TEA PARTY PATRIOTS:
IRS watchdog finds 6,400 missing Lois Lerner emails
“…Tea Party Patriots president Jenny Beth Martin said the news was another development in a “long line of deplorable actions from the Internal Revenue Service against groups who were merely trying to hold their government accountable.” “It will be very enlightening to see the content of the emails as (the inspector general) continues the investigation,” she said in a statement…”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/politics/irs-watchdog-finds-6400-missing-lois-lerner-emails/index.html
HEALTHCARE:
Two in three Obamacare beneficiaries had to repay subsidies (continuation of previous article)
“Nearly two in three Americans who bought subsidized health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges this year had to pay some of the federal dollars back, according to new data from H&R Block. That’s because they presumably collected more federal aid than their income qualified them for. In that case, consumers must either pay some of it back or — in most cases — the IRS will subtract it from their tax refund. Policymakers have expressed concern that low-income people could struggle with paying back the subsidies — or suffer if their tax refunds are greatly reduced because of overpayments. The average amount consumers owed back to the government was $729, cutting their potential tax refunds by almost one-third, said the tax preparation company. On the flip side, one in four Obamacare recipients collected fewer subsidies than their income qualified them for. Those consumers saw their tax refunds boosted by an average of $425…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/two-in-three-obamacare-beneficiaries-had-to-repay-subsidies/article/2563701?custom_click=rss
After Like Your Plan, Keep Your Plan, Even Democrats Want To Repeal Obamacare’s Cadillac Tax
“Reps. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) and Dina Titu (D-Nev.) have introduced the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act to repeal the Cadillac tax. It isn’t set to take effect until 2018, but it is already clear the tax will hit many who are not wealthy. That is especially true in high-cost urban areas that have particularly expensive health costs. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged passage of Obamacare so we could find out what’s in it, few worried about the Cadillac tax. At that point, the tax was eight years away. Besides, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. And this tax would apply only to rich plans for the most uber-elite. 2018 now seems close, and the numbers no longer seem elite. In addition, we have seen too many ‘like your plan keep your plan’ promises that later had to be chalked up to ‘misunderstandings.’ The Cadillac tax is a whopping 40% excise tax. It applies to individual health plans worth more than $10,200 and family plans worth more than $27,500. Former Obamacare adviser Jonathan Gruber gloated that rising medical costs would ensure that the Cadillac tax would all but eliminate tax deductible company provided health insurance. Mr. Gruber even said President Obama was in the room when the Cadillac tax lie was created…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/04/28/after-like-your-plan-keep-your-plan-even-democrats-want-to-repeal-obamacares-cadillac-tax/
One-Third Drop Obamacare in California (from April 26)
“President Obama led by example when he promised us that if we liked our doctor, we could keep him. And now the entire Obamacare regime is dedicated to being, as Mark Twain put it, “economical with the truth.” Of particular note is what is called Covered California from my home state. Sharyl Attkisson, of the Daily Signal, has written a two–part series that shows the lies are baked in at Obamacare California. If you ask Executive Director Peter Lee, everything is going swimmingly: “94 percent of those who renewed their Covered California insurance this year kept their same policies, meaning ‘those plans having the right mix of doctors, the right mix of care options for them, and the right one they wanted to stay with.’” Ninety–four percent is an impressive number, particularly considering Obamacare is mandatory, and most readers would assume everyone kept their insurance. Which makes 94 percent a real success story. Except they didn’t keep their insurance, and it’s not a success story. The truth is (there’s that word again), over one–third of Covered California policyholders dropped their insurance altogether. Attkisson contends this is one of the worst retention rates in the nation. And for those poor souls who are still at the mercy of Covered California, the situation doesn’t get any better, 84 percent of the policyholders will be paying increased premiums in 2015. Aiden Hill, formerly a big supporter of Obamacare and head of the Covered California call center, says the coverage he gets from his Obamacare policy is less than he had before passage of the law and his premium skyrocketed 71 percent. In his words, “So much for competition.” I really believe that we’ve created a monster — and it’s an unaccountable monster.”…”
http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/obamacare-covered-california-health-insurance/2015/04/26/id/640791/
Affordable Care Act cut tax refunds $729, H&R Block says
“Two out of three taxpayers who got help from Uncle Sam to buy health insurance last year owed some of that money back come April 15, according to H&R Block Inc. The Kansas City-based tax preparation firm reported its customers’ experiences under the Affordable Care Act and the just completed tax season on Monday. The health care law commonly called Obamacare helped pay part of the medical insurance premiums for those who qualified. The amount of the help was based on what the taxpayer had expected to earn during 2014. Those who earned more than they had estimated had to return some of the premium help at tax time. H&R Block said that turned out to be nearly two-thirds of those who got help. Repaying Uncle Sam meant getting a smaller tax refund, Block said, on average a $729 smaller refund. Block said that amounted to about a third of the average refund for filers who gained health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Block, in an announcement, said its “figures highlight the importance of estimating income as accurately as possible” when seeking benefits under the Affordable Care Act. It said taxpayers also need to keep that estimate updated throughout the year to reflect changes in their income and household size. Such changes can raise or lower the level of premium help available and subsequently the taxpayer’s refund…”
http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article19737996.html
Don’t Import Canada’s Ideas on Health Care
“Move aside, maple syrup. Canada has a hot new export — single-payer health care. The New York State Assembly may soon consider legislation that would switch the Empire State to a Canadian-style single-payer system. Maine has expressed interest in doing the same. So has Congress. Earlier this year, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) introduced a bill to create government-run insurance programs in every Obamacare exchange. Our northern neighbor’s admirers should consult its history. Nearly fifty years ago, Canada charged a youthful chief executive with a massive overhaul of its healthcare system — just as the United States has today. Canada now has a half-century of proof that government-dominated healthcare systems force patients to wait interminably long times for subpar treatment. Canada’s path to single payer began soon after World War II, when Premier Tommy Douglas introduced free hospital care in Saskatchewan. By 1962, the province was providing universal coverage for physician services, too. In 2004, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation named Douglas “The Greatest Canadian,” thanks largely to his role in socializing the Canadian healthcare system. Socialized medicine went nationwide in 1966, with the passage of the Medical Care Act. Implementation of the single-payer scheme fell to Pierre Trudeau, the newly elected Prime Minister in 1968. Trudeau campaigned on the promise of installing a “just society.” Enthusiasm among Canada’s youth propelled Trudeau into office with the first electoral majority of the 1960s. Observers dubbed the phenomenon “Trudeaumania.” Sound familiar? Trudeau was Canada’s Barack Obama. Like Trudeau, Obama rode a wave of young support — Obamamania — to power. Sixty-six percent of those under the age of 30 voted for Obama in 2008. And like Trudeau, Obama is a fan of single-payer. During his 2008 campaign, Obama said, “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.” In 2003, he flatly stated, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program.” Obama wasn’t able to sell single-payer to a skeptical American public. But that hasn’t stopped him from returning to the idea. In a recent interview, the president noted that allowing private insurers, Medicaid, and Medicaid to join up “makes a lot of sense.” He was essentially advocating for an “all-payer system,” under which insurers would band together to negotiate prices with healthcare providers. It’s single-payer by another name. As Canada’s decades-long experience shows, single-payer by any name fails patients. I was born in Canada and have seen single-payer lead to rationing and outright rejection of care. My mother died of colon cancer after being denied an early colonoscopy that could have identified the disease at a more treatable stage. Her experience is not unique. The Health Council of Canada recently reported that Canada’s wait times for receiving health care ranked last on a list of 11 developed countries. The country faces a shortage of family doctors, so almost half of Canadians have to go to the emergency room for basic health needs. Even then, 26 percent wait four or more hours to see a doctor in the ER…”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/28/dont_import_canadas_ideas_on_health_care__126404.html
Aetna, More Bullish On Obamacare, Raises 2015 Profit Forecast
“Aetna (AET) chief executive officer Mark Bertolini said he now expects public exchange business under the Affordable Care Act to be an “attractive growth opportunity” that can generate a reasonable return for investors. In the past, Bertolini hasn’t been so bullish on the public exchanges, saying it was a break-even opportunity. But a boost in individual customers buying subsidized plans, disclosed on the company’s first-quarter earnings call this morning, left Aetna with 950,000 members in coverage purchased on public exchanges from 17 states. “We had another highly successful open enrollment period,” Bertolini told analysts on a 45-minute call. The improved outlook in ACA-related business, better Medicare payment rates and growth in Medicaid enrollees figured in Bertolini’s decision to raise the company’s 2015 earnings forecast to $7.20 to $7.40 per share from “at least $7 a share” before. Aetna is the second large health insurer this quarter to boost its 2015 forecast after UnitedHealth Group (UNH) said its sales and profits would jump this year as insurers generate more individuals buying coverage on exchanges and customers from the expanded Medicaid program under the health law. But across the board, Aetna did well, growing its membership in Medicare Advantage plans, which contract with the federal government to provide coverage to seniors and Medicaid plans for poor Americans…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/04/28/aetna-more-bullish-on-obamacare-raises-2015-profit-forecast/
Aetna Raises 2015 Outlook After 1Q Earnings Tops Forecasts
“Aetna has hiked its 2015 forecast beyond analyst expectations after booking a 17-percent jump in first-quarter earnings, as enrollment gains and moderate medical cost growth helped the nation’s third-largest health insurer. Shares of the Hartford, Connecticut, company climbed to an all-time high price after the insurer detailed results Tuesday morning. Aetna said it now expects operating earnings this year to range between $7.20 and $7.40 per share. That’s up from a forecast it made in February for earnings of at least $7 per share. And that was a 10-cent-per-share increase from its initial 2015 forecast. Analysts expect, on average, 2015 earnings of $7.17 per share, according to FactSet. Company leaders told analysts in February that they considered their then-new forecast a floor Aetna aimed to exceed. Aetna said Tuesday that it raised its expectation for 2015 again after seeing operating earnings, revenue and enrollment all grow in the year’s initial quarter. The insurer’s net income also climbed to $777.5 million from $665.5 million last year. Operating earnings, which exclude items like capital gains, totaled $2.39 per share in this year’s quarter. Analysts expected, on average, earnings of $1.95 per share, according to Zacks Investment Research. Operating revenue of $15.1 billion grew 8 percent in the quarter but came in below average analyst expectations for $15.45 billion, according to the Zacks survey. The insurer’s medical enrollment climbed 4 percent to 23.7 million people. Aetna has signed up more than 950,000 people through the health care overhaul’s public insurance exchanges, which allow people to buy coverage with help from income-based subsidies or tax credits. The insurer said more than 90 percent of its customers received a subsidy. Aetna also said growth in medical costs, its biggest expense, remained moderate, in part because of a deal it worked out earlier this year with Gilead Sciences Inc. on the price of two expensive hepatitis C treatments, Sovaldi and Harvoni. Aetna followed rival UnitedHealth Group Inc. in trumping Street expectations and raising its 2015 forecast after reporting first-quarter results. Health insurers have entered 2015 with a more optimistic outlook than they had at the start of last year, when Medicare Advantage funding cuts hung over an industry that also was dealing with the uncertain impact of a new fee from the overhaul and the first open enrollment period for the public exchanges…”
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/aetna-raises-2015-outlook-1q-earnings-tops-forecasts-30638225
Florida files Obamacare lawsuit
“Florida has filed a lawsuit charging the Obama administration is trying to force it to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. Kicking off a legal battle involving both Medicaid expansion and a separate pot of federal funding for hospitals, Attorney General Pam Bondi filed suit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The lawsuit was threatened last week by Gov. Rick Scott, who accuses the administration of trying to coerce him into expanding Florida’s Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act — something he and many other Republican governors have so far refused to do. Scott contends officials are pressuring him by threatening to halt an existing flow of federal funds used to reimburse hospitals for caring for uninsured patients. “Whether to expand Medicaid is a policy decision for Florida, and the decision should ultimately be made by Floridians, through their elected state officials, not by the federal government through force and coercion,” Bondi said in a statement…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/florida-files-obamacare-lawsuit/article/2563731?custom_click=rss
HOUSE CONSERVATIVES WORRIED LEADERSHIP MAY CAVE ON OBAMACARE REPEAL
“GOP conservatives in the House are worried that establishment Republicans like Speaker John Boehner and his buddies may betray them once again, this time with the effort to repeal ObamaCare. Conservatives want to use the reconciliation process, which allows the Senate to pass laws with a simple majority instead of a 60-vote supermajority, to repeal ObamaCare. As a result, the House conservatives gave ground last month and supported the proposed budget to avoid infighting in the party. But now, House Republican leaders seem to be backing off their support for the reconciliation process, preferring to wait until the Supreme Court rules in King v. Burwell, which could invalidate tax subsidies obtained through federal exchanges. Doing so would cripple ObamaCare, because states with their own exchanges could not depend on the federal government for support. In addition, Sen. Richard M. Burr (R-NC), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) offered a proposal that would guarantee coverage to Americans even if they are sick, essentially echoing elements of ObamaCare. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chairman of the Freedom Caucus who was largely responsible for House conservatives approving the budget despite their qualms about the defense budget and the general fiscal impact, is adamant that reconciliation be utilized, saying, “It’s imperative that [Obamacare repeal] be the focus for our reconciliation instructions.” He also asserted, “We told [the voters] time and time again, we are committed to getting rid of this law. So, let’s make sure we keep this thing front and center in the political debate, put it on the president’s desk [and] actually make him veto it.” Conservatives would like to set up a showdown with Barack Obama in which they forward a bill to him that he would have to veto, thus showing the conservative base that House conservatives mean business about ObamaCare…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/28/house-conservatives-worried-leadership-may-cave-on-obamacare/
Democrat to insurers: Do your part on ObamaCare rule
“Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is calling on health insurance companies to follow the requirements for contraceptive coverage under ObamaCare. Murray wrote to eight insurance companies offering coverage on the ObamaCare marketplace in her home state of Washington on Tuesday raising concerns about the results of a report from Northwest Health Law Advocates and NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. Under ObamaCare, contraception is required to be free for subscribers. But that report found that customer service representatives for insurance companies often gave customers incorrect information about the cost of contraceptives. “A lack of consumer awareness and transparency about what is covered for women is unacceptable,” Murray wrote in the letter. “A benefit that’s hidden from consumers is the same as having no benefit at all. Insurers must do their part to provide accurate information to all Washingtonians.” The Washington state insurance commissioner announced earlier this month, in response to the report, that the insurance companies had agreed to revamp the information they provide to customers. Murray wrote that she will be monitoring their progress. The issue is not just in Washington state, and includes actual coverage in addition to information about that coverage, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report this month. That report found that some insurance plans were violating ObamaCare by requiring cost-sharing on some forms of contraception, or simply not covering some forms at all. Murray called that report “very concerning” at a hearing with Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell last week. Burwell said that “we do plan to follow up.” But she said the department is still gathering information. “It is a matter of the specifics being brought to us,” she said…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/240355-murray-calls-on-insurers-to-obey-obamacare-contraceptive-rule
McConnell Frustrates Conservatives’ Hopes for Full Obamacare Repeal through Budget Reconciliation
“When then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell conceded, days before the 2014 midterms, that a full repeal of Obamacare would require 60 votes, the conservative activist wing of the GOP exploded. “This is why nobody believes Mitch McConnell anymore,” said Mary Vought, spokeswoman for the Senate Conservatives Fund, a group founded by then-senator Jim DeMint to back Tea Party candidates in GOP primaries. “He says he wants to rip Obamacare out ‘root and branch,’ but then flips days before his election and says he plans to surrender.” The anger derived from the belief that the Senate could pass a bill repealing the law through the use of a budgetary process known as reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered under Senate rules and therefore only requires 51 votes to pass. The procedure captured the imagination of conservatives when Senate Democrats used it to pass parts of Obamacare in 2009. McConnell’s team clarified that he would try to repeal the law through reconciliation; after the election, the incoming majority leader said that “the reconciliation process does present an opportunity and we’re reviewing that.” Months later, with the yearly legislative wrangling over the budget in full swing, conservatives hoping that reconciliation would be their silver bullet are likely to be disappointed. Most Senate Republicans do not believe that the reconciliation rules permit a full repeal, frustrating conservatives who thought it might be possible if McConnell had argued forcefully for the idea earlier this year. It now appears that reconciliation will be used more narrowly, to target specific parts of the law. “When it comes to repealing Obamacare, what our members have talked about for years up here is going at the core of the law, which are changes to health-care spending that are mandatory,” says one senior GOP Senate aide. McConnell does not have the authority to decide unilaterally that a given law can be repealed through reconciliation; instead, parliamentarians, the umpires of Senate procedure, interpret the relevant rules and precedents whenever a disagreement arises. Much of Obamacare does not qualify for reconciliation under the Byrd rule, the regulation that governs the process…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417611/mcconnell-frustrates-conservatives-hopes-full-obamacare-repeal-through-budget
House conservatives finalizing new O-Care replacement plan
“The most conservative members of Congress are putting the final touches on a new ObamaCare replacement plan, which they plan to release just before a key Supreme Court ruling on the healthcare law. Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), said in an interview that the group will publicly release its latest healthcare alternative plan by mid-May, about one month before the Supreme Court decides whether three-quarters of states can keep their ObamaCare subsidies. The plan will not specifically say how the GOP should respond to the King v. Burwell case, which threatens to erase healthcare subsidies for 7.5 million people in 34 states. Republicans in Congress have already pitched a half-dozen plans to eliminate the fallout from the decision, with GOP chairmen working to narrow them down. Leaders of the RSC, the House’s conservative caucus with about 170 members, have not yet weighed in on the plans. Flores said he hopes this plan will shape the party’s legislative response to the case by outlining an end goal. “If we start building toward a shore, but we don’t know what that shore is, then the bridge might not work very well,” the Texas Republican said. “The alternative tells you what the other shore looks like.” Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), an RSC member involved in discussions, added that this year’s plan will add a focus on anti-trust legislation as well as “a big transparency part for consumers.” “There’s no really portal to find out what you’re paying for, how you’re paying for,” he said. Both Roe and Flores said the plan would largely resemble the previous two versions. Flores added this year’s will contain some “interesting tweaks,” though he declined to provide details. The RSC’s two previous plans called for fully repealing the 2010 law and replacing it with an expansion of health savings accounts, enacting medical liability reform and eliminating the restrictions on purchasing insurance across state lines. Flores said the plan will have “good, broad support from the majority of the conference.” The last RSC healthcare alternative had 120 co-sponsors…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/240309-house-conservatives-finalizing-latest-obamacare-replacement-plan
How Republicans could avoid spending offsets on Supreme Court Obamacare ‘fix’
“As they grapple with the potential fallout of a Supreme Court ruling that could strike down health insurance subsidies for millions of Americans, Republicans may expend a limited legislative tool to pass a bill to keep subsidies flowing without having to find new offsetting spending cuts. In the case King vs. Burwell, challengers argue that the text of President Obama’s healthcare law restricted subsidies to those who purchase health insurance policies on exchanges set up by their states, rather than by the federal government. If the justices side with challengers in the case, Republicans will face a dilemma. On one hand, they will be under tremendous political pressure to find a way to make sure that people who have been receiving subsidies don’t lose them. On the other hand, they’ll be under pressure from fiscal conservatives to avoid spending billions of dollars to help “fix” a problem that they argue would have been created by the text of Obamacare…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-republicans-could-avoid-spending-offsets-on-supreme-court-obamacare-fix/article/2563695?custom_click=rss
Supreme Court Keeps Slapping Down Obama Administration on Contraception Mandate
“The Supreme Court on Monday dealt another blow to the Obamacare contraception mandate in what religious freedom advocates consider the latest in a string of victories. The high court told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reconsider its earlier decision siding with the government against the Michigan Catholic Conference, forcing the group to comply with the Obama administration’s mandate to pay for contraception even if it violates the organization’s religious beliefs. While not an outright ruling, the high court’s order to revisit a matter is typically a warning to lower courts of how the court would rule. This marks the fifth decision in favor of religious freedom advocates since December 2013, when some form of relief was given to the Little Sisters of the Poor in Colorado; Wheaton College in Illinois; Notre Dame University in Indiana; and Archbishop David A. Zubik and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The biggest case was of course the Hobby Lobby ruling last June, which the Supreme Court cited in the Michigan case. “The government keeps making the same bad arguments and the Supreme Court keeps rejecting them – every single time. This is because the government can obviously come up with ways to distribute contraceptives without the forced involvement of Catholic ministries,” Becket Fund senior counsel Mark Rienzi said in a statement. “As with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, this is a strong signal that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the government’s narrow view of religious liberty,” Rienzi added. “And it makes it less likely that lower courts will accept arguments the Supreme Court has rejected over and over and over again.”…”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/28/supreme-court-keeps-slapping-down-obama-administration-on-contraception-mandate/
Supreme Court tosses ruling in favor of ObamaCare mandate
“The Supreme Court on Monday gave new life to a lawsuit challenging ObamaCare’s contraception mandate, striking down a previous ruling in favor of the federal government. The justices asked an appeals court in Cincinnati to reconsider a legal challenge that the Catholic ministries in Michigan and Tennessee filed against an ObamaCare provision that requires employers to cover birth control for all workers. The justices asked the lower court to reconsider the case in light of last year’s landmark ruling on the contraception mandate. That decision, issued last June, held that the arts-and-crafts retailer Hobby Lobby could opt out of the contraception mandate for religious reasons. Since then, religious-affiliated companies and organizations across the country have pushed new legal challenges of the provision. Religious freedom groups on Monday quickly cheered the court’s decision…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/240154-supreme-court-tosses-obamacare-contraception-ruling
VA Reform Stalled by Lack of Accountability
“We now know without a doubt what it means when a scandal-ridden government agency pledges accountability for corrupt and underperforming employees: It’s an empty promise. That’s the conclusion we can draw from the minuscule number of employees fired from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) a year after a nationwide patient scheduling scandal was exposed. The question now is, what will it take to get the VA and the Obama administration to take their responsibilities to veterans seriously? After VA officials falsified wait-list records to make it appear patients were receiving care on a timely basis, thereby delaying and denying care to ailing veterans, the number of employees fired for performance one year later is “at most, three,” according to an April 22 report in The New York Times. Based on documents provided by the VA to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, “the department punished a total of eight of its 280,000 employees for involvement in the scandal,” the Times reports. “One was fired, one retired in lieu of termination, one’s termination is pending and five were reprimanded or suspended for up to two months.” When Congress responded to the scandal last summer by passing a sweeping reform bill, the VA Access, Choice and Accountability Act, it was promised that VA officials would be held accountable for the serial failures and ethical lapses. In signing that bill into law, President Obama made it clear that poor performance and corruption would not be tolerated: “If you engage in an unethical practice, if you cover up a serious problem, you should be fired. Period,” the president declared. “It shouldn’t be that difficult.” But as is too often the case with the president’s grand pronouncements, there is a massive gulf between the promise and the execution. While the VA claims that “more than 100 other employees were facing disciplinary action,” very few are likely to be fired. Many will simply be transferred to new positions (a favorite bureaucratic tactic for “solving” personnel problems); some will retire early, with full benefits; others will spend months on paid leave while they appeal their cases. “It shouldn’t be that difficult” to fire problematic employees, as the president emphasized—and yet it is. Which is why we must continue pushing to make it less difficult to remove those who deserve to be fired. Rep. Jeff Miller, the Florida Republican who chairs the House VA Committee and who has been a tireless champion for reforming the department, has proposed legislation to make it easier to fire corrupt or incompetent employees for cause. The law signed last summer applied this level of accountability to senior VA executives—Miller’s proposal would extend that firing authority to all VA employees. Key to Miller’s proposal (H.R. 1994) is a tightening of the appeals window. Terminated employees would have the right to file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board within seven days, with the final decision within 45 days—all in an unpaid status. This would expedite removals, and keep corrupt and incompetent employees from milking the system for lengthy periods of paid leave while they await their appeals…”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/28/va_reform_stalled_by_lack_of_accountability_126403.html
Senator wants answers from VA Secretary on the poor treatment of VA whistleblowers
“The poor and punishing treatment of whistleblowers inside the Department of Veterans Affairs has been described as part of a “corrosive culture” that Veterans Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald has vowed to change. But whistleblowers say that change, one year later, has still not happened. Now Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is demanding answers on the “beyond unacceptable” treatment of whistleblowers. In a letter to both McDonald and the VA Office of the Inspector General, he lists a series of questions about what if any progress is being made to address widespread reports of retaliation against VA whistleblowers reporting problems that include everything from data manipulation following last year’s patient wait-times to suicide prevention programs. Grassley, who says he has a long history of working to protect whistleblowers, both legislatively and through his oversight efforts, called the VA’s culture of isolating and harassing whistleblowers “an epidemic.”…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/04/28/senator-wants-answers-from-va-secretary-on-the-poor-treatment-of-va-whistleblowers/?wprss=rss_politics
This embattled VA regional office now under investigation for an alleged paranormal party
“The Veterans Affairs Department’s regional benefits office in Philadelphia is already under fire for its long response times to veterans seeking assistance. But now the VA’s Office of Inspector General can add another element to its investigation: A supernatural soiree. Yes, supervisors at the facility may have encouraged employees to pay to talk to dead people. Lucy Filipov, assistant director of the VA’s Philadelphia Regional Office, allegedly threw a party at her house that included Gary Hodge, head of the pension-management center, his wife, and several employees. Hodge’s wife is a self-described medium who could help the living talk with the dead. And the invited guests (a.k.a government employees) allegedly were encouraged to pay her $30 each for that experience. Asking for cash from subordinates in the federal government is not allowed. The OIG confirmed to us that it’s indeed investigating. Chairman Rep. Jeff Miller asked Filipov about the paranormal party at a congressional hearing last week. The inspector general’s office told her, she said, that she could not discuss it because its, “part of an ongoing investigation.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2015/04/28/this-embattled-va-regional-office-now-under-investigation-for-an-alleged-paranormal-party/?wprss=rss_politics
Bill called ‘breakthrough’ in punishing retaliators against VA whistleblowers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/bill-called-breakthrough-in-punishing-retaliators-against-va-whistleblowers/2015/04/28/9cecf510-ed0b-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html
IMMIGRATION:
YouGov poll: Plurality wants next president to rescind Obama’s executive action on amnesty
“Seems like good news at first blush, but c’mon. Realistically, how high would these numbers need to be for a Republican president to feel politically safe-ish in tossing several million newly legalized illegals back into limbo? Sixty percent support for rescission? Seventy? First the good news: 45 percent oppose Obama’s executive action versus 37 percent who support it. Here’s the partisan breakdown (top line is “support,” second is “oppose,” third is “not sure”):…”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/28/yougov-poll-plurality-wants-next-president-to-rescind-obamas-executive-action-on-amnesty/
DHS: No regrets for bypassing Congress on immigration
“Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told the Senate Tuesday that he has no regrets at all for going around Congress to implement President Barack Obama’s several immigration-related executive actions. “Do you regret the actions that you and the administration have taken that have gotten us to this point?” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) asked Johnson at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “No, I do not, senator,” Johnson replied. “I believe that the undocumented population in this country, at least half of which has been here more than 10 years, has to be reckoned with. We know they’re here, and they are not priorities for removal.” “There are millions of people in this country who are not priorities for removal,” he added. “There are dozens of states that allow them to have drivers’ licenses.” Obama’s latest plan to provide legal protection for millions of illegal immigrants is currently on hold, due to a federal court injunction. But DHS took steps to get ready for that plan, and is lobbying the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to lift that injunction. Johnson also justified Obama’s immigration action by noting that Obama waited “years” for Congress to act. That prompted Cornyn to ask, “So do you think it’s an excuse for the president to act unconstitutionally because Congress doesn’t act quickly enough to suit him?” “I have what is in my judgment as a lawyer a very, very thoughtful opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that we have the legal discretion to do what we did,” Johnson replied. Johnson spent a good part of Tuesday’d hearing fight back against Republican complaints that Obama’s immigration moves violated the Constitution. He also heard complaints from Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that DHS’s effort to enforce immigration laws has waned. Cruz, for example, noted that the removal of illegal immigrants has dropped dramatically over the last several years. “How do you explain a 41 percent drop in removals of aliens here illegally?” he asked. Johnson replied that removals have fallen because fewer people are being captured at the border. “The apprehensions are in fact lower on the southern border, so the intake is lower this fiscal year in particular,” he said. DHS announced last week that border apprehensions are down 28 percent this year, something many Republicans see not as good news, but as a sign that DHS is becoming even more relaxed about its effort to enforce immigration law…”
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/04/28/dhs-no-regrets-for-bypassing-congress-on-immigration/
JEH JOHNSON: DHS HAS ‘IDENTIFIED SOME’ OTHER CASES ‘SIMILAR’ TO KNOWN GANG MEMBER GRANTED EXECUTIVE AMNESTY
“The Department of Homeland Security has identified other cases like the Charlotte, NC murder suspect granted executive amnesty despite his known a gang affiliations, DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson told a Senate panel Tuesday. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Johnson addressed the circumstances of Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez — a known gang member who was granted President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and is now accused of murdering four people, including a former contestant on “America’s Next Top Model.” “This case is a tragic case and this individual should not have received DACA. I cannot state that in stronger terms,” Johnson said in response to questions about Rangel-Hernandez from Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley. “In reaction to that case — as I think you know — we’ve gone back and we’ve retrained the entire workforce that deals with these cases to make sure that they identify trouble signs such as suspected membership in criminal gangs,” Johnson said. The DHS secretary stressed that gang membership should make an illegal immigrant a “priority for removal,” not a candidate for deferred status. “So we retrained the force and we’ve done a retrospective review of every DACA case. Every DACA participant to see whether there are any similar to this case. We’ve identified some,” Johnson revealed. “And we continue to evaluate this to make sure that we’e reduced situations like this to zero in the DACA program,” he added…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/28/jeh-johnson-dhs-has-identified-some-other-cases-similar-to-known-gang-member-granted-executive-amnesty/
DHS Secretary Admits ‘Some’ Criminals Got Deferred Deportation Status Under Obama
“Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted Tuesday that the Obama administration has given deferred deportation status to other illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds, in addition to one man who is now a triple murder suspect. Johnson testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee about a week after his department acknowledged that it let Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez apply for and receive benefits under President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. That decision was made even though Rangel-Hernandez was a known gang member – DHS was forced to admit the mistake, and told the Senate that he “should not have been approved.” Rangel-Hernandez is now charged with killing three people in North Carolina….”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/28/dhs-secretary-admits-some-criminals-got-deferred-deportation-status-under-obama/
AT LEAST 282 AMNESTY RECIPIENTS HAVE LOST STATUS DUE TO GANG/CRIMINAL AFFILIATIONS
“Since Fiscal Year 2013, at least 282 recipients of Deferred Status for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) have been kicked out of the program due to criminal or gang affiliations, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) highlighted Tuesday. During a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Sec. Jeh Johnson conceded that his department had erroneously granted DACA status to a known gang member who is currently charged with the murders of four people in North Carolina. “This case is a tragic case and this individual should not have received DACA. I cannot state that in stronger terms,” Johnson said. He went on in the hearing to say there have been a “handful” of similar cases as the one in North Carolina. Grassley, however, in a statement after the hearing, pointed out that in a recent letter, USCIS acknowledged that since FY 2013 there have been at least 282 other cases in which DACA status was terminated due to gang and criminal affiliations. “Secretary Johnson’s comments today suggest a broader systemic problem in the application process,” Grassley said. “Two hundred eighty-two cases is more than a ‘handful,’ and there needs to be a better effort to provide greater detail on exactly where breakdowns occurred in the DACA application process that ended deportation procedures for at least one known gang member who now is facing four murder charges.” He continued, saying that just one mistake in the system can “lead to tragedy, but USCIS has admitted to at least 282 mistakes.”…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/28/at-least-282-amnesty-recipients-have-lost-status-due-to-gangcriminal-affiliations/
JEFF SESSIONS: OBAMA ADMIN’S ‘LACK OF WILL’ TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS LEADING ‘MILLIONS’ TO CONCLUDE THEY WON’T BE DEPORTED
“At Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson that the Obama administration’s “lack of will” to enforce the country’s immigration laws has led millions of potential illegal immigrants to believe they will not be deported if they find a way to enter the country. “We see a lack of will in your department,” Sessions said, pointing out that the lack of will existed “before you took the office” and “from the president on down.” Sessions, who chairs the Senate Judiciary’s Immigration and the National Interest subcommittee, listed off the numerous instances in which the Obama administration has deemphasized immigration enforcement. Referring to visa overstays, Sessions said that “40% of the people here unlawfully today came lawfully and refused to leave on time, and we have no real ability to deal with that and have not taken steps required by law to deal with that.” He mentioned that President Barack Obama “stopped worksite inspection” in his first days in office and “basically threatened agents never again to do that” while canceling Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 287(g) program that better enables state and local governments to work with the Department of Homeland Security to enforce the country’s immigration laws. Sessions said that “sanctuary cities continue unabated” and “they don’t even honor your detainers.” And he wondered why the Obama administration is not “utilizing financial incentives” to push back. He pointed out that the Obama administration has “cut back dramatically if not ended” the Operation Streamline program and reminded Johnson that deportations are down 41% over the last three years while 160,000 criminal aliens are on the streets. Sessions said that more foreign countries are refusing “to accept back people we are trying to deport”and suggested that “they shouldn’t have other citizens admitted here” if they do not accept their citizens that are being deported. Meanwhile, as Sessions noted, the United States government is flying people who qualify for parole and refugee status from Central American countries to America. “All this has led millions to conclude that if they come here illegally, they’ll be successful,” he said. “We got to change that fundamentally.” In addition, Sessions said that Obama’s “push for amnesty, continual discussion of it, his promise of it and his actual carrying out of executive amnesty” in defiance of Congress “has increased immigration unlawfully into the country.”…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/28/jeff-sessions-obama-admins-lack-of-will-to-enforce-immigration-laws-leading-millions-to-conclude-they-wont-be-deported/
Report: 36,000 foreign ‘birth tourists’ here to make U.S. babies
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-36000-foreign-birth-tourists-here-to-make-u.s.-babies/article/2563721
Senator tells House to go first on immigration reform
“The U.S. Senate has no plans to write immigration legislation during the 114th Congress, according to the chairman of the committee in which it would originate. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the comments while laying out the panel’s agenda during a press conference Monday at the National Press Club. “I want to use my time and the committee’s time to do something,” said Grassley, who has served on the Judiciary Committee since 1981. “We worked for three months on that two years ago, and then the House didn’t do anything.”
http://www.worldmag.com/2015/04/senator_tells_house_to_go_first_on_immigration_reform
‘You’re Fired — Now Train Your Replacement’
“What could get self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders and rock-ribbed Republican Jim Inhofe to agree? The two senators have teamed up in their support for an investigative enquiry into the billion-dollar utility Southern California Edison, which has been firing American tech workers and replacing them with lower-paid foreign workers brought here through the controversial H-1B visa program. And now the first lawsuit has been filed in response to the H-1B visa fallout at SCE. The plaintiff, Save Jobs USA, is a group of former veteran employees at SCE who after their firing were forced to train the foreign workers due to replace them. Such treatment of American workers shouldn’t come as a surprise considering that the corporation is also a major contributor to MALDEF, one of the biggest illegal-alien-advocacy groups in the country. The development couldn’t come at a worse time for Big Tech in general and Utah senator Orrin Hatch in particular. Hatch has been a big supporter of H-1Bs since they were created by Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act of 1990, and he recently introduced a bill that doubles H-1B allotments and (even in the words of pro-amnesty groups) creates a “wish list” for the trillion-dollar tech industry. The lawsuit, co-led by the Immigration Reform Law Institute, centers not on the H-1B “high-tech” employment visa, but on the related H-4 visa that applies to the spouses of H-1B holders. A Department of Homeland Security rule published in the Federal Registrar in February purports to allow H-4 holders the right to work in the country. According to DHS estimates, 179,600 of these work permits will be doled out in the first year alone, with 55,000 more going out in subsequent years. Also according to the rule, DHS has given itself the option of expanding the program to other groups in future. The lawsuit asserts basically what H-1B expert Norm Matloff said recently, that the new H-4 visa rule is yet another example of U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services “taking the law into their own hands.” If the court finds that DHS has abused its power in awarding the foreign spouses with work permits, many of the 85,000 H-1B holders who every year enter the middle and higher end of the labor market would probably have fewer incentives to leave their homelands in the first place. As a result, India wouldn’t suffer a “brain drain” and America wouldn’t suffer an “internal brain drain” of Americans out of scientific and technical fields. In other words, with the exclusion of short-sighted corporate managers such as those at SCE, everybody would win…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417572/youre-fired-now-train-your-replacement-ian-smith
Trade proponents slowly assure skeptics of no backdoor ties to Obama immigration policy
“Fearful of immigration’s power to sink any issue it touches, the administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill are doing everything they can to try to make the case that immigration is totally unrelated to the looming Pacific trade deal and the fast-track trade authority President Obama says will be needed to conclude the negotiations. The assurances have made some headway, including swaying the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said he now feels comfortable that the Obama administration won’t try to use the trade deal to make backdoor changes to immigration policy. Not everyone is convinced. Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who has led opposition to Mr. Obama’s immigration policy, told colleagues to seek “ironclad” guarantees that would rule out any leeway for either Mr. Obama or the next president to negotiate an immigration deal as part of the Pacific trade agreement. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, chairman of the Finance Committee and the man who struck the key deal to advance fast-track powers for Mr. Obama, said he has received assurances from across the Obama administration that they won’t use the trade deal as a backdoor opening for immigration, but acknowledged that an element of trust is always involved. “There’s an element of trust here, no question about that, and I expect the president to live up to it,” Mr. Hatch said. “He’s been working with us all the way through.” Republican leaders are pushing to grant Mr. Obama fast-track powers, known as Trade Promotion Authority, to help him close the Asian trade deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with more than 10 other countries….”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/28/fast-track-trade-authority-support-grows-with-assu/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
The Global Immigration Crisis Is Changing the Face of Europe
“A rickety, overcrowded ship sinks in the Mediterranean and the long-festering problem of illegal migrants crossing into southern Europe is suddenly an emergency. The Financial Times calls the human flow into the European Union “one of the most serious challenges now facing the bloc.” That’s saying something given the beleaguered E.U.’s many woes. But not quite enough. Just as the Greek crisis belongs to Europe, not just Greece, the migration crisis is not only Europe’s. It is everybody’s. How so? Well, we have to get a little distance on this to understand it properly and address it effectively. Look at this up close, as E.U. leaders did at a summit in Brussels Thursday, and you see a need to police the Mediterranean more effectively, bring order to the Libyan ports from which many migrants set out, and bust the traffickers. We need to see this from, say, halfway to the moon looking down. Then it’s perfectly clear: Europe’s North Africa problem is the United States’ Central American and Mexican problem. Illegal immigration, south to north, is a global crisis. One of the fated features of the 21st century is now upon us: This is the migration into the advanced democracies of the economic casualties of global political and economic structures, terms of trade, and so on that date back centuries. Empires, more or less all of them, are striking back, and it’s unlikely they’ll stop until root causes are addressed. Schoolchildren understand that the colonial era was all about resource and labor exploitation and the creation of advantageous terms of trade for Western-made manufacturers. It wasn’t about building basic infrastructure (beyond immediate needs) or developing modern societies, mythologies notwithstanding. What SOME OF these countries did get, however, were school systems and blueprints for creating democracies and economic systems. Some, such as Singapore, have succeeded, if at a price in terms of political freedoms…”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/04/27/Global-Immigration-Crisis-Changing-Face-Europe
In Puerto Rico, Jeb Bush pushes statehood, says he’s proud of ‘immigrant nation’
“Speaking in Spanish, Jeb Bush told Puerto Ricans on Tuesday that conservatives should be proud that America is “an immigrant nation” and value the contribution immigrants make to the country – confronting one of his party’s touchiest debates head-on. The former Florida governor and 2016 GOP presidential prospect delivered a speech on economic opportunities peppered with Spanish – a language which he speaks fluently – and his audience responded with hearty applause. Immigration is a delicate subject for him in the primacy race, with several potential rivals favoring a harder line on those who come to the U.S. illegally. But he took it up unapologetically in his remarks. “We’re an immigrant nation and we should be proud,” he said, as someone in the audience yelled, “Yes!” “We should create an immigration system that drives economic opportunity for all of us,” he added. “We should move toward protecting the rule of law, protecting our border, making legal immigration easier than illegal immigration for sure, but we also want to look at this as a huge opportunity.” Said Bush: “The conservative cause would be better to embrace this rather than push it away.” Bush also endorsed the idea of statehood for the U.S. territory, winning great applause. “I think statehood is the best path,” he told his audience at the Metropolitan University of Cupey. “To get the full benefits and responsibilities of citizenship, being a state is the only way to make that happen.”…”
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/04/28/in-puerto-rico-jeb-bush-pushes-statehood-says-proud-immigrant-nation/
Bilingual Bush talks immigration in Puerto Rico
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bilingual-bush-talks-immigration-puerto-rico
SPENDING/BUDGET/ECONOMY:
In 1 in 5 Families in U.S., No One Works
“In 19.9 percent of American families in 2014, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), no one in the family worked. A family, as defined by the BLS, is a “group of two or more persons residing together who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. In 2014, there were 80,889,000 families in the United States, and in 16,057,000 of those families, or 19.9 percent, no one had a job. The BLS designates a person as “employed” if “during the survey reference week” they “(a) did any work at all as paid employees; (b) worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm; (c) or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family.” Members of the 16,057,000 families in which no one held jobs could have been either unemployed or not in the labor force. The BLS designates a person as unemployed if they did not have a job but were actively seeking one. The BLS designates someone as not in the labor force, if they did not have a job and were not actively seeking one. The BLS has been tracking data on employment in families since 1995. That year, the percent of families in which no one had a job was 18.8 percent. The percentage hit an all-time high of 20.2 percent in 2011. It held steady at 20 percent in 2012 and 2013. In 2014, it declined to 19.9 percent…”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/1-5-families-us-no-one-works
What Creates Jobs
“I took a camera to Times Square this week and asked people, “What creates jobs?” Most had no answer. One said, “stimulus!” What? Government creates jobs? No! I suppose it’s natural that people think government creates jobs because politicians always say that. “We’ve now created more than 10 million,” said President Obama. But that just meant that he took office at the start of the recession, and finally job creation resumed. He didn’t cause that. In fact, his taxes and complex regulation slowed job creation. His 2012 presidential election rival, Mitt Romney, was a little more free-market-oriented, but he sounded like Obama when he talked about jobs. He had “a plan” to add 12 million. Don’t assume his plan was just to get government out of the way of the private sector — Romney said it’s a bad idea to cut government spending during a recession. FDR’s New Deal was the dawn of belief that jobs flow from government. FDR didn’t seem to care whether jobs people did were productive or sustainable. He just wanted something done about the “armies” of unemployed. If they weren’t given jobs, they might become a real army and revolt. Now that government has lots of power, people look to it to create jobs. Communist countries had five-year plans. They didn’t work. That’s because jobs come from government getting out of the way and letting employers produce goods. Every new layer of regulations sounds nice — protecting the environment, providing more health care, forbidding discrimination against disabled people — but most rules do more harm than good. Humans have needs and desires. Entrepreneurs see those needs as opportunity. They hire people not out of generosity or because government told them to — but because it’s profitable to employ people if they produce valuable goods. If it’s not profitable, that means those people would be better employ