Arizona Considers Banning Non-English Government Mailings

The Arizona House is planning to take up an “English only” bill that would ban state agencies from mailing out information in any language other than English. HB 2283, cleared on Tuesday by the House Government Committee, purports to save money by only allowing non-English translations to be posted online.

Though voting materials are exempted, banning non-English mailings would essentially cut off Arizona’s substantial Spanish-speaking population from government services — particularly any Spanish speakers who receive any kind of service from the government, including Medicaid and Social Security. As of 2010, Arizona has the 8th largest population of limited English speakers, who comprise 9.9 percent of all Arizona residents. Rather than promote English language education, Arizona excluded these residents by making English the official state language in 2006.

This new bill’s sponsor, Rep. Steve Smith (R-AZ), has pushed several other radical anti-immigrant measures, most recently a bill requiring hospitals to check and report the immigration status of their patients. While he claims HB 2283 saves money by only printing documents in English, others anticipate costly lawsuits like the ones sparked by the state’s last attempt at English only legislation. In 1988, Arizona passed a constitutional amendment to require all official government business be conducted in English. The Supreme Court struck it down for violating state employees’ First Amendment rights. The 2006 measure passed muster because it only applies to official government business.

But Smith’s bill, by focusing on agencies’ abilities to disseminate information, could block non-English speakers’ access to government services and violate federal law:

“The bill as currently drafted is much broader than Rep. Smith suggests,” said attorney Ellen Katz with the William E. Morris Institute for Justice. “It violates Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act. Even in states that have an English-as-their-official-language policy, you still have to follow federal law.”

Title 6 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal funds. Katz said mailing out documents in English but not in other languages would violate that.

Even a fellow Republican, Rep. Doug Coleman, took issue with Smith’s proposal, noting that if the bill’s true purpose is to save money, all English publications should be restricted to websites as well.

English only laws exist in 16 states. Last year, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) unsuccessfully pushed a federal version of the English only law, the English Language Unity Act.

View the original article here

Why CBO Figures More Employers Will Drop Health Coverage

The Congressional Budget Office says the year-end fiscal cliff deal that preserved lower tax rates for most households produced a little-noticed side-effect: Fewer people will get health insurance from their employer over the next decade.

That nugget of economic thinking pops up in the nonpartisan office’s annual update of its budget and economic forecast.

The CBO has long said it expects the new federal health law will prompt some companies to drop millions of employees from health plans because workers have new options to buy insurance on their own. In August, CBO put the number at four million over 10 years. Now it’s seven million.

What changed?…

View the original article here

Health Care and the Debt Deal

In agreeing to a temporary increase in the debt ceiling, the House attached several conditions. One was a commitment to pass a budget that will balance within 10 years. Meeting that goal is important not only for the country’s fiscal future but also for the future of the country’s health care.

Health care entitlements are a major driver of federal spending. In 2011, Medicare and Medicaid alone accounted for nearly a quarter (more than 23 percent) of all federal spending.

In his Inaugural Address President Obama stated, “We must make hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of the debt.” The President is right. But his own health care law has made the situation worse, not better.

When Obamacare was passed, its supporters insisted the law would “bend the cost curve down” and “reduce the deficit.” Today, reality has set in. The Congressional Budget Office estimates Obamacare will add almost $1.6 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years. It obligates an estimated $1 trillion for subsidies to individuals for purchasing coverage through the government exchanges and $644 billion for states agreeing to expand their Medicaid programs. To help pay for the new entitlements, it takes over $700 billion out of an “old” one—Medicare, a program already teetering on the brink of insolvency. It also relies on unsound and unreliable savings, shifty Washington budget gimmicks, and imposes over $800 billion in new penalties and taxes that affect all Americans.

America can’t afford health reform done this way. The House should start with repeal of Obamacare. But most urgent is to stop the most costly provisions of Obamacare slated to take effect next year. Specifically, Congress should eliminate the exchange subsidies and the enhanced federal match for the Medicaid expansion. Stopping these provisions would save the federal government more than $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years.

Politically, restraining these future obligations should be easy. There are no current beneficiaries, hence ending it would affect no one.

Although the thrust of the law is still a year away, the flaws of Obamacare are well documented and continue to grow. Most recently, news that insurance premiums were growing by double digits raised new questions about whether this health care law can actually work as the authors intended.

Desperate to deflect attention away from its failures and shortcomings, defenders of Obamacare are rolling out the next phase of Obamacare. Ideas such as strengthening the individual mandate penalty, expanding the powers of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and squeezing out more efficiencies by adding even more government regulations. Evidently, they think the way to “fix” Obamacare is to double-down.

That approach, of course, assumes that to more price controls and more regulations will solve the country’s fiscal and health care crisis.

On paper, price controls and regulations may appear to reduce spending. The appearance of savings often lures support for such policies. But, price controls and government regulations don’t necessarily curb health care costs and have an inescapable real-world cost that doesn’t appear on paper: rationing of medical care.

There is a better way to tackle coverage and health care spending without turning personal health care decisions over to the government. Instead of advancing a health care system dictated by the government, Americans should have access to coverage of their choice where insurers and health care providers compete to provide the best care at the best price. The Heritage Foundation has outlined such a plan in its Saving the American Dream proposal.

The President and his defenders are obviously ready for another fight on health care. With the pledge of bringing the federal budget to balance in 10 years, the House of Representatives appears poised to do the same. If leaders in Washington are serious about getting spending—including health care spending—under control, they must get the policy right. That starts with stopping Obamacare’s unaffordable new entitlement spending and focusing on fixing the current entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, to ensure their solvency without bankrupting future generations.

-Nina Owcharenko is director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies and its Preston A. Wells, Jr. Fellow.

First appeared in Real Clear Politics.

View the original article here

Republican Congresswoman Likens Regulations Of For-Profit Colleges To The Holocaust

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) compared efforts to regulate the for-profit college industry to the Holocaust during a speech Tuesday. Speaking at the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, Foxx invoked a famous Holocaust maxim in order to defend for-profit colleges against increased scrutiny. “They came for the for-profits, and I didn’t speak up,” the North Carolina congresswoman said.

Insider Higher Ed has the details:

In criticizing the private college presidents, Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who leads the subcommittee on higher education, adapted the famous statement from the German theologian Martin Niemöller on Germans who ignored Nazi persecution. (“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.”)

“‘They came for the for-profits, and I didn’t speak up…’” Foxx said. “Nobody really spoke up like they should have.”

Even if her choice of words is shocking, her willingness to stand up for the industry is of little surprise. Foxx is heavily-financed by the for-profit college industry. As the Center for Responsive Politics reported, “In her first year on the [Higher Education and Workforce Training] subcommittee, Foxx picked up at least $48,668 from PACs or individuals affiliated with for-profit colleges.”

Though Foxx is readily willing to advocate on behalf of an industry that saddles students with debt and leaves them with few employment prospects, she paradoxically dislikes people who take out student loans. Said Foxx on a radio show last year, “I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there’s no reason for that.” In fact, many of the students with such large amounts of debt can trace their troubles to the fact that largely unregulated for-profit colleges are extraordinarily expensive.

Foxx is no back-bencher in the GOP caucus. She was elected to her party’s leadership last year to serve as Secretary for the House Republican Conference and has been touted as a possible Senate candidate in 2014.

View the original article here

Rubio to deliver GOP response to Obama's State of the Union

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) will deliver the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address on Feb. 12.

Rubio's response will be delivered in both English and Spanish, according to Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office.

"Marco Rubio is one of our party’s most dynamic and inspiring leaders. He carries our party’s banner of freedom, opportunity and prosperity in a way few others can. His family’s story is a testament to the promise and greatness of America," Boehner said in a statement on Wednesday.

"He’ll deliver a GOP address that speaks from the heart to the hopes and dreams of the middle class; to our party’s commitment to life and liberty; and to the unlimited potential of America when government is limited and effective," added Boehner.

Rubio, a Tea Party favorite, said he would discuss limited government in his response.

"I’m honored to have this opportunity to discuss how limited government and free enterprise have helped make my family’s dreams come true in America," said Rubio.

According to a Rubio aide, the response will focus on policies to aid the middle class. The Cuban-American lawmaker is also likely to discuss immigration. 

"It’s worth noting that his speech will focus on the Republican Party’s agenda to grow the middle class," the aide said. "Immigration will likely be mentioned as one way to grow the economy, but the speech really is about the Republican Party’s commitment to limited government as the best way to help the middle class, and how it differs from the president’s plans for bigger government."

Rubio's selection to deliver the GOP response is the latest sign of the freshman senator's increasing prominence within the Republican Party. The junior senator is viewed as key to attracting more Hispanic voters to the GOP and is at the center of speculation as a potential 2016 presidential contender.

Rubio's response also comes as he has taken a prime role in negotiations over crafting an immigration reform deal. He signed on to a bipartisan Senate blueprint for immigration reform unveiled last week and has taken the lead in selling conservative lawmakers on the plan.

The president has said he hopes to make immigration reform a priority in his second term. Obama also unveiled his own principles on immigration last week, but the White House has said he will likely deliver more specifics during his address to Congress.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), in a statement, said Rubio would "contrast the Republican approach to the challenges we face with President Obama’s vision of an ever-bigger government and the higher taxes that would be needed to pay for it."

"Marco’s own experience as the child of immigrants has always informed his belief in limited government and free enterprise, which is why he has helped lead the fight against out-of-control spending and job-destroying tax hikes that continue to hold our economy back and stifle opportunity for millions. He was a natural choice to deliver the Republicans’ alternative to the administration’s reliance on government and debt," said McConnell.

In 2012, the GOP response was delivered by then-Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.).

—This story was last updated at 4:21 p.m.

View Comments

View the original article here

Cal Thomas Column: Contraception Mandate Is Wrong Because Government Shouldn't Define What Is and Isn't a Church

Under pressure from religious and conservative groups, the Obama administration has offered another compromise on the issue of birth control coverage within the Affordable Care Act. While exempting churches and some religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals and universities, from supplying the coverage, the new proposal calls for their employees to receive stand-alone private insurance policies providing birth control coverage at no cost. Insurance companies will foot the bill, but only the naive can possibly think the cost won't find its way back to the institution in the form of higher health premiums.

Numerous lawsuits filed against this and other portions of "Obamacare" will proceed and for good reason: the federal government seems intent on setting rules on matters of conscience and worse, defining what constitutes a church, or religious institution.

One of the litigants is Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, whose CEO, David Green, is an evangelical Christian. Green says, "We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate." That mandate includes, in addition to contraceptive coverage in employees' health care, "preventive services," including "morning-after" pills and other drugs, which Green considers abortifacients. After Hobby Lobby's appeal to Justice Sonia Sotomayor was rejected, the Christian Post reports the company then made plans to "...shift the beginning of its employee health plan to temporarily avoid $1.3 million a day in fines for each day since Jan. 1 that it did not comply with the Affordable Care Act." (According to the new health care law, businesses with more than 50 employees that refuse to comply can be fined by the IRS $100 per day per employee.) Hobby Lobby's appeals continue.

The core issue as I see it -- and there are others -- is whether the government has the right to define a church as a building in which people congregate on Sundays and whether a private company headed by a religious person qualifies for conscience exemptions. For government to decide such things violates the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and appears to put the state in the position of supreme authority and arbiter of what constitutes "legitimate" religious faith and practice. The Supreme Court will likely have to resolve its constitutionality.

Permit me to offer the justices some assistance.

The early church was not a building with a towering steeple. The early church met in homes. If one accepts New Testament teaching (and what higher authority on the church could there be?), the concept of the church being an organism that resides in each individual believer is clearly spelled out in several passages.

Paul the Apostle writes in his letter to the Colossians (1:24) about the "body" of Jesus Christ, "which is the church." By this, he means the "body of believers" in whom Christ dwells. Wherever that body is, whether an individual, or a group of believers, that's the church. It was only later that this concept of church was turned into something with expensive buildings, tax exemptions and denominations.

The same theme can be found in Revelation where John is asked by Jesus to write letters to several churches. Those, too, were bodies of believers, not physical structures.

In the Old Testament, God told Solomon that while He was too big to live in buildings, He would "dwell" in the Temple Solomon built for Him. Ultimately, though, He said He had other intentions: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." (Jeremiah 31:33)

That was and remains for believers the authentic church, so when people say, "I am going to church," it is an impossibility because they can't go to themselves.

The administration's efforts to effectively gerrymander lines between what it considers legitimate religious practice and the secular is what the Founders hoped to avoid when they linked the establishment clause with the free exercise clause.

That is why, among other reasons, government should not mandate birth control coverage as part of any national health care plan.

(Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.)

View the original article here

Georgia May Allow Mental Health Counselors To ‘Involuntarily Commit’ Patients

A Georgia Senate health committee has unanimously passed a bill “that would allow licensed professional counselors to involuntarily commit to an institution for 72 hours patients who appear to be mentally ill and a danger,” the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports.

While doctors and psychologists in Georgia already possess the authority to involuntarily commit mentally ill patients they deem to be a “danger,” licensed counselors do not share that power. The bill — SB 65 — looks to change that, with supporters arguing that the additional authorities will ease the burden on Georgia’s mental health institutions:

Giving licensed professional counselors the authority to involuntarily commit patients would fill a need and ease the strain on Georgia’s mental health system, promoters of SB 65 testified Tuesday. Georgia has roughly 4,800 licensed professional counselors.

“We need more investment in our mental health services,” Sen. Nan Orrock, D-Atlanta, told members of the Senate Health and Human Service Committee. “This is one piece of the puzzle.”

The bill is under discussion at a time when Georgia is struggling to provide more community-based mental health services, including mobile crisis teams, as part of a 2010 agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that stemmed from an investigation into the abuse and death of patients in state mental hospitals.

The history of mental health institutionalization in America is fraught with controversy, but advocates for the mentally ill generally agree that community-based mental health services are medically preferable — and more humane — than institutionalized services. The fact that SB 65 was spurred by Georgia’s dearth of community-based practices suggests that the bill is simply treating a symptom of Georgia’s mental health woes, rather than addressing the issue’s root cause — namely, that the state does’t have nearly enough funding allocated for its mental health care system.

While the temporary institutionalization of mentally ill Americans who might be a danger to themselves or others is a relatively uncontroversial status quo, such laws may add to existing stigmas about mental health care and dissuade Americans with violent thoughts from seeking the care they need. For example, New York’s sweeping new gun safety law was met with reticence by mental health professionals for what some perceived to be draconian provisions requiring care providers to “report” potentially violent patients to a state board.

But Georgia’s law goes even further than that, adding institutionalization to the powers that a doctor has over patients. That’s pretty significant for the over half a million Georgians suffering from a severe mental disorder, as studies have shown that over a third of the mentally ill do not seek care due to social stigmas and the fear of being committed.

View the original article here

Focus On The Family ‘Analyst’: Gender And Sexuality Are Only Determined By Procreation

Jeff Johnston is Focus on the Family’s resident ex-gay, who regularly promotes harmful ex-gay therapy because he claims conforming to heteronormativity is ideal for society. He applies this to trans people too, rejecting transgender identities as disordered. In a new screed against LGBT equality today, he discounted any understanding of gender whatsoever, claiming the only determining factors in gender are what men and women contribute to human reproduction:

Despite years of brainwashing from academia, radical feminists, the media, and entertainment, most people know that men and women are different, unique and complementary. A society that attempts to erase male and female or to create new categories to stand next to male and female is living in unreality. Which of the supposed “other genders” being created by individuals or groups can reproduce or replicate itself? [...]

As Christians we also reject the reduction of humanity to groups defined by their sexual attractions and behaviors. Male and female are categories of existence – there is the biological reality of being male or female, and we live in the spiritual reality of a masculinity or femininity that reflects God’s image. It is de-humanizing to categorize individuals by the ever-proliferating alphabet of identities based on sexual attractions or behavior or “gender identity” – LGBBTTQQIAAFPPBDSM – however many letters are added. No. We stand with the truth that there are male and female. There is no recently discovered race of “homosexuals” or “gays” or “lesbians.” We don’t define people’s essence, their being, by their sexual appetites or by other desires.

Actually, there is a biological reality of being gay or straight too, and no sexual orientation compromises whether someone is male or female. And gender involves so much more than just whether you contribute sperm or eggs — it is the complex intersection of socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, activities, and attributes that might be associated with one’s sex and how they interact with society.

Johnston believes he successfully erased his own sexual identity so now he works to erase others’. His simple-minded view of the world ignores wide swaths of diversity within sex, gender, and sexual orientation to the detriment of all. He may claim that Christians “reject the reduction of humanity,” but his narrow categories for who people can be does just that.

View the original article here

U.S. Corporations Haven’t Been Paying The Full Corporate Tax Rate For 45 Years

In 2011, U.S. corporations paid a 12.1 percent effective corporate income tax rate, a 40-year low. The statutory corporate tax rate is 35 percent, but companies drive their rates fare lower due to the proliferation of loopholes and deductions and the growing use of offshore tax havens.

This isn’t a new problem, as Goldman Sachs’ David Kostin shows. In fact, corporations have been paying below the statutory rate for 45 years (the chart uses 39 percent due to its inclusion of state corporate taxes):

For the last 45 years, the median S&P 500 firm has paid an effective tax rate averaging more than 5 percentage points below the statutory rate. Despite statutory rates hovering near 39% for the last 25 years, effective tax rates have been gradually decreasing (see Exhibit 2). At 30%, the current S&P 500 median effective tax rate is almost 10 percentage points below the statutory level, and close to the global statutory average.

The corporate income tax is so riddled with holes that 26 major corporations paid nothing between 2008 and 2011, while making a collective $205 billion in profits. Democratic Sen. Carl Levin (MI) this week released a plan to raise $200 billion over ten years by closing corporate tax loopholes. (HT: Sam Ro)

View the original article here

POLL: Majority Supports Allowing Gays Into Boy Scouts

The Boy Scouts of America decided today to delay reconsideration of its anti-gay policy so it can gather more feedback, but a new poll from Quinnipiac provides an immediate answer to the question. According to the poll, 55 percent of American voters support the BSA dropping its policy, while 33 percent feel it should keep it. Support for a more inclusive policy is particularly strong among women (61-27) and Catholics (63-25), whereas white evangelical Protestants oppose gay scouts (56-33). A Gallup poll in December had a less positive response for gay Scouts.

View the original article here