was being mistreated because he didn’t get enough pastrami on his sandwich (he had recently had quadruple-bypass surgery). “Many patients have unrealistic expectations for their care and their outcomes,” the nurse said. A 2012 study, conducted by University of California, Davis, professor Joshua Fenton, found that highly satisfied patients actually cost more health care resources than dissatisfied patients. The study also found that satisfied patients were more likely to die within four years. Fenton speculated that basing doctors’ pay on patient happiness could lead to doctors being less honest with patients and not bringing up uncomfortable topics such as quitting smoking or losing weight…”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/20/obamacare-is-paying-hospitals-to-make-patients-happy-its-actually-a-horrible-thing/
Private Insurance Exchanges Thrive While Obamacare’s Falter
“The federal government is desperate for Americans to enroll in Obamacare’s exchanges. But most people have refused. When the exchanges officially closed in February, the U.S. Treasury estimated that there were still some 6 million people who would have to pay the penalty established by Obamacare for going without insurance. So the White House re-opened the marketplaces for an extra six weeks to try to entice them. According to the latest government data, just 36,000 people have taken advantage of the extension. While these public exchanges stumble, private exchanges are thriving. They offer companies and patients access to high-quality care at reduced cost. Yet these private exchanges — like so much else that’s actually working in the private healthcare market — are at risk because of the heavy government hand of Obamacare. Private exchanges benefit both employers and workers. For starters, they free companies from the logistical burden of administering health plans. Private exchanges also empower employees to take control of their health care. Shoppers can often choose from among multiple health plans. Insurers have to keep costs down — and quality up — to attract customers. Companies typically provide their workers a fixed amount toward coverage. Employees then pick the plan that best meets their personal financial and health needs. Private exchanges aren’t new. Companies like eHealth Insurance, GetInsured, and GoHealth, have successfully run online markets for years. By the time Obamacare opened its exchanges in 2013, these three companies already had a combined 32 years of experience. In fact, when HealthCare.gov was floundering in 2013, eHealth offered to lend its expertise to the federal government. “We are ready to help you get this program back on track promptly,” said CEO Gary Lauer in a letter to the president. The government demurred. Employers are moving in droves towards private exchanges…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2015/04/20/private-insurance-exchanges-thrive-while-obamacares-falter/
Affordable Care Act contractor logs 13,000 hours in overtime
“Documents show a Wentzville processing facility for Affordable Care Act applications logged more than 13,000 hours of overtime to make up for a backlog after the initial sign-up period. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (http://bit.ly/1Jm4dCO ) obtained documents showing that workers at the facility run by Serco Inc. logged the hours from May 1 through Aug. 15 of last year. Serco runs the facility for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The company was awarded a five-year contract worth up to $1.2 billion. Agency spokesman Aaron Albright says the cost of that overtime was covered under the contractor’s original contract, and did not cost taxpayers any extra money. He said last year the same computer issues that hampered applicants trying to sign up for health care also delayed their processing work. The Wentzville facility was created to process paper applications and to help resolve any differences in documents for people who sought coverage under the Affordable Care Act. In an August report, Serco said that it was not until May, eight months after the initial application process began, that the system was functional enough to process inconsistencies….”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/affordable-care-act-contractor-logs-13000-hours-in/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Incompetence, Mismanagement Plague California’s Obamacare Insurance Exchange
“California’s health insurance exchange, established under the Affordable Care Act, has been held out as a national model for Obamacare. In some ways—not all of them good—it is. Whether it’s falling far short of 2015 enrollment goals or sending out 100,000 inaccurate tax forms, Covered California is struggling with its share of challenges. Now, several senior-level officials integral to the launch of Covered California—who enthusiastically support the Affordable Care Act—are speaking about what they view as gross incompetence and mismanagement involving some of the $1 billion federal tax dollars poured into the state effort. ‘Somebody Must Have Been Smoking Something’ Consultant Aiden Hill became a “foxhole convert” to Obamacare in July of 2010 when he lost his insurance, had a serious medical issue and couldn’t get a new policy. “I lived through a health care nightmare. That’s one reason why I took a cut in my pay rate to work for Covered California.” In March 2013, Hill was hired as project manager over Covered California’s massive $120 million call center effort. In just six short months, it would face an avalanche of customers seeking insurance mandated under the new law. But five months on the job converted Hill from avid supporter to disenchanted whistleblower. He says the secretive and dysfunctional culture was more interested in cheerleading than real results. After he persistently raised concerns, Covered California abruptly terminated his contract. He says the experience drove him to raise allegations about waste and cover ups at a Covered California board meeting…”
http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/20/incompetence-mismanagement-plague-californias-obamacare-insurance-exchange/
ObamaCare court fight escalates
“The fight over ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion escalated Monday, as Texas’s Republican governor backed a lawsuit from Florida fighting the expansion effort. Last week, Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott announced he would sue the Obama administration over what he calls an effort to force the state to expand Medicaid under ObamaCare. Texas’s Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday announced his support for the lawsuit. “When the federal government exceeds its constitutional authority, the States must take action,” Abbott said in a statement. “[I] commend Governor Rick Scott’s decision to take legal action to protect these important constitutional principles.” At issue is the Obama administration move to link Florida’s rejection of a Medicaid expansion to separate federal funding that helps hospitals in the state care for the uninsured. The administration says that Florida’s funding will not be extended in its current form past its expiration date in June, noting that the funding should not be used for costs that would otherwise be covered by Medicaid in an expansion. The administration argues it is better to provide coverage in the first place through Medicaid than to fund hospitals’ care of the uninsured. It has left open the door to provide funds for leftover costs not covered by Medicaid expansion. Scott argues the move is an effort to force the state to expand Medicaid, in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 ObamaCare decision, which gave states a choice. “It is appalling that President Obama would cut off federal healthcare dollars to Florida in an effort to force our state further into ObamaCare,” Scott said last week. Texas came into the picture when the Obama administration delivered a similar message there on Thursday, raising pressure on the state to expand Medicaid. Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the federal Medicaid agency, said the principles given to Florida apply in Texas and other states as well. “We will also use these principles in considering similar proposals in other states, but discussions with each state will also take into account state specific circumstances,” he said. But Governor Abbott made clear in the statement Monday that he remains firmly against Medicaid expansion, and also objects to the Obama administration’s tactics. “Medicaid expansion is wrong for Texas,” he said…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/239404-obamacare-fight-escalates-as-texas-backs-florida-lawsuit
PRINCETON PROF: KILL SEVERELY DISABLED INFANTS UNDER OBAMACARE
‘We are already taking steps’
“In a radio interview Sunday, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies. Singer contended the health-care system under Obamacare should be more overt about rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.” Throughout the interview, Singer repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as “it.” Singer was speaking on the “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM. The Princeton professor is known for his controversial views on abortion and infanticide. He essentially argues the right to life is related to a being’s capacity for intelligence and to hold life preferences, which in turn is directly related to a capacity to feel and comprehend pain and pleasure. Klein’s interview with Singer started out on the topic of the professor’s new book about charity, “The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.” The conversation turned to the issue of terminating disabled infants when Klein asked whether the Singer believes health-care rationing under Obamacare will become more prevalent. Singer told Klein rationing is already happening, explaining doctors and hospitals routinely make decisions based on costs. “It’s different in the U.S. system, in a way, because it doesn’t do this overtly; maybe it doesn’t do it as much. And the result is it spends about twice as much on health care as some other countries for very little extra benefit in terms of the outcome.” Klein quoted from a section of Singer’s 1993 treatise “Practical Ethics,” titled “Taking Life: Humans.” In the section, Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.” For Singer, the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and human. Instead, Singer argued it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference.” Asked whether he envisions denying treatment to disabled infants to become more common in the U.S. under the new health-care law, Singer replied: “It does happen. Not necessarily because of costs.” He continued: “If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother, it won’t be able to interact with any other human being, it will just lie there in the bed and you could feed it but that’s all that will happen, doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive. I don’t know whether they are influenced by reducing costs. Probably they are just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after, and there will be no quality of life for the child. So we are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants…”
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/princeton-prof-kill-severely-disabled-infants-under-obamacare/
Seeking Obamacare alternative, Republicans eye tax credits
“If the U.S. Supreme Court blows up the tax subsidies at the heart of Obamacare in June, Republicans hope to deliver on their promise to offer an alternative healthcare plan. But key parts of it may resemble the one President Barack Obama delivered five years ago in the Affordable Care Act, partly reflecting Republican concerns that they could pay a political price if insurance subsidies are yanked from millions of Americans later this year. Two front-running Republican options at an early stage in Congress include a refundable tax credit that experts say is virtually the same thing as the Obamacare tax subsidy being challenged before the Supreme Court. Republicans deny that their ideas are tantamount to “Obamacare Lite” but acknowledge they will need bipartisan support for their plans to stand any chance of avoiding an Obama veto. “It’s not going to be like Obamacare, in my opinion,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, whose plan includes a refundable tax credit for low-and middle-income Americans. “It’s not a literal subsidy, it’s a recognition that they should have this credit.” Republicans have been vowing for years to repeal and replace Obamacare, the president’s signature policy achievement that Democrats passed in 2010 over united Republican opposition. Democrats say the act is insuring more Americans and helping to slow the growth in healthcare spending. Conservatives call Obamacare a government overreach that drives up health costs. They object to its mandates — that everyone have insurance, that employers offer it, and that insurance plans must cover certain items. But Republicans have never united around a replacement strategy. There is renewed interest in producing one now, however, to be ready if the Court rules for the plaintiffs in the current Obamacare case and disallows tax subsidies through the federal exchange in a ruling expected in June….”
http://news.yahoo.com/seeking-obamacare-alternative-republicans-eye-tax-credits-052935279–sector.html
Hey, that GOP Obamacare alternative sure looks a lot like Obamacare
“Republicans have a plan if the Supreme Court guts Obamacare this summer by stripping the government of the ability to provide to the states that declined to set up insurance exchanges with federal subsidies… and it looks quite a bit like Obamacare. If the Court does interpret the Affordable Care Act literally, then it will compel the federal government to withdraw subsidies from millions of Obamacare beneficiaries. That will make the health coverage those individuals obtained through the ACA in recent years prohibitively expensive, and many will find themselves once again uninsured. This is a double-edged sword for Republicans. In this scenario, the ACA would be functionally repelled, and it would fall on Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress to pick up the pieces. There would also be immense political pressure on those GOP-led states that declined to set up their own exchanges to do so immediately in order to receive federal insurance subsidies. Congressional Republicans would find themselves equally compelled to restore those subsidies immediately amid a deluge of press reports that focus on the lamentable plight of those who lost their health coverage with the stroke of a pen. The Congressional GOP seems aware of this condition, and they are preemptively addressing it by creating a backstop in the event that the Court stripes the ACA of some federal subsidies. Conservatives will be disappointed, however, by the fact that this backstop looks quite a bit like the current incarnation of the ACA…”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/20/hey-that-gop-obamacare-alternative-sure-looks-a-lot-like-obamacare/
68K sign up during ObamaCare’s extra period
“More than 68,000 people have signed up for healthcare during ObamaCare’s extra enrollment period so far this year, the federal government announced Monday. People who lack insurance have 10 more days to buy coverage through the federal marketplace to avoid next year’s penalty, which will rise to at least $325 a person. The Obama administration announced in February that it would give people a second chance to buy coverage if they learned about the fee for the first time while paying their taxes. While officials had not said how many people they expected to sign up during the special enrollment period, the current tally is a small fraction of the administration’s previous estimates that as many as 6 million people could pay the penalty. The enrollment period runs from March 15 to April 30. About 36,000 people had signed up during the first two weeks of the enrollment period. “We hope uninsured tax filers take the next few days to learn about the options and financial assistance that is available and to enroll in a plan that meets their needs — rather than taking the risk of choosing to get by without insurance for another year,” HealthCare.gov CEO Kevin Counihan wrote in a statement. This year is the first time that ObamaCare’s individual mandate penalty goes into effect. Critics had complained that ObamaCare’s original deadline was Feb. 15 — several weeks before the end of tax season on April 15, which meant some people may not have known about the 2015 tax until it was too late to sign up. Lack of awareness about the ObamaCare penalty has been a major problem for the administration: A survey of uninsured people earlier this year found that about half of people knew nothing or little about ObamaCare’s penalties. The 2014 fee amounts to $95 a person or 1 percent of household income. Next year’s fee will rise to $325 per person or 2 percent of household income…”
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/239438-70k-sign-up-during-obamacares-extra-enrollment-period
Waivers may give next president way out of health care feuds
“Republican or Democrat, the next president will have the chance to remake the nation’s health care overhaul without fighting Congress. The law signed by President Barack Obama includes a waiver that, starting in 2017, would let states take federal dollars now invested in the overhaul and use them to redesign their own health care systems. States could not repeal some things, such as the requirement that insurance companies cover people with health problems. But they could replace the law’s unpopular mandate that virtually everyone in the country has health insurance, provided the alternative worked reasonably well. A Democrat in the White House probably would use the waiver to build bridges to Republican governors and state legislators opposed to the law. The “state innovation” provision, Section 1332 of the nearly 1,000-page law, has gotten little public attention. But “you would be hard pressed to find a state that doesn’t know what Section 1332 is,” said Trish Riley, executive director the National Academy for State Health Policy, a nonpartisan forum for state policymakers. “It provides some opportunity for taking the rough edges” off the Affordable Care Act, as the law is known. For a Republican president, state waivers could be the fallback option to avoid the political cost of dismantling Obama’s law and disrupting or jeopardizing coverage for millions of newly insured people, not to mention the upheaval for insurers, hospitals and doctors…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/waivers-may-give-next-president-way-out-of-health-/
The next president will be able to overhaul Obamacare without having to go through Congress
“Republican or Democrat, the next president will have the chance to remake the nation’s health care overhaul without fighting Congress. The law signed by President Barack Obama includes a waiver that, starting in 2017, would let states take federal dollars now invested in the overhaul and use them to redesign their own health care systems. States could not repeal some things, such as the requirement that insurance companies cover people with health problems. But they could replace the law’s unpopular mandate that virtually everyone in the country has health insurance, provided the alternative worked reasonably well. A Democrat in the White House probably would use the waiver to build bridges to Republican governors and state legislators opposed to the law. The “state innovation” provision, Section 1332 of the nearly 1,000-page law, has gotten little public attention. But “you would be hard pressed to find a state that doesn’t know what Section 1332 is,” said Trish Riley, executive director the National Academy for State Health Policy, a nonpartisan forum for state policymakers. “It provides some opportunity for taking the rough edges” off the Affordable Care Act, as the law is known. For a Republican president, state waivers could be the fallback option to avoid the political cost of dismantling Obama’s law and disrupting or jeopardizing coverage for millions of newly insured people, not to mention the upheaval for insurers, hospitals and doctors. “If you were a Republican on record as opposing or wanting to repeal the ACA, but really felt deep down that you couldn’t accomplish that even as president, then you could say your second preference would be to use this provision to go down a completely different road,” said Stuart Butler, a health policy expert at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution. Butler, who was with the conservative Heritage Foundation for 35 years, has long been a voice for Republican thinking on health care policy. “The short answer is, this presents a tremendous opportunity for either party,” he said. The state waiver was the idea of Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, who has a record of crossing party lines in search of ways to tackle health care costs and coverage. Waivers would not be a blank check. In addition to preserving the health care law’s protection for people with health problems, states would have to cover about the same number of residents while providing comprehensive benefits and financial safeguards against ruinous costs. States also could not add to the federal deficit…”
http://www.businessinsider.com/next-president-will-be-able-to-overhaul-obamacare-without-congress-2015-4
IMMIGRATION:
U.S. sends illegal immigrants home on expensive charter flights that are largely empty
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement may be wasting loads of money flying illegal immigrants home on expensive but largely empty charter flights, according to federal auditors. A recent review by the the Department of Homeland Security inspector general’s office found that better logistical planning for deportation flights could have saved ICE up to $41 million. The watchdog agency said in a report this month that ICE spent $12 million on charter flights that were less than 40 percent full between October 2010 and March 2014. All told, auditors found that ICE, which falls under Homeland Security, spent about $116 million on flights that were at least 20 percent under full capacity. Of the nearly 7,500 flights they reviewed, more than one-third were less than 80 percent full. The report concluded that ICE “may have been able to transport the same number of detainees with fewer missions at a lower charter air cost.” ICE has access to eight charter aircraft, each of which can hold up to 135 detainees. The agency pays about $8,400 per hour for the flights, regardless of how many passengers are aboard. Not all detainees fly home on charter flights. ICE transports some of them on commercial airlines, depending upon country of citizenship, criminal status, family situation and other factors. Auditors found that ICE “does not capture complete and accurate data essential to support operational decisions and ensure effectiveness.”…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/04/20/u-s-sends-illegal-immigrants-home-on-expensive-charter-flights-that-are-largely-empty/?wprss=rss_politics
US Deports Illegal Immigrants On Expensive, Inefficient Charter Flights
“The U.S. immigration agency is likely wasting tens of millions of dollars transporting and deporting illegal immigrants on expensive charter flights, a recent Inspector General report found. If the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Air Operations operated more efficiently, it might have saved taxpayers $41.1 million from October 2010 to March 2014, the Department of Homeland Security IG found. ICE AIR is tasked with relocating illegal immigrants within the U.S. and back to their country of origin, and spent about half of its $1 billion budget providing expensive charter flights — often below capacity — for hundreds of thousands of detainees over the three-and-a-half year review period. Thirty-seven percent of the 135-seat flights operated at less than 80 percent capacity, the review found. Each flight costs $8,419 per flight hour, regardless of the number of passengers, and if ICE AIR had simply filled all the seats on every flight it could have saved an estimated $41.1 million…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/20/us-deportation-charter-flights/
White House unmoved by court action on immigration
“White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Monday sounded bullish about a program granting work permits to millions of illegal immigrants going into effect, even as President Obama faces larger hurdles to launching the programs. The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans in a hearing Friday sounded particularly skeptical of the Obama administration’s attempts to move ahead on new protections for up to 5 million illegal immigrants. The ruling by the judicial panel — the most conservative circuit court nationwide — is expected in coming weeks. The White House could be forced to turn to the Supreme Court to lift the stay if the New Orleans court issues an unfavorable ruling. Some immigration advocates have expressed concern that the legal challenges could keep Obama from implementing the programs before leaving office or deter eligible, illegal immigrants from signing up for the quasi-legal status. A future Republican president could undo Obama’s program, which lacks the permanence of legislation. “We feel very confident in the strength of the legal arguments,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Monday. “We’re going to make those arguments aggressively and urge the court to act quickly.” Texas Judge Andrew Hanen effectively halted Obama’s immigration efforts in February, saying a collection of red-leaning states should be allowed to pursue a lawsuit before the federal government starts the programs…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-unmoved-by-court-action-on-immigration/article/2563320?custom_click=rss
REPORT: ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT NABBED USING BORDER PATROL AGENT’S STOLEN IDENTITY
“Oops! Turns out it is not a good idea to steal the identity of a Border Patrol agent — especially if you are an illegal immigrant trying to use that identity to lie to Border Patrol officers. Orlando Castaneda-Diaz, a Mexican national who illegally entered the U.S. last week, learned that lesson the hard way. Border Patrol apprehended Castaneda-Diaz at the Falfurrias, Texas checkpoint Thursday after officers recognized the individual on the Texas driver’s license Castaneda-Diaz presented to them as a fellow Falfurrias area Border Patrol agent, identified as “David”, according to a local KGBT-TV report. Once Border Patrol brought Castaneda-Diaz in for questioning, he admitted he was an illegal immigrant from Mexico and agents also found a Social Security card and birth certificate with agent “David’s” name on them in Castaneda-Diaz’s wallet. In a redacted — to shield the identity of officer “David” — federal court account of the incident published by KGBT-TV, Diaz admitted he purchased the documents in Matamoros, Mexico for $2,000 and shaved his hair to look more like agent “David’s” picture on the Texas drivers’ license. According to the report, Castaneda-Diaz has been charged with making a false claim to U.S. citizenship and has a detention hearing this week…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/20/report-illegal-immigrant-nabbed-using-border-patrol-agents-stolen-identity/
MORRIS: OBAMA SNEAKING IN ‘UNRESTRICTED IMMIGRATION’ IN TPA TRADE DEAL
“Monday on Newmax TV’s “America’s Forum,” political commentator Dick Morris said the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPA) fast track being supported by many Republicans has a provision that allows for the “free flow of workers” between countries, essentially creating a backdoor to “unrestricted immigration.” Morris said, “This is huge. I hope everybody listening takes action call your senator about it. If he is a Republican he is voting wrong. “I dont think that people understand that in this deal which is a trade agreement among Australia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Japan, Canada, the United States, Mexico, Peru, and Chile, there’s a provision for free flow of workers, just like in the European Union. What It means is unrestricted immigration. It means literally that congress would not have the authority to restrict immigration because a treaty supersedes a statute under our constitution.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/04/20/morris-obama-sneaking-in-unrestricted-immigration-in-tpa-trade-deal/
Sen. Lee: Delay on Lynch Confirmation Less ‘Ridiculous’ Than Obama ‘Rewriting Immigration Law’
http://cnsnews.com/video/cnsnews/sen-lee-delay-lynch-confirmation-less-ridiculous-obama-rewriting-immigration-law
[Nevada] Senate OKs bill urging Congress to pass immigration reform
“Nevada senators have passed a nonbinding measure that urges Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Senate Joint Resolution 21 passed unanimously on Monday. It now heads to the Assembly for review. The measure seeks changes that would implement a guest worker program and create a pathway to citizenship for legalized immigrants. The Legislature does not have the power to change immigration law, but Democratic Sen. Mo Denis said the measure would respectfully ask congressional representatives to do so. Opponents have said they would be more open to the measures described in the resolution if the borders weren’t so porous…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/senate-oks-bill-urging-congress-to-pass-immigratio/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
[Texas] Senate OKs border security bill without immigrant crackdowns
“A sweeping border security package that is a priority of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has passed the Senate without divisive immigrant crackdowns. Republican state Sen. Brian Birdwell said Monday he wouldn’t allow contentious “sanctuary cities” or anti-Texas DREAM Act proposals to be tacked onto the main border security bill that now moves closer to Abbott’s desk. “Sanctuary cities” has become Republican shorthand to describe local governments that forbid police from asking about a person’s immigration status. Some Senate Republicans want the state to punish those cities and repeal in-state tuition for college students who were brought into the country illegally as children. But there is little sign of support for those proposals in the House. The price tag on border security is poised to at least double under Abbott…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/senate-oks-border-security-bill-without-immigrant-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces contempt hearing in profiling case
“Joe Arpaio, the defiant Arizona sheriff known for his immigration crackdowns, faces hearings beginning Tuesday over whether he should be held in contempt of court for disobeying a judge’s orders in a racial profiling case. The hearings mark the boldest attempt to hold Arpaio personally responsible for his actions since his get-tough jail policies and immigration patrols made him a national political figure and brought a spate of lawsuits. Arpaio has survived many legal and political storms during his 22-year career and defied predictions that his troubles in court would cost him his post as metro Phoenix’s chief law enforcer. The contempt case differs from others against Arpaio. The judge has made it clear that the sheriff, whose past legal bills and settlements have been picked up by taxpayers, will have to pay a fine out of his own pocket to atone for his acknowledged violations. Other punishments could come into play, too…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/sheriff-joe-arpaio-faces-contempt-hearing-in-profi/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Records: Mexican immigrant stole Border Patrol agent’s identity
“When Border Patrol agents checked a bus passenger’s papers at the Falfurrias checkpoint last week, they did a double-take. The bus passenger handed them a driver’s license identifying himself as David, a 34-year-old man from Edinburg, according to federal court records. Along with the driver’s license, the man had a birth certificate and a Social Security card identifying him as David. Border Patrol agents working the checkpoint at 1 a.m. Thursday, though, knew David — and he wasn’t the guy on the bus. They would have recognized him: David is a fellow Border Patrol agent assigned to the Falfurrias area, according to federal court records. Border Patrol agents pulled the passenger off the Houston-bound bus and took him to the Falfurrias Station for questioning. The man admitted he was actually 24-year-old Orlando Castaneda-Diaz, a Mexican citizen who claimed to have illegally crossed the border on April 12, according to the federal criminal complaint against him. Castaneda-Diaz said he bought the documents from a man in Matamoros for $2,000, according to the criminal complaint, and had never met the real David. The real David, who KGBT-TV reached through National Border Patrol Council Local 3307 — the union that represents agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector — asked to be identified by his middle name to protect his privacy. Border Patrol agents arrested Castaneda-Diaz and contacted the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Security Bureau. Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby charged Castaneda-Diaz with making a false claim to United States citizenship and scheduled a detention hearing for Wednesday. Neither Castaneda-Diaz’s attorney nor a local Border Patrol spokesman immediately responded to requests for comment Sunday afternoon and Monday morning…”
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1193597
Bob Schieffer to Rubio: As president, would you sign the immigration bill you helped pass in the Senate?
“Rubio’s right that this is a hypothetical and that nothing like the Gang of Eight bill could pass the House right now. But Mickey Kaus is right that it’s a darned fine gotcha, a way to gauge how far Rubio’s willing to go in renouncing his signature “achievement” as a senator. What if Rubio defeated Hillary next year and the party’s leadership decided to capitalize by doing something splashy to show Latino voters that the new, Rubio-led GOP was ready to engage them like never before? A bill like the Gang of Eight bill getting past the House isn’t inconceivable under those circumstances; if the new president wanted to give political cover to fencesitters in the House by backing the bill publicly himself, it might shake loose enough Republicans to get to 218 with Democratic help. Remember, Rubio’s main argument against comprehensive reform at the moment is that it’s politically impossible, and therefore pointless to waste more time on it since Congress will never have the votes to do it. A trailblazing new president might change that equation. So, again: Would he sign the bill? The fact that he won’t answer illustrates the primary/general straddle he’s trying to pull off. He won’t say yes because he knows that re-embracing the Gang of Eight at this point would horrify wary border hawks who are wondering whether to give him a second chance. But he won’t say no because, if he becomes nominee, he wants Latino voters and other pro-amnesty swing-staters to hold out hope that he might deliver on comprehensive reform as nominee. I wonder if some crafty moderator like Hugh Hewitt will pose this question to the field at one of the debates, receiving a drumbeat of no’s onstage until Rubio meekly pipes up, “That’s a hypothetical.” (Actually, Jeb would sign the Gang of Eight bill, right?) The plan he offers Schieffer here in lieu of a straight answer sounds better than the Senate bill. Security must be “achieved” first (does that mean merely passing a security bill first or actually implementing the provisions?), then comes a reform bill to make immigration law more merit-based, and finally illegals get legalized — with citizenship a possibility years down the line. I wonder how many righties, having heard about Rubio’s about-face on the Gang of Eight bill, took that to mean he no longer supported legalization at all. Surprise! Schieffer misses an obvious follow-up, though: What happens if, as is certain, Democrats retain more than 41 seats in the Senate in 2017 and filibuster a security-first bill on grounds that they’ll accept nothing less than comprehensive reform? Is the first Latino president prepared to be demagogued from here to eternity for making his first immigration move as president a move to strengthen internal enforcement against illegals? What happens if, as is quite possible, Democrats do well enough next year to actually win back a majority of the Senate? Chuck Schumer isn’t going to start his tenure as majority leader by selling out the left’s pro-amnesty base in a deal with Rubio on border security, especially given the panic Democrats will feel from having lost the presidency to a Republican Latino candidate. They’ll be more eager than ever to re-ingratiate themselves with Latino voters. And, Schumer being Schumer, I’m sure he’d love to stick it to Rubio after Rubio abandoned the Gang of Eight by offering him a simple deal — namely, Senate Democrats will agree to the very same immigration bill that Senator Marco Rubio voted for, nothing more or less. If the House won’t agree to that, that’s fine; Schumer will be happy to watch President Rubio squirm as he’s forced to take sides with House Republicans against a bill that, uh, he himself helped write and championed for months…”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/20/bob-schieffer-to-rubio-as-president-would-you-sign-the-immigration-bill-you-helped-pass-in-the-senate/
Rubio lays out immigration strategy, denies rift with Jeb Bush
“Republican presidential candidate and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio laid out his plans for immigration reform this weekend during an appearance on a Sunday morning talk show – saying that any moves need to be done in a piecemeal fashion, instead of the sweeping legislation proposed by President Barack Obama. Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Rubio said that securing the border and getting Congress to pass a bill that puts in place E-Verify, an entry-exit tracking to prevent visa overstays, would be his first move toward immigration reform if he won the presidency. “Once we achieve that, step two would be we would modernize our legal immigration system – [make it] less family-based, more merit-based,” he said. “And then the third step would be to pass the bill that goes to the 10 million people that are here or 12 million that are here illegally.” Rubio added, “If they have been here for longer than a decade, they have to pass a background check, they have to learn English, they have to pay taxes, they have to pay a fine. And they would get a work permit.” During the interview, the Florida lawmaker spoke on a number of issues, from gay marriage (“I believe that sexual preference is something that people are born with”) to Iran (“Iran’s hegemonic ambitions present a threat to our homeland”). He was also questioned about his relationship with presumed presidential rival, Jeb Bush. The former Florida governor once viewed Rubio as a protégé, but ties between the two politicians have become strained as campaign season ramps up. For his part, Rubio downplayed reports of animosity between the two and noted that there are many people running for the Republican nomination. “There comes a point in time where if you have an opportunity to serve your country legitimately, a legitimate opportunity to serve your country as its highest office, especially someone like me that feels a tremendous debt to America, it’s an opportunity I had to take seriously,” Rubio said. “But at the end of the day, it won’t change how I feel about Governor Bush. He will remain my friend and someone I admire, both personally and politically.”…”
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/04/20/rubio-lays-out-immigration-strategy-denies-rfit-with-jeb-bush/
We Need Some Yes/No Answers from Rubio on Immigration
“Like Patrick, I too am encouraged by Rubio’s seeming commitment to Enforcement First. But whether it’s the real thing or just a con hinges on one question: Is he proposing to fully implement universal E-Verify and visa-tracking before asking Congress to grant amnesty to today’s illegals, or just pass legislation calling for enforcement. If it’s the first, then I’m for it — though since he’s taken pretty much every position one can take on immigration at one time or another, it’s not like I actually trust him. But if his idea of Enforcement First is simply passing a bill on it, to be followed in short order by another bill offering legal status to illegals, then it’s just the piecemeal version of the Gang of Eight trick. One of the purposes of a primary campaign is to try to pin down slippery politicians on just this kind of point. On the plus side, he seems to have said the right thing to Byron York: Once it’s in place, and people see that it is working and is actually being applied, then I think people would be willing to have a serious and responsible conversation about how to address the millions of people who are here illegally. On the minus side, he refused to directly answer Bob Schieffer’s straightforward question on whether as president he’d sign the Schumer-Rubio bill which he has supposedly repudiated: “That’s a hypothetical that will never happen.” Sorry, but that’s something that can — must — be addressed with a ”yes” or “no” response, one that won’t lose anything in translation…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/417187/we-need-some-yesno-answers-rubio-immigration-mark-krikorian
SCOTT WALKER LAYS OUT PRO AMERICAN WORKER STANCE ON IMMIGRATION
“Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate, pledged to protect American workers from the economic effects, not only of illegal immigration but also of a massive increase in legal immigration. During an interview with Glenn Beck, Walker became the first declared or potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate to stake out a position on immigration fully in line with that of Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He also noted that he has been working with Chairman Sessions on the issue to learn more about it. Walker is now the only potential or declared GOP presidential candidate to discuss the negative effects of a massive increase in legal immigration on American workers: In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying—the next president and the next congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages, because the more I’ve talked to folks, I’ve talked to Senator Sessions and others out there—but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today—is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward. Walker discussed how in the past he did support amnesty, but says he doesn’t anymore, because he has learned more about the issue. That shows him to be one of the most open-minded GOP candidates on such matters. Walker went on to say: As I said, I think when Chris Wallace a few weeks back, when I was on Fox News Sunday, asked me about this, he said. ‘did you change your position at least from some of these views from a decade ago’ and I said, ‘yeah.’ I think the American people not only want people who stand firm on issues, but people who listen to folks who have got rational thoughts and for me a lot of it was talking not just to citizens all across the country but to governors in border states who face real serious concerns about what’s happening on our border and elsewhere…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/20/scott-walker-lays-out-pro-american-worker-stance-on-immigration/
Chris Christie takes a moderate stance on immigration
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/04/20/chris-christie-stance-on-immigration/26103865/
SPENDING/BUDGET/ECONOMY:
Congress joint budget deal could pave path to Obamacare repeal
“House and Senate lawmakers Monday sat down to work on a compromise budget blueprint that could pave the way to repeal of the Affordable Care Act. “Repealing the president’s health care law would pave the way to starting over on patient-centered health care reform where patients and families and doctors are making medical decisions, not Washington, D.C.,” House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., said. The Senate-House Budget Conference Committee held its first meeting aimed at reconciling the differences between the two budgets, authored by Republican majorities in both chambers. A key element of both plans is a provision that would allow the Senate to repeal Obamacare with just 51 votes, rather than the usual 60 votes. “After weeks of hard work, the House and the Senate approved our respective budgets last month, both of which were balanced-budget proposals,” Price said. “And now, we’re here to continue that work and find an agreement on a unified budget resolution.” The House and Senate plans are similar. Both cut more than $5 trillion from federal spending in about a decade and both provide nearly $40 billion in additional funding for the Pentagon that is not offset by other cuts and will add to the deficit. But there are also important differences between the House and Senate budgets. The House budget turns Medicaid into a block grant program in order to reduce costs, and Medicare would be converted to a voucher system with cuts amounting to $148 billion. The Senate plan matches President Obama’s budget, which reduces Medicare spending over a decade by $431 billion. The Senate plan does not make changes to those programs. Both budgets provide language allowing a 51-vote Obamacare repeal in the Senate. The Senate version also provides reconciliation instructions to the Senate Finance Committee to pass a tax reform bill….”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/congress-joint-budget-deal-could-pave-path-to-obamacare-repeal/article/2563336
House, Senate closer to smoothing budget differences
Showdowns loom over Obamacare, Pentagon
“The House and Senate began to smooth out their differences Monday over federal spending in 2016 and beyond, paving the way for showdowns between majority Republicans and President Obama over Obamacare, whether to slash health and welfare programs instead of raising taxes, and how to bolster the Pentagon without running afoul of spending caps the lawmakers agreed to years ago. Republican lawmakers in charge of the negotiations said it was time for Congress to finalize a budget, period, and define a path toward spending bills that put fiscal solvency ahead of new taxes and spending. “Our work today and in the coming weeks will show hardworking taxpayers that Congress is committed to a government that’s more effective and more accountable,” said Sen. Mike Enzi, Wyoming Republican and Senate Budget Committee chairman. “Our fiscal outlook is grim and has been ignored for far too long.” The House plan, written by Budget Chairman Tom Price, calls for spending $5.5 trillion less than currently projected over the next decade, while the Senate plan from Mr. Enzi would spend $5.1 trillion less. Senators resisted sweeping changes to Medicare, although the House plan would eventually turn the health program for seniors into a voucher-system. A unified budget would be Congress’s first since 2009 — a plan that helped ease passage of Obamacare — and Republicans hope this one will create a path to repealing that same law, as well as eliminating annual deficits within a decade. “I was tempted to take a selfie at the beginning of this thing. It’s a really rare occasion,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida Republican, said of the first round of talks…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/house-senate-closer-to-smoothing-budget-difference/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Dem senator: Budget reconciliation could unravel 2014 farm bill
“Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) lobbied Republicans Monday against including language in a final budget agreement that could potentially unravel the 2014 farm bill. At a public meeting of the House-Senate budget conference committee, Stabenow applauded Senate Republicans for not including a reconciliation instruction to the Senate Agriculture Committee in the budget they adopted in late March. The House budget, by contrast, issues reconciliation instructions to 13 authorizing committees, including the House Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over food stamps, nutrition programs and resources for farmers. Republicans are now negotiating a deal that merges the two resolutions…”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/239429-dem-senator-warns-budget-procedure-could-unravel-2014-farm-bill
Talks begin on Capitol Hill budget measure
“Lawmakers quarreled Monday over Medicare, taxes and almost $40 billion in unrequested money for overseas war-fighting as House and Senate negotiators kicked off work on a Republican budget blueprint for next year and beyond. “A budget is more than just a set of numbers. It is a reflection of our priorities, of our vision for the future,” said Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, top negotiator for House Republicans, as he touted the version he largely drafted. It would cut more than $5 trillion from spending projected to otherwise total almost $50 trillion, his path toward a balanced budget by 2024. Separate House- and Senate-passed budget plans have plenty in common. Both chambers want to use the fast-track budget process to send a measure repealing the health care law to President Barack Obama. And both call for padding war spending – it’s exempt from budget limits – on new weapons and training of American forces. At issue is a nonbinding measure for the 2016 fiscal year starting Oct. 1. Both House and Senate Republicans have endorsed major cuts to programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, highway projects and domestic agency budgets as a way to bring the federal ledger into balance within a decade – all without raising taxes. “Passing a balanced budget is about restoring the trust of the American people, because the federal government’s chronic overspending and exploding debt threatens each and every American,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/talks-to-begin-on-capitol-hill-budget-measure/
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Deserves a Hearing
“The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) isn’t a trade agreement: It’s a trade, environment, labor, human-rights, and digital-copyrights agreement, among other things. We would prefer that our trade agreements be trade agreements, but current political realities are not entirely aligned with that straightforward approach. The add-ons will amount to a very high price to pay for a new Pacific trade deal — but it (probably) will be a price worth paying, and Congress should invest President Obama with the so-called fast-track authority that would allow him to submit the deal to lawmakers for a simple yes-or-no vote, with no amendments or filibusters allowed. But if TPP should land in Congress, then members of the House and Senate should treat it a little more seriously than Congress treated, e.g., the Democrats’ enormously destructive multi-trillion-dollar health-care program, and give the thing a careful read before voting on it, especially considering how little they know about the details of the negotiations up to this point. The Obama administration, self-proclaimed epitome of openness and transparency, has conducted TPP negotiations largely in secret, with members of Congress permitted to review documents only in person in the office of the U.S. trade representative, without staff. Most of what the public knows about the negotiations has come through a series of releases from WikiLeaks. The level of secrecy here might be appropriate to missile-defense negotiations; it is excessive for a trade deal, especially one involving mostly free and open societies. The Obama administration has promised that the environmental aspects of the deal will be “fully enforceable in the core of the TPP agreement, on equal footing with the economic obligations our trading partners take on.” We can expect the same to be true of the labor and human-rights aspects of the deal — just as we can expect the Obama administration’s policies in these areas to be as daft and dangerous as the White House’s attitude toward environmental questions. And there surely will be a substantial bill for so-called trade-adjustment assistance, which purports to be a program for workers who are negatively affected by new trade deals but is in reality more of a political slush fund…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417161/trans-pacific-partnership-deserves-hearing-editors
Gas Taxes Could Explode Under New Highway Plan
“A new transportation proposal would allow gas taxes to rise as high as necessary to cover funding shortfalls, unless Congress agrees to an alternative solution by the end of 2016. The Bridge to Sustainable Infrastructure Act “would index gas and diesel user fees to inflation, which officials expect would raise $27.5 billion,” and would also create a bicameral Transportation Commission to determine “a path forward for sustainable funding,” Equipment World reports. The commission would submit recommendations to Congress for a funding mechanism that keeps the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) solvent for at least three years. Congress would not be required to implement the commission’s specific suggestions, but failure to meet the solvency goal in some way by Dec. 31, 2016, would trigger gas taxes to increase “to a level that would sustain the Trust Fund for a three-year period.” The HTF is the primar