An amendment to put our fiscal house in order

An amendment to put our fiscal house in order - The Hill's Congress Blog @import "/plugins/content/jw_disqus/tmpl/css/template.css"; li.item435,li.item437,li.item439,li.item441,li.item443,li.item497,li.item499,li.item501,li.item503,li.item605,li.item689,li.item691,li.item693,li.item695,li.item697,li.item683,li.item685{display: none;} var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "10314615" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); function getURLParameter(name) { return decodeURI( (RegExp(name + '=' + '(.+?)(&|$)').exec(location.search)||[,null])[1] );}(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); if (getURLParameter("set_fb_var") == '1') { jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var', 'true', { expires: 7, path: '/' }); return true; } if (!jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var') && d.referrer.match(/facebook.com/i)) { window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '340094652706297', status: true, xfbml: true, cookie: true, oauth: true }); }; }}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));if((navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i)) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i))) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/iPad/i)) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/Android/i)) {document.write('');} Follow!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");Advanced Search Options » Home/NewsSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsCampaignBusiness & LobbyingK Street InsidersLobbying ContractsLobbying HiresLobbying RevenueOpinionColumnistsEditorialsLettersOp-EdWeyants WorldCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkNew Member of the Week20 QuestionsMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAnnouncementsMeet the LawmakerJobsVideoGossip: In The Know Briefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter Room HomeSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter RoomOpinionA.B. StoddardBrent BudowskyLanny DavisDavid HillCheri JacobusMark MellmanDick MorrisMarkos Moulitsas (Kos)Robin BronkEditorialsLettersOp-EdsJuan WilliamsJudd GreggChristian HeinzeKaren FinneyJohn FeeheryCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkAnnouncementsNew Member of the WeekMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAll Capital LivingVideoHillTubeEventsVideoClassifiedsJobsClassifiedsResourcesMobile SiteiPhoneAndroidiPadLawmaker RatingsWhite PapersOrder ReprintsLast 6 IssuesOutside LinksRSS FeedsContact UsAdvertiseReach UsSubmitting LettersSubmitting Op-edsSubscriptions   An amendment to put our fiscal house in orderBy Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.)-02/27/13 06:00 PM ET Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

This month House Democratic Leadership has attempted to persuade the country that Washington does not have a spending problem.
 
House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that “it's almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem.”
 
Friends, this is laughable.
 
With the national debt at more than $16.5 trillion dollars and growing more every second, Rep. Pelosi is right, we do not have a spending problem — we have a spending crisis.

As a small business owner and tax attorney, I cannot comprehend Washington’s inability to manage its finances. Currently, our government is operating on piecemeal spending bills and has not had an actual budget in nearly three years. Can you imagine if your local supermarket, drugstore, and gas station operated without a budget? They would be in a mess come April 15, and probably fail to see the end of their fiscal year.
 
American families and businesses balance their budgets and pay their bills, why should Washington be any different?
 
Last week, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said that “the country has a paying for problem,”  which is backwards logic. If Washington did not have a spending problem, we would not have a paying for problem, Rep. Hoyer.
 
The taxpayer credit card has been abused long enough and I refuse to stand by and watch as politicians add billions to our children and grandchildren’s tabs.
 
Americans and South Carolinians are financially drained, which is why I have cosponsored an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget. It is time to get our fiscal house in order, beginning with holding Washington politicians accountable for their actions.
 
The amendment requires Washington to balance the annual budget by not spending more than it receives in revenue in any given fiscal year, unless approved by a three-fifths vote of each chamber of Congress.
 
Also, the amendment would prohibit the debt ceiling from being raised without the same three-fifths vote of approval from each chamber of Congress.  Finally, the budget cannot be balanced through increased revenue, unless agreed to by a majority of each chamber.
 
Our country is up against serious fiscal problems and this amendment is the first step towards a prosperous future. I will continue to work with my colleagues to get spending under control, balance the national budget, and make sure more American jobs stay in America.
 
Rice represents South Carolina’s newly created Seventh Congressional District. He is a tax attorney, small business owner, and a former CPA. He serves on the Budget Committee, Small Business Committee, and Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, and is chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital Access.

Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); View Comments Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/285377-an-amendment-to-put-our-fiscal-house-in-orderThe contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | OpinionView News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & InfrastructureGO TO THE HILL HOME » More Videos »

Congress Blog
Most Popular StoriesMost ViewedPresident chooses tax tour over sequester solutionsThe Voting Rights Act: A continued march toward progressThe pro-rule of law argument against a 'drone court'Making immigration reform work for childrenKeeping our commitment to our veteransEmailedUS must bring STEM education up to par with overseas competitorsCampaign to Fix the Debt - a cause that enduresKerry goes to AnkaraMaking immigration reform work for childrenImmigration reform not to be rushed DiscussedMaking immigration reform work for childrenImmigration reform: Substance above rhetoric - Doing what is rightImmigration reform not to be rushed In your heart, you know Hagel is wrong for Pentagon jobProposed SHIELD law is nothing but a gift to infringersBlog Home »Most Viewed RSS Feed »  More Economy & Budget HeadlinesSequestration's impact on national defenseElizabeth Warren gives green light to whistleblowersBuyer beware: E-Verify's hidden costsMore Economy & Budget Headlines » Economy & Budget News RSS feed »  Congress Blog Topics Campaign » Cardoza's Corner » Civil Rights » Economy & Budget » Education » Energy & Environment » Foreign Policy » Healthcare » Homeland Security » Judicial » Labor » Lawmaker News » Politics » Presidential Campaign » Religious Rights » Technology » The Administration »Briefing RoomWoodward claims White House threatened himSupreme Court justices hint at striking Voting Rights Act provisionMichelle Obama praises lower childhood obesity rates in first stop of Let's Move! tour
More Briefing Room »Congress BlogAn amendment to put our fiscal house in orderFor health data, big isn't betterSequestration's impact on national defense
More Congress Blog »Pundits Blog5-year-olds victims of identity theftHas Speaker Boehner opened the door or is he just being cute?Why Sarah Palin? Why Ted Cruz?: 'Nationalists' and 'Federalists'
More Pundits Blog »Twitter RoomRubio, Netanyahu poke fun at water bottle gaffeRep. Polis discusses pot, drug laws on RedditHouse Republican caucus launches Spanish-language Twitter feed
More Twitter Room »Hillicon ValleyOVERNIGHT TECH: House to consider email privacy billRepublicans blast 'wasteful' Internet stimulus programHollywood to launch media education campaign after Newtown criticism
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)Sen. Murkowski maintains hold threat for Interior nomineeOVERNIGHT ENERGY: European climate chief, nuke waste officials in focusAide distances White House from Keystone pipeline decision
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot BoxBloomberg, buoyed by primary win, eager for 2014 fight vs. NRA on gunsSteve King in no rush on Senate decisionPoll: Roberts, though unknown, well-poised for reelection
More Ballot Box »On The MoneyKey House conservatives say they can support measure to fund governmentKennedy in line for US envoy to JapanStudy: Wealth gap between white, black families growing
More On The Money »HealthwatchOVERNIGHT HEALTH: Four in 10 say health law covers the undocumentedHealth groups urge Supreme Court to axe DOMAAdvocate says FDA mission 'at risk' from lack of funds
More Healthwatch »Floor ActionMcConnell introduces GOP alternative to sequester cutsSenate passes bill to strengthen emergency preparednessHouse Dem: LaPierre has 'lost all sense of reality' on gun control
More Floor Action »TransportationAirline lobby: Air travel should not be 'political football'PolitiFact rates sequester air travel delay warnings 'mostly true'TSA chief: Sequester would impact airport security most during summer
More Transportation »DEFCON HillOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Sequestration creeps closer DOD intelligence chiefs sounds alarm on sequester Boehner to suspend military flights for congressional trips
More DEFCON Hill »Global AffairsSen. Rubio: Time to provide ammunition to Syrian oppositionDem prepares bill to arm Syrian oppositionWhite House denies Brennan played major role in Benghazi talking points
More Global Affairs »In The KnowYoungest House member: It feels good to get cardedWrestler challenges 'The Barack' to get in the ringRosa Parks statue dedicated at Capitol
More In The Know »RegWatchChamber study claims to debunk EPA figures on job-creating regulationsReport: Obama falling short on executive appointmentsTemporary visa program for illegal immigrants begins
More RegWatch » Blogs News FeedCongress Blog RollCapital GamesDaily KosDCCCDNCDrudge ReportDSCCJudicial WatchNRCCNRSCPolitical AnimalRNCThe ChamberPostThe CornerThe Huffington PostThe NoteThe Plank COLUMNISTSLanny DavisObama’s path for Mideast Dick MorrisSequester: A secret planMore Columnists »

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.

Home/NewsNews by SubjectBlogsBusiness & LobbyingOpinionCapital LivingSpecial ReportsJobsVideo Home | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact | Advertise | RSS | Subscriptions

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

View the original article here

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney aboard Air Force One en route Newport News, VA, 2/26/2013

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Newport News, Virginia

11:39 A.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Hello.  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being aboard Air Force One with us today as we make our way to Newport News, Virginia.  As you know, the President will be visiting Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, where he will discuss the impacts on the defense industry and the Virginia economy if congressional Republicans fail to compromise to avert the sequester.

As I think you know, in the information that we provided you it makes clear that HII, in this case, the company that runs  Newport News Shipbuilding, engages with suppliers, small businesses across the country that would be adversely affected by sequester.  The President feels very strongly that for the sake of the people of Virginia and people who would be affected across the country, Republicans in Congress need to do what the American public overwhelmingly wants them to do, which is agree to a balanced approach to further reducing deficit.  And you’ll hear about that subject from the President in his remarks today.

Questions.

Q    Military officials in Afghanistan are correcting an incorrect report that the Taliban attacks dropped last year.  Does that undercut the President’s message that there are improvements happening in Afghanistan?

MR. CARNEY:  The President has made clear repeatedly that as we draw down our forces and train up Afghan forces, we will turn over security lead to the Afghans progressively as we move towards the transition points that he has discussed and that NATO has committed to. 

It has always been the case, and will remain the case, that this is hard work and it is not work that comes without occasional setbacks.  I haven’t seen the report that you’ve mentioned, but ultimately, thanks to the sacrifice of American men and women in uniform, as well as our diplomats, Afghanistan is increasingly capable of taking care of its own security and ultimately will be responsible for its own security.  The President is committed to winding down that war and will keep to the timetable that he’s announced with his NATO allies.

Q    Jay, is the President resigned to the sequestration cuts going into effect on Friday?

MR. CARNEY:  I think you heard him say the other day that he remains hopeful, even though he understands that the clock is ticking and thus far, Republican leaders have refused to budge on the basic principle that we need to address this, our deficit challenges, in a balanced way.
We have on board, as you know, Congressman Rigell, who has said that he would like to see the sequester averted and that closing loopholes is a fair way to, in part, go about doing that. I think you saw Senator Lindsey Graham yesterday, late yesterday, on CNN talk about how he believes the damage of the sequester would be severe, especially to our defense interests, and that he would be open to a package of balanced deficit reduction that would include up to $600 billion in revenue from tax reform. 

What's notable about that figure is that it’s roughly what the President has put forward in his offer to Speaker Boehner and it's actually considerably less, $200 billion less, than the Speaker himself, as late as December of last year, just two months ago, said was his plan for contributing revenue to deficit reduction.

Q    Do those two folks that you mentioned give you folks hope that that’s an actual breakthrough, or is that just -- are those just outliers in an otherwise intractable situation?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we'll have to see what the Republican leadership does.  Unfortunately, on the other side of the ledger, we've seen comments, as we did from Congressman Pompeo, a Republican Congressman, that suggests a different course of action.  He said it would be a home run politically for Republicans to see sequester implemented.  I wonder if he would say that to the 90,000 Defense Department workers in Virginia who would see their pay cut because of furloughs, or the thousands of Virginians who would lose their jobs because of sequester if it were allowed to be implemented.  We certainly don't think that's a home run for ordinary Americans, even if that Congressman thinks it would be for him politically.

Q    Jay, Senators Graham and McCain, our understanding is, are invited to the White House later today.  Is that about immigration?  Or is that about sequestration and defense?

MR. CARNEY:  The meeting arose out of the President's telephone calls with Senator McCain -- I believe the telephone call with Senator McCain when he was calling members of the so-called Gang of Eight on immigration.  Senator Graham also is a member of that.  And I'm sure immigration will be a topic of conversation today.  But I also expect, given the leading role that those Senators play in their party in the Senate that other topics will be addressed, including sequester.  I think Senator Graham said yesterday in public in an interview that he hopes that sequester will be on the table as a topic of discussion.  And I know that the President will want to discuss that as well.

Q    Why not Flake and Rubio, too?

MR. CARNEY:  My understanding is this arose from a conversation with Senator McCain -- the meeting did.  The President spoke with Senator Rubio, he spoke with other members of the Gang of Eight, including Democratic members, and looks forward to working with them on immigration reform.  As I think Margaret points out, I think we expect more than one topic of conversation in this meeting.

Q    Are you hoping that there can be some real advancement or breakthrough on the sequestration front, given those two and the roles they play?  And also, does the President plan on calling Boehner and McConnell back to the White House either before March 1st or at least by week’s end?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't want to set any expectations with regards to a sequester.  On this particular meeting I'm sure it will be a subject.  Senator Graham has said he would like it to be.  I know the President is interested in that subject.    Immigration and other issues will be on the table, I’m sure.

The President has been engaged and will continue to be engaged with congressional leaders of both parties on the issue of the sequester.  I don't have any meetings or phone calls to preview for you, but you can expect that he will continue to engage with them. 

He will also, as he is today, go out and speak to the American people about these important issues.  It's rather stunning to me that Republicans criticize the President for talking to the American people about the consequences of sequester, because the American people are the ones who will feel those consequences.  Perhaps --

Q    They called it a roadshow. 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, they did, and I guess that maybe they are opposed to the President talking to the American people about sequester because the American people overwhelmingly support the President's position on how to reduce our deficit, and reject overwhelmingly the Republican position, which is placing the entire burden on senior citizens and middle-class families and the like. 

The numbers could not be more stark, and setting aside public opinion, the policies could not be more different when it comes to balance and fairness.

Q    When you talked about Senator Graham speaking about being open to tax revenues yesterday, he also said, where's the President when it comes to overhaul of entitlement.  And would that be a topic?  Would there be a give-and-take?  Do you think there would be an opening to negotiation on that today?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, I'm not going to preview a meeting that hasn't taken place.  And I'm simply reflecting what Senator Graham said he would like to be one of the topics of conversation, and representing for the President that he, of course, would be interested in talking about that.  It's not a negotiation over sequester.

But when it comes to entitlement reform, I would remind you, as we made clear again last week and have repeatedly since December, the President's offer to the Speaker of the House remains on the table.  That includes roughly $580 billion in revenue through tax reform -- again, short of what John Boehner said was possible, significantly short of what John Boehner said he supported back just a few short months ago.  And it includes savings from entitlement reforms -- tough choices by Democrats as part of a broad, comprehensive deficit reduction package that would include tax reform that generated revenue. 

The President has shown his commitment to entitlement reform, including the so-called superlative CPI change, as well as means-testing of Medicare benefits.  These are -- these represent choices that are reflective of his willingness to compromise and Democrats’ willingness and interest in compromise. What we haven't seen, unfortunately, from Republican leaders is anything like that commensurate level of -- anything commensurate with that level of compromise.  We have not seen proposals from  -- at least comprehensive proposals from Republicans that include revenue in the way that the President's proposals include savings from both discretionary spending and entitlements. 

Back in December, the Speaker talked about that he could create -- he could produce $800 billion in revenue over 10 years from tax reform -- $800 billion from, to quote him, “the rich."  He never put that on paper, but he said it again and again publicly.  He said it was the right policy.  And what we don’t understand is why it was the right policy two months ago and now it's unacceptable policy for Speaker Boehner today.

Q    Jay, on that point, the White House keeps on saying that Boehner proposed this set of policies, but that would -- he was talking before the fiscal cliff deal, which already raised taxes.  Wasn’t he talking about -- you're talking about increasing the net tax burden -- he didn’t want to do that, though.  He wanted to reduce rates to get the $800 billion.

MR. CARNEY:  No, no, no.  He talked about a tax reform package that would contribute revenue to deficit reduction.  I understand that they want to now do tax reform that is revenue-neutral.  That is quite different from what we were talking about late last year. 

And the fact of the matter is that including the fiscal cliff deal -- which included raising rates to Clinton-era levels for the wealthiest Americans -- income tax rates -- we have still seen deficit reduction that is made up of more than $2 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenues.  That reflects balance.  It reflects balance in favor of spending cuts signed into law by this President.  What it doesn’t reflect is the absolutist approach that Republicans have taken when we talk about the sequester or the need for further deficit reduction.

Q    One more question on the sequester.  If it goes into effect and the Republicans don't compromise with you, that will mean the ratio of spending cuts to taxes will be three and a half or four to one in the end.  Isn't that a defeat for the President if sequester stays?

MR. CARNEY:  Sequester, if it’s imposed, will be imposed because of a choice by the Republican leadership to reject balance in our deficit reduction efforts, to reject the overwhelming sentiment of the American people in favor of balance, and the consequences of sequester will be the result of that Republican choice. 

There’s no question that the President believes, as the Republicans once did, that the sequester is bad policy that should never be law, should never be implemented.  That was the whole point of the sequester.  And I can point you to numerous statements by Republican leaders about how sequester should be avoided at all costs. 

Now we have a Republican congressmen saying sequester will be a home run for them politically -- although the political universe that he inhabits seems different from the general American public, the general American universe.  And we see the Speaker of the House himself saying just a few weeks ago to the Wall Street Journal that he has sequester in his back pocket, and the Speaker in that interview also bragged about the fact that he had convinced fellow House Republicans to support implementation of the sequester.

Again, that kind of attitude ignores the impact that imposition of the sequester would have on the lives of average Americans here in Virginia and across the country.

I think we should all thank the pilot for that impressive landing.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Jay, is this Favreau and Tommy’s last flight?

MR. CARNEY:  It is.  It’s a sad day.

Q    Are they here because they --

MR. CARNEY:  They are.  There are and will be tears and gnashing of teeth. 

END
11:52 A.M. EST

President Obama is on hand for the unveiling of the new Rosa Parks statue in the U.S. Capitol

February 27, 2013 12:00 PM EST

To mark African American History Month, as well as the 150th anniversary of the year the Emancipation Proclamation, we talked with White House Curator Bill Allman about a painting called Watch Meeting--Dec. 31st 1862--Waiting for the Hour that hangs near the Oval Office in the West Wing.

President Obama strongly believes we need to replace the arbitrary cuts known as the sequester with balanced deficit reduction, and today he was at a shipyard in Newport News, VA to talk about what failing to do so will mean for middle class families.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

GOP Governor Turns To Faith To Explain Why He Supports Obamacare’s Medicaid Expansion

Ohio Governor John Kasich.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich is one of eight Republican governors who have so far said their state will participate in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. But as the Huffington Post points out, Kasich stands apart in one respect: Of those Republican governors, he is so far the only one to explicitly tie his decision to the values of his religious faith.

While he remains opposed to Obamacare as a whole, the Ohio governor indicated his support for the Medicaid expansion in his annual State of the State remarks last week, pointing to the public health insurance program’s potential to help care for the most vulnerable residents in his state:

The Bible runs [Kasich's] life “not just on Sunday, but just about every day,” he said in his annual State of the State address Tuesday.

“And I’ve got to tell you, I can’t look at the disabled, I can’t look at the poor, I can’t look at the mentally ill, I can’t look at the addicted and think we ought to ignore them,” he told the audience of about 1,700 lawmakers, state officials and other guests. […]

“Put it in your family,” Kasich said. “Put somebody that is in your family who becomes the wayward child. And they come home one day, they can’t get a job. Put it on your doorstep, and you’ll understand how hard it is.”

Kasich was raised Catholic and worships regularly in an Anglican church. For more than 20 years, he has met every other Monday with a small group of men to study the Bible. And he has written a book about how the experience has helped him in his search for answers.

That’s a theme in keeping with a broader push that’s been made in the expansion’s favor. Earlier this year, religious and community leaders in Ohio held a rally at Olivet Institutional Baptist Church in Cleveland, calling on their state to participate in the Medicaid expansion. And back in September, over 100 national, state, and local faith leaders released a statement employing Republican governors as a whole to accept the expansion. Sister Simone Campbell, the executive director of the Catholic social justice group NETWORK, said in conjunction with the release that, “My strong support of Medicaid expansion comes out of my pro-life stance because it is the right and moral thing to do.”

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) wasn’t as explicitly religious as Kasich when he announced his own support for Medicaid expansion, but he did come close. As the Huffington Post noted, Scott said his mother, who passed away last year, taught him that “America’s greatness is largely because of how we value the weakest among us.”

Because the federal government will fund the first several years of the Medicaid expansion, reports have estimated that Ohio will actually enjoy $1.43 billion in net fiscal savings to its state budget over the next eight years if it participates. And failing to expand Medicaid would actually cost the state about $8 billion in additional health care costs, largely because a higher uninsured population would mean greater spending on uncompensated care.

View the original article here

AIA: Asia Still Under-Insured

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoTue 26 Feb 13 | 06:10 PM ET Mark Tucker, CEO & President of AIA Group, talks to CNBC after the insurance giant posted an 89% rise in full-year net profit, explaining how growth over the past three years has doubled.

View the original article here

Marlo Thomas On Making ‘That Girl’ Feminist TV, PBS’s ‘Makers,’ And Where Pop Culture Goes Next

Last night, PBS aired Makers, a documentary about the history of the feminist movement, exploring everything from the relationship between women’s liberation and the struggles for black and gay civil rights to the rise of the eighties power tie as women entered previously male-dominated professional fields. While some of the subjects may be familiar to those of us who ended up in women’s studies classes at some point, Makers is a reminder of how much feminist history has been forgotten or obscured over the years, starting with the rumors of bra-burning at the Miss America protests. Because part of the goal of Makers was to spark discussions about the state of feminism today, I spoke with one of the subjects whose work is of particular interest to anyone who cares about the portrayal and employment of women in popular culture: Marlo Thomas.

As the star of the groundbreaking sitcom That Girl, Thomas fought to preserve the integrity of the show’s portrayal of a single woman’s life—and to hire more female writers. And as the creator of Free To Be You And Me, the book, album, and television special for children that challenged pre-existing notions of gender norms, Thomas fought to give children entertainment that would change the way they saw their possible futures. We spoke during the Television Critics Association press tour in January about the evolution of sitcom roles for women, Brave and princess myths, and the struggles women—and men—face to have it all. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

I’m excited to talk to you in part because my first job as a critic was when I was eight years old for my local paper—I wrote children’s books.

You were a critic at eight years old? How cute!

I was, my author photo has me in little pink glasses and the world’s largest lace collar. I was proof that women, even at eight years old, aren’t paid enough. I was paid in five-dollar gift certificates to the local bookstore. So I was really curious to talk to you because Free To Be You And Me was inspired by the lack of good books for boys and girls alike. What do you think about the rise of young adult fiction? It seems to me that there are many more options for young female readers today. Have we made enough progress if what young girls get offered is Twilight?

Well, you know, far be it for me to tell people what to write. I must say that after we did Free To Be You And Me, and its phenomenal success, and its continued success, I’m surprised that more and more people aren’t writing about that. I saw the movie Brave, which is taken right from Atalanta [a princess story from Free To Be You And Me], which is exciting to me. And I just wish more people would follow, not just follow the path, but find the path to children’s imaginations that is going to open up their horizons and their minds. It just seems that—my husband has two grandchildren, they’re now 16 and 17, the girl is 16—and I’ve noticed with her stuff, it’s all princesses, and the boy’s stuff is all violence. All violent games from the GameBoy on up. And I look at it, and I try very hard to bring other things in, but that’s what all their friends are reading, and watching, and playing. I’m disappointed, I really am. Somebody, some book company has to make it their job, or part of their imprint, part of their conscientiousness to say “Why aren’t we putting out books that do this?” The Free To Be You And Me classic, when it came ou,t there was nothing like it. We’ve already paved the way. Why doesn’t someone pick it up? I can’t do it all.

I think you’re describing two different challenges. It’s hard to ask individuals to take on all the work for anyone else. And you mentioned the persistence of the pricness myth. I felt conflicted about Brave. I like that she’s a different kind of princess, but the victory at the end is that she gets to choose her own husband, who will still be dyanstically important. A princess is still a princess.

Right. But it’s just that she was athletic, and she ran, and she took some action. That’s a big difference from the other princess, from Cinderella. But it’s true. In our princess story, Atlanta at the end decides not to marry, and go off to explore lands. We were feminists writing that. I don’t know that the people from Brave got our whole message, though they took a lot of it…I don’t know, it’s sort of a surrendering to a happy ending, or what you consider to be a happy ending. When I was doing That Girl, they wanted me to have a wedding at the end of the series. And I refused. I refused to have a wedding, to have her get married at the end of the show. And they said “It’ll be great! It’ll get huge ratings.” And I said, “But then I’m copping out to every girl who loved this show…This was the first girl to say “I don’t want to get married, I want to work. I want to have a career. I want to live in my own apartment.” All of those things. And the mail was extraordinary about girls wanting to be just like her, and grandmothers saying “Don’t marry Donald!” They really were very invested in this single girl. The idea of betraying them at the end of the show and getting married just seemed like a true betrayal. I wouldn’t do it. Even that, Clairol was the sponsor, and they wanted a wedding, and ABC wanted a wedding, the producers wanted a wedding. It took a feminist to say “No, no wedding!”

Well what struck me about that story, and the story you told about the executive who looked at you like you were speaking Swahili when you talked about putting a woman at the center of the stage, is that we’re still at a point where there are not a lot of women with the power to say no in television production. We have Shonda Rhimes, who can do whatever she wants—

Tina Fey, Lena Dunham. There a lot of them. When I was producing my show, there wasn’t anyone except Lucille Ball. Now there’s a lot of women doing their own shows…Those are the ones who produce their own shows and they star in them. Roseanne Barr did that. And I don’t know who else. Laura Dern is one of the producers on her show. But certainly not to the extent that men are.

Women are something like 23 percent of television writers. We’ve gotten to a place where people understand that more women watch television than men, and there are more stories about women, but a lot of those stories are still controlled by men. Men run 2 Broke Girls. Men are the majority in the writers’ room on Whitney, which was created by Whitney Cummings. Do you think women have become something it’s possible to profit off with any real attention to telling women’s stories from a woman’s perspective?

Well, I think if a woman creates a show, as you just said, 2 Broke Girls, why did she step back?…You have the power, it’s there for you to take. My show, the first year it was on the air, it was all men producers. And after the first season—I had hired the producers, it was my show—I said, “I have to have a female story editor.” There weren’t a lot of female comedy writers. There were two. Carol Burnett had one and Lucille Ball had one. And there were a couple that were in teams, male-female teams, and we used them. But I said “I need a female story editor to help me, because I’m combatting every week, these guys, about what a girl would do, what a girl would not do.” I was constantly saying “A girl would not say that to her father. A girl would not say that. She’d be more diplomatic about this. She doesn’t want to hurt her father’s feelings if she wins the battle. She’s not going to rub his nose in it. That’s not the way girls compete with their fathers.” It was a constant thing. Or, “I don’t think it’s funny to make fun of how Ruth Buzzi looks. I don’t want a joke about an ugly girl. I don’t want to do that joke.” “Oh no, it’s hilarious.” I said “No, it’s not hiilarious. Girls don’t find that funny.” So I said I have to have a female editor. So we found this woman, and believe me, it wasn’t easy, Ruth Brooks Flippen was her name. And she came in and was the story editor for the rest of the series. But, this woman, who you said created two shows and went off and just produced one. She could have said there’s another woman I really would like to produce this. Or here’s two women I want to put on staff. Because if you don’t have some women on the staff, you aren’t going to get a woman’s consciousness into the story. You’re just not…It’s the right thing to do. It’s a smart thing to do. But you’ve got to take the power when you have it. You have to use the power when you have it. Not that many women have power, but when they do, they really have to share it.

I think that’s one of the things that’s been difficult for women in the industry. Melissa Rosenberg, who’s running Red Widow, made sure her writers’ room was half male and half female, and that there were parents because she doesn’t have children and her main character does. I struggle with asking these writers what their obligations are to hire more women.

Maybe that’s not the right question. I don’t feel an obligation. I think it should be more, do you think a show would be a little better if it had more of a female consciousness on it? Or since your show is about women, wouldn’t it be better to have some more women? That may be a better way into it…It’s really about the responsibility to the show, not to women, but to the story. It’s really about whose story you’re going to tell. If it’s a story of a woman, a girl, a woman, and it’s her point of view, you’re going to have to have quite a few women on the show to do it otherwise. It’s not possible to do it otherwise. You can’t leave it to Judd Apatow to figure out what girls do when they’re broke and trying to make it living in the world. It’s going to be different.

You said it was difficult to find your story editor. Were you able to find more women to write for the show as time went by?

We did. We found more writers. But they were few, and they were mostly teams. There was Treva Silverman, who still is a wonderful writer, and we used her. There were so women, but there weren’t a lot of comedy writers in the sixties and seventies.

The women you found, where did you find them?

Well, you looked for them. You called agents and said “What comedy writers do you have that are women? We’re looking for women to write for That Girl.” We’d go to the writers’ agents. Someone would see a name on somebody else’s show and say this stuff’s really good. But when you put out a call like that to agents, agents can’t wait to get jobs for their writers. You say “Send us samples of your women writers.” And most of them were teams with guys.

That still seems to be the case today. I think half the women who sold shows for the new pilot season sold them as part of teams with men.

I don’t know why that is. You’d have to ask them. You’d have to interview every one of them. It would be really interesting to find out why. Is it because of child caring? Needing time?

It certainly seems like childcare and the hours are big issues for women. If your’e going to run a writers’ room, as people do, where you break story for twenty hours in a row, people have to go home from that because the nanny has to go home. It’s not a regularized profession.

I don’t know that I ever worked with a writing team that were two women. I’ve never worked with them, and I’ve worked with millions of teams, and I’ve never worked with a team that was two women. I mean, I don’t think Norman Lear had a lot of women on his staff, and he had Maude, and Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. It would be interesting to know how many female writers Maude had.

It seems to me in certain ways like television has become more conservative for women. Any time someone gets pregnant, they either have the baby and it’s the best decision in the world, or they have a miscarriage. I think we’ve had two abortions on television in five years.

But you’ve got a lot of women as cops, a lot of women who are not domesticated. That, I think, is the big step. When I started with That Girl, women were in the house. There weren’t any Mary Tyler Moores or Murphy Browns. That’s what they were: they were somebody’s secretary, somebody’s daughter, somebody’s wife. So, and as you look at it through the years, I look at situation comedy as a graph, from That Girl, to Kate and Ally, which was huge, to have two single women raising children, and then Roseanne, a mother who kind of hated her children and screamed at them, a female Jackie Gleeson, and then Murphy Brown, unwed, a drunk, screams at her staff. I mean, huge! When you think from That Girl to that…Every person That Girl met or Mary Richards met loved her. The mailman loved her. All the way to Roseanne and then to Murphy, that’s a huge graph.

It certainly seems like we’ve won the right not to be likable on television.

Right. Lena Dunham, she, I read an interview of hers saying “Why do women have to be likeable?” I thought, good for her! You have to defend your character, but you don’t have to make her likable. And if that’s what you want your show to be about, at least you can do that now. You couldn’t do that before. So that’s a huge step. So I htink maybe in situation comedy women are doing better. I mean, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler. I mean, they’re great. And they’re producing their own shows, both of them, and writing them. I know more about situation comedy than I do about the graph of the drama, except I know there are a lot of policewomen, and women with authority, and judges, a lawyer and a judge on Law and Order, there’s more of that.

One thing I thought was interesting that you mentioned in the panel today was the myth of what feminism was about. One thing women my age have struggled with is there are so many options, so what do you choose? And can you choose wrong? I thought that was one of the interesting things that came up at the end of the documentary.

I think it’s rather luxurious to say, “I just have so many choices, I don’t know what to choose.” I’d like to whack you around the room for that. I mean, my goodness. I don’t mean you. I mean any woman who feels “Oh, dear, I have too many options.” It’s like saying “I can buy any dress I want, I just can’t decide which dress I want to buy.” If you have that many choices, a bountiful, bountiful table, then look at it, and what suits you? What do you want? And go after what you want. I think that’s a problem with a lot of people in any age group. If you don’t know what you want, any road will take you there. You’re obviously a young woman who, since you were eight years old, was critiquing things, and I just adore that in your, that at eight years old with your little pink glasses, you were deciding what’s a good children’s book, and today, you’re critiquing with an intelligence that has evolved from having the experience of doing it. I think, wow, what a choice you made? I’m sure along the way, something else interested you.

I did a lot of political work.

So you could be doing that right now. You could be soembody’s campaign manager, you could be on somebody’s staff, you could be running yourself, you could be on City Council. You looked at the world and you said this is the thing I want to do, and your’e doing that. I have to say, look at yourself and take a grip. How many women in the world, how many women in Mali, how many women in Afghanistan have choices? They can’t even go to school. I don’t have patience with anyone who has so many choices they don’t know what to choose.

It’s what we refer to as a First World Problem.

That’s exactly right. God, I wish that were true for every young boy and girl.

Do you think women get trapped by the perceived obligation to have it all?

Women can’t have it all any more than men can have it all….If having it all means, and it seems to mean that you’re married, and you have children, and you have work you love, that can only be done if both people have it all. If you don’t change the domestic arrangement, nothing’s going to happen. Nothing can happen for men, women, or children if we don’t change the domestic arrangement…I had a mother at home and a father who traveled all the time. I could have been better served by a father who was home more often and a mother and father who shared things more equally. My mother was the complete enforcer and my father was the nice man who came home and gave us presents. It was a complete fantasy of what parenting was about.

View the original article here

Not-So-Golden Years: Over 75, Burdened By Debt

The golden years are supposed to be a time when you can live off the wealth you've accumulated over a lifetime, not feel like you have to take on more debt to make ends meet.

But a new batch of research shows that Americans ages 75 and over appear to have grown more burdened by debt in recent years, and experts say a likely culprit is medical expenses.

A new analysis of government data, released earlier this month by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, found that between 2007 and 2010 people who are 75 and older were more likely to have debt, and their average debt levels increased significantly.

That's in stark contrast to other older Americans in their 50s and 60s, who generally saw debt levels stabilize during that period.

In general, the good news is that people ages 75 and older are much less likely to have debt, and generally carry far less debt, than other older Americans. But Craig Copeland, a senior research associate with EBRI and the report's author, said it was still troubling to see that the trend for that group was toward increasing, rather than decreasing, debt burdens.

"It really looked like something wasn't going well for them," Copeland said.

He suspects that many Americans who are 75 and older have few options but to take on debt when a big unexpected expense arises, because many are living on fixed retirement incomes and don't work. That means they can't, say, work a few extra hours or take on a second job if they need to pay for something.

That unexpected expense may be health-related. Although most older Americans are covered by Medicare, Copeland noted that many are still on the hook for co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses.

That means a person with a limited income can have their finances thrown into disarray by one unexpected event, such as a broken hip that requires significant co-pays or the sudden need for a very expensive prescription that isn't fully covered.

"In a lot of cases it seems to be that health care is a particularly vexing issue," he said.

The percentage of people 75 and above who had debt grew from 31.2 percent in 2007, the year the nation went into recession, to 38.5 percent in 2010, a year after the recession officially ended, according to the EBRI's analysis of Census data. The average amount of debt for those with debt also more than doubled, from $13,665 in 2007 to $27,409 in 2010.

The debt loads were far greater for people in their 50s and 60s, but the trend lines were far less troubling. The percentage of people ages 55 to 64 who held debt fell from 81.7 percent to 77.6 percent. For people ages 65 to 74, the percentage holding debt held steady at about 65 percent.

The average debt for 55- to 64-year-old debtholders fell from $112,075 in 2007 to $107,060 in 2010. For people ages 65 to 74, average debt fell from $72,922 in 2007 to $70,875 in 2010.

It makes sense for younger people to have more debt because they are still paying off big expenses, like houses, and they also are more likely to be bringing home a paycheck. By the time you reach your mid-70s, many would expect to have paid off the house and retired from regular work.

For people 75 and older, Copeland said his research showed that both median credit card and housing debt increased for those who had those types of debt.

Lucia Dunn, an economist at The Ohio State University, said her more recent research also has shown that older Americans have been taking on more credit card debt in recent years. She also suspects that unexpected medical expenses are a key problem for that group.

But in general, she said the really troubling finding she's seeing is that younger Americans appear to be taking on more debt than previous generations, and paying it off at slower rates.

That could mean that today's young people have even bigger problems than their parents and grandparents when they reach age 75 and older.

"The elderly are taking it in (but) not as fast as the younger ones," she said. "The really young cohorts are really digging a hole for themselves."

View the original article here

Acquisitions help Jazz Pharma 4Q profit soar

Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC's fourth-quarter earnings soared, as the Irish drugmaker's revenue swelled due to acquisitions and sales growth for its narcolepsy treatment Xyrem.

The Dublin-based company also said Tuesday after markets closed that it had a deal to develop and sell a key compound in Xyrem, a move that could strengthen the company's patent protection of the drug.

In the quarter ended Dec. 31, Jazz reported net income of $200.6 million, or $3.28 per share, up from $37.5 million, or 79 cents per share, a year earlier. Adjusted earnings in last year's quarter totaled $1.53 per share.

Revenue more than doubled to $183.7 million from $80.9 million a year ago.

Analysts surveyed by FactSet expected, on average, earnings of $1.40 per share on $182.4 million in revenue.

Last June, Jazz said it completed its purchase of cancer drug maker EUSA Pharma for $650 million. In January, Jazz completed its all-stock acquisition of privately held Azur Pharma Ltd., a combination that created a specialty drug company headquartered in Dublin. Jazz was based in Palo Alto, Calif.

Jazz said the acquisitions helped drive its revenue increase. Xyrem sales climbed 58 percent to $113.5 million compared to last year's quarter.

The acquisitions also contributed to steep growth in operating expenses to $116.3 million from $45.8 million.

For the full year, Jazz earned $288.6 million, or $4.79 per share, up from $125 million, or $2.67 per share, a year earlier, Annual revenue rose to $586 million from $272.3 million a year ago.

Jazz said it expects adjusted earnings to range between $5.70 and $5.90 per share in 2013 on revenue ranging from $805 million to $835 million. Analysts expect earnings, on average, of $5.72 per share on $805.2 million in revenue.

Jazz said it reached an agreement with Concert Pharmaceuticals Inc. that gives Jazz worldwide rights to develop and sell Concert's deuterium-modified sodium oxybate compounds. Sodium oxybate is the active ingredient in Xyrem.

Brean Capital analyst Gene Mack said in a research note the deal strengthens Jazz's patent protection for Xyrem, and it also could allow for once-daily dosing of the drug.

U.S.-traded shares of the company climbed 2.1 percent, or $1.17, to $58 before the markets opened Wednesday.

View the original article here

Zogenix shares rise on delayed FDA drug decision

WASHINGTON -- Shares of drugmaker Zogenix Inc. surged Wednesday, as investors speculated that a delayed decision on the company's lead drug will lead to positive approval in coming weeks.

THE SPARK: Zogenix reported Tuesday that the Food and Drug Administration would take longer than expected to review its drug Zohydro, a long-acting version of the painkiller hydrocodone. The FDA did not provide an explanation for the delay but indicated it "would likely be brief and may last only several weeks." Zogenix said the company has not been asked to submit any additional information.

THE BIG PICTURE: If approved Zohydro would be the first pure hydrocodone medication available in the U.S. Currently available products combine the drug with lower-grade painkillers such as acetaminophen. The company's announcement that FDA is still reviewing the drug may have surprised investors in light of the drug's negative review from federal advisers. In December an FDA panel of specialists voted 11-2 against the drug due to concerns that it could be abused by people addicted to painkillers. Hydrocodone belongs to a family of medicines known as opiates, which includes morphine, oxycodone, codeine and methadone.

The FDA does not have to follow the guidance of its advisers, though it often does.

THE ANALYSIS: Wells Fargo analyst Michael Tong said in a note to investors that the delay may bode well for Zogenix, since the FDA could have rejected the drug outright if it thought it was unapprovable. Tong said the short-term delay suggests the agency is working on measures to make sure the drug is used safely.

"We continue to believe the odds for eventual approval are high. We speculate FDA is dealing with issues of access and potential misuse," Tong said. He rates the company as "outperform" with a price target of $1.21.

SHARE ACTION: Shares of San Diego-based Zogenix Inc. rose 46 cents, or 38 percent, to $1.67 in afternoon trading.

View the original article here