Hagel is not reneging on military benefits

By Lawrence J. Korb, senior fellow, Center for American Progress - 04/25/13 01:16 PM ET

As a life member of the Military Officers Association (MOAA), I am chagrined at the efforts of its leaders to prevent the Congress from restoring benefits for active duty and retired military personnel to their rightful level.  In presenting incorrect and misleading information to Congress and the general public, these individuals are stooping to the level of many special interest groups and are not putting the interests of the country first. This unacceptable behavior can be demonstrated by analyzing the full page ads they took out in Capitol Hill newspapers, including The Hill, on April 17, 2003.

In their ad, MOAA’s leaders claim that the changes that Secretary Hagel has recommended that the Congress make to the current compensation system are unfair and unnecessary. They claim that they are unfair because they renege on promises made to service members and their families. This is not true.

Hagel is proposing that working age military retirees pay no more than 14 percent of the costs of their Tricare healthcare plan. When Tricare was instituted in 1996, the executive and legislative branches agreed that the share would be 27 percent. But because of a dereliction of duty on the part of several military leaders for over a decade, the share dropped to less than 11 percent and the costs to the Pentagon and the taxpayers skyrocketed.  Having working age retirees pay only 14 percent is actually reneging on a promise to the American taxpayers, not to military retirees.

The new secretary is also proposing that retirees over 65 who are eligible for Tricare for Life pay a small enrollment fee based on a percentage of their retired pay. Since Tricare for Life did not come into existence until 2001, there is no retiree over 65 who made his or her career decisions based on getting Tricare for Life benefits. Those who assumed Tricare for Life would always be free cannot retire before 2021. Under Hagel’s plan, when they retire, they would pay between $613 and $818 a year depending on their rank.

Finally, like all of his predecessors, Hagel is proposing that raises in military basic pay be indexed to inflation as stipulated by law and policy. Since basic pay is 20 percent above that mark now, it would mean that for the next few years the raises would be slightly less than the rate of inflation. In effect, this would be keeping a promise to the military and the taxpayers, not reneging on any promises.

The MOAA ad also claims that changes are unnecessary, presenting a chart which purports to show that military personnel and health care costs now account for the same percentage of the defense budget as they have since 1980. Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant because these benefits are indexed to specific standards, not a percentage of the budget.  But the chart is not accurate, for two reasons.

First, these costs support a much smaller force than 1980. In that year, there were 2.3 million people on active duty. Today that number is 1.4 million. Moreover, the defense budget in 2010 was twice as large, in real terms, than it was in 1980.

Second, their chart ignores the fact that since 1986 almost $100 billion in personnel costs have been transferred out of the defense budget. In 1980, the DOD budget was charged for the full cost of military retired pay. Today, DOD pays only a small accrual for those on active duty who will probably retire. In 2012, that amounted to about $20 billion. However, military retirees received over $50 billion from the US treasury, which was not charged to the DOD budget.

In addition, the Treasury had to pay the interest on the unfunded liability of the military retired system which is about $1 trillion. This amounted to another $20 billion.

Military men and women should be fairly compensated for their service. And today they are. For example, the regular military compensation (base pay, tax free housing, and food allowances) are $44,000 for an E-4. For an O-3, it is $95,000. Over the past decade, the average cost of pay and benefits per active duty service member increased by more than 50 percent in real terms. In addition, they can receive number of special pays (flight pay, family separation pay, etc.). This is far more than what people comparable education receive in the private sector.

Hagel is not trying to cut their pay or renege on promises. MOAA knows this, but like any other special interest group, it is cooking the books to get a larger share of the pie for its members. But its members and the country deserve better.

Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, served as an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

View Comments

View the original article here

National Security Brief: Former Top Obama Military Aide Questions Benefits Of Drone Program

The former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Thursday that the costs of the Obama administration’s counter-terror drone program may be outweighing its benefits.

“We’re seeing that blowback,” said retired General James Cartwright at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “If you’re trying to kill your way to a solution, no matter how precise you are, you’re going to upset people even if they’re not targeted.”

The CIA will reportedly be moving its armed drone program under the auspices of the Defense Department and because of that, according to the New York Times, Cartwright is also worried about “blurring the line” between soldiers and spies if DOD is running armed drones “outside a declared area of hostility.”

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that the new U.S. drone base in Niger is starting to take shape. “We welcome the drones,” Niger’s President Issoufou Mahamadou said. “Our countries are like the blind leading the blind,” he said. “We rely on countries like France and the United States. We need cooperation to ensure our security.”

In other news:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suggested in a lengthy speech on Thursday that he is open to nuclear talks with the United States, if not optimistic about their outcome.

The Washington Post reports: The U.N. secretary general said Thursday that he will launch an investigation into whether chemical weapons were used in Syria, seeking to address accusations that, if proven, could alter the trajectory of the two-year-old civil war in the country.

View the original article here

Obamacare’s Essential Benefits Regulation Creates Disparities Among States

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued final rules for Obamacare’s essential health benefits (EHB) package, setting up yet another new source of conflict over Obamacare, this time among the states.[1]

HHS has adopted a “state benchmark plan” approach for setting the EHB package. The result of this decision is that the EHB package will now vary from state to state. While Administration officials tout this approach as offering less market disruption and more flexibility, it will also have the effect that some states will receive more in Obamacare subsidies than others.

This is because, in trying to implement one part of Obamacare, the Administration is tripping over another part of the law.

More State Benefit Mandates Equal More Federal Subsidies

Beginning in 2014, Obamacare requires all non-grandfathered health insurance plans in the individual and small group markets to cover the EHB package. The law also says that if a state imposes benefit mandates beyond those required by the federal EHB package, then the state must pay the extra cost for subsidizing those extra benefits in the exchange.

However, the HHS regulations implementing the EHB package specify that, at least for the first two years, the EHB package in each state will be determined by a benchmark plan, which for most states will be their largest small group plan.[2] Since those benchmark plans already exist and they already cover state-mandated benefits, those state benefit mandates will now be part of the “essential benefits” that insurers will have to cover. That, in turn, means that when insurers offer their policies in the exchanges, the cost of those state benefit mandates will be paid for with federal subsidies.

Of course, this design gives every state an incentive to add more benefit mandates, knowing that federal taxpayers will be picking up most of the tab. To prevent that, HHS drew a line in the EHB regulation that essentially “grandfathers” all state benefit mandates enacted before December 31, 2011. That means states will pay the additional cost only for any state benefit mandates enacted after 2011.

The effect will be disparities among states, as the package of “essential” benefits will be more generous in some states than in others. Of course, those differences will also be reflected in plan premiums.

Yet the amount paid by those receiving Obamacare’s exchange subsidies will not vary by state—despite individuals in one state receiving more generous (and more costly) coverage than individuals in another state. The reason is that the Obamacare subsidies are based on the recipient’s income, not the cost of the available coverage.[3]

The way the Obamacare exchange subsidies work is that the recipient pays no more than a specified percentage of income for coverage, with the rest of the premium picked up by federal taxpayers. The subsidies are tied to the second-lowest-cost silver plan (the reference plan) in the state’s exchange and will be set on a sliding scale.

For example, a couple at 250 percent of the federal poverty level (annual income of $37,825) will pay no more than 8.05 percent of their income—$2,383 (or $198 a month)—in premiums for the reference plan. That will hold true regardless of whether they live in a state where the premium for the reference plan is $10,000, one where it is $15,000, or one where it is $20,000.

Thus, in a state with a more generous—and therefore more expensive—EHB package, there will be a greater federal subsidization of premiums by Obamacare, creating inequalities among states. While it is true that in many cases the differences may be modest, those differences could be significant in cases where states require coverage for expensive treatments.

For example, the EHB package will require coverage for autism spectrum disorders in 24 states and for “applied behavior analysis based therapies” for autism spectrum disorders in another four states. However, in the remaining 22 states, those services will not be part of the required essential benefits. Similarly, the required essential benefit coverage will include bariatric surgery in four states, bone marrow transplant in five states, chiropractic care in 10 states, infertility treatments in nine states, and private-duty nursing in two states.[4]

EHB Controversy Exacerbated

Beyond cost, some of these benefit mandates are controversial for other reasons as well. For example, there are questions about the long-term value of bariatric surgery for obesity, particularly relative to patient risks. In the case of autism and related conditions, given that treatments consist principally of educational and behavioral therapies, it can reasonably be argued that they should be funded through social service programs rather than through acute care health insurance. In the case of infertility treatments, many individuals consider some of the procedures used to be immoral and thus strongly object to being forced to subsidize them through their health insurance.

Yet the Administration’s EHB regulation now effectively deems these and other controversial treatments to be “essential”—but only in those states that previously mandated them. Furthermore, the Administration’s approach exacerbates existing mandated benefit controversies by introducing the new dynamic of federal funding discrimination derived from a policy that freezes in place prior disparities among the states.

To understand how that could spark new conflicts over Obamacare, consider the example of infertility treatments. Infertility treatments will be part of the required essential benefit coverage in Illinois but not in any of the adjoining states of Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, or Kentucky. If lawmakers in one or more of those adjoining states were to now mandate coverage for infertility treatment, their state’s taxpayers would have to cover the extra cost of the exchange subsidies. Yet in Illinois federal taxpayers will pick up the extra subsidy cost.

More Obamacare Consequences

Thus, the effect of this policy is to reward states that previously enacted excessive benefit mandates (driving up the cost of health insurance) while penalizing states that took a more restrained approach in the past (keeping health insurance more affordable).

It also means that if a hypothetical couple in the above example lives in one of the five states adjoining Illinois and wants coverage for infertility treatments, they can get it with federal subsidies by moving across the state line to Illinois.

Of course, HHS could eliminate these disparities by crafting a single national EHB package—which is what the architects of Obamacare intended and expected. Yet doing that would shift special interest lobbying over benefits from state capitals to Washington while also exacerbating other problems with Obamacare.

For example, Obamacare’s insurance rating rules will increase premiums. Yet a national EHB package would raise premiums even more in states that currently have fewer benefit mandates. Also, Obamacare’s “public utility” approach to regulating insurers will drive industry consolidation, resulting over time in fewer and larger health insurers.[5] A national EHB package would reinforce and accelerate that trend by further limiting the ability of insurers to differentiate themselves from their competitors.

Contrasting the coverage of prescription drugs in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) versus in Medicare illustrates why letting insurers design benefit packages in response to consumer demand and innovations in medical treatment is preferable to government benefit setting.

Since its inception in 1960, the FEHBP has been a very competitive market, with participating insurers allowed wide latitude in designing their benefit packages. Over time, prescription drug coverage in FEHBP plans became widespread and increasingly sophisticated in response to consumer demands and a changing pharmaceutical market. In contrast, adding drug coverage to Medicare literally took an act of Congress and occurred only in 2003.

Fundamental Error

Believing that politicians and bureaucrats will make better decisions than individuals and business is a fundamental error underlying the essential benefits and numerous other provisions in Obamacare.

There is simply no good solution to these problems short of Congress reversing its policy mistake of granting HHS benefit-setting authority. The better policy is to let consumer demand in a competitive market drive insurance benefit design.

—Edmund F. Haislmaier is Senior Research Fellow and Alyene Senger is Research Assistant in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[2]Forty-one states and the District of Columbia plan to use their largest small group plan as the benchmark. See Appendix A of the final rule for the complete list.

[3]Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Public Law 111–148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111–152, Sec. 1401.

[4]Each state’s EHB benchmark plan and list of benefits can be found here: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, “Additional Information on Essential Health Benefits Benchmark Plans,” http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/data/ehb.html (accessed April 2, 2013).

View the original article here

Defense Department Offers Limited Benefits To Military Same-Sex Partners

It took 17 months, but the Defense Department has finally issued guidance about benefits that can be extended to the same-sex partners of military servicemembers now that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” no longer requires that they hide their identities. The list does not address some serious issues of concern, including health care, housing, and survivor benefits because of the Defense of Marriage Act, but does allow servicemembers to designate specific protections to their partners, including some through the recognition of a domestic partnership. Here are a few of the new benefits:

Service Members Group Life Insurance BeneficiaryVeterans’ Group Life Insurance BeneficiarySurvivor Benefit Plan Beneficiary for RetireesCasualty NotificationDesignation of Persons Having Interest in Status of a Missing MemberHospital Visitation PrivilegesDesignation of Persons Authorized to Direct Disposition of Remains of Members of the Armed ForcePresentation of the Flag of the United StatesDependent ID cardsCommissary PrivilegesExchange PrivilegesMorale, Welfare, and Recreation programsEmergency LeaveYouth ProgramsFamily Center ProgramsChild CareLegal AssistanceJoint Duty Assignments

The memo announcing the benefits notes that should the Defense of Marriage Act no longer apply to the department, policy will be to “construe the words ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’ without regard to sexual orientation, and married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, and their dependents, will be granted full military benefits.” It also contains a new process for same-sex couples to declare to the military that they are, in fact, domestic partners, which presumably even couples that are already married would have to fulfill to receive the benefits.

OutServe-SLDN praised outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for “getting us a few steps closer to full equality.”

View the original article here

7 States Cut Unemployment Insurance, Costing Jobless Workers Federal Benefits Too

A combination of federal and state unemployment insurance programs kept 2.3 million Americans out of poverty in 2011, mitigating some of the negative effects the Great Recession had on jobless workers. But even as unemployment remains stubbornly high, several states are taking the axe to their unemployment programs, and the result is that recipients are losing federal unemployment insurance too.

Seven states have reduced the length of their unemployment programs from 26 weeks, the standard since the 1950s, by as much as 14 weeks, according to a new policy paper from the National Employment Law Project. But because federal benefits depend on the number of weeks offered at the state level, those cuts are also costing workers access to the federal program. In those states, five of which have unemployment rates higher than the federal level, those cuts are costing individual recipients as much as $5,000, according to NELP:

The average jobless worker has been unemployed for 35 weeks, and 40 percent of unemployed workers have been out of a job for at least 27 weeks, meaning the cuts will hammer large numbers of the unemployed in these states. While opponents of unemployment insurance decry the “culture of dependency” the program creates, research shows that recipients work harder to find a new job than those who don’t have access to the program.

America’s unemployment program, stingy as it is, also has benefits for the economy: the Congressional Budget Office estimated that failure to extend the federal program at the beginning of the year would have cost the country 300,000 jobs.

View the original article here

More Than 75 Percent Of Americans Delayed Their Retirement To Avoid Losing Health Benefits

Tying health insurance benefits directly to employment is forcing most Americans to work longer than they would have otherwise, a new study from the Employee Benefits Research Institute finds.

According to the study’s results, more than three fourths of retired Americans ended up working longer than they initially planned because they didn’t want to lose access to their employer-based health benefits. And a majority of the Americans who are currently in the workforce are also planning to delay their retirement in order to keep the insurance plans they have through their employer:

This builds upon previous research that shows the Great Recession has seriously impacted older Americans’ ability to retire. An estimated 62 percent of working Americans now report they’re planning to put off their retirement — up from 42 percent in 2010 — largely due to job losses and financial insecurity. These issues go hand-in-hand particularly because, as health care costs continue to rise, Americans are increasingly worried about being able to afford their insurance coverage.

And the United States’ primarily employer-based health insurance system doesn’t just impact Americans’ retirement decisions. It has also contributed to the “job lock” phenomenon, which prevents Americans from switching jobs or changing career paths because they’re too worried about losing access to their health benefits. “Job lock” ultimately creates an inefficient labor market, since workers may not take better jobs because they’re concerned about having a gap in health coverage.

Fortunately, Obamacare will take steps to address these dynamics by making health care more affordable to low- and middle-income Americans, as well as preventing insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. The health reform law “completely changes the playing field,” one of the study’s authors told Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff. “If everything goes as planned, you’ve got guaranteed issue next year. You don’t need the employer to fill the gap.”

View the original article here

Despite Conservative Attacks, States Continue to Realize the Benefits of Renewable Energy Standards

by Matt Kasper and Tom Kenworthy, Center for American Progress

States’ adoption of renewable energy standards—which require electric utility companies to produce a portion of their electricity from wind, solar, and other renewable sources—has considerably driven clean energy advances in recent years. Though Congress has failed to enact a nationwide standard, policymakers at the state level have enthusiastically filled the void, with 29 states and the District of Columbia adopting hard targets for renewable energy production and another eight states setting renewable energy goals. Standards place an obligation on electricity-supply companies to reach set targets, while renewable energy goals are voluntary for companies—although states might incentivize a utility for reaching a set goal.

Those mandates have brought a wide range of benefits, ranging from robust clean energy economies to lower carbon emissions and improved public health. Since the beginning of 2009, eight states—California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York—have increased their standards, while three states—Indiana, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—have established voluntary goals. Six other states—Colorado, Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington state—have beaten back attempts to repeal their standards. Most of the states with renewable energy standards on the books are meeting or are close to meeting their interim targets.

Nonetheless, conservative attacks on state renewable energy standards are on the rise.

Two conservative organizations looking to repeal state renewable energy standard policies are the Heartland Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. These two organizations worked together to write model legislation—the Electricity Freedom Act—to roll back state standards. The policy, which ALEC’s board of directors adopted last October, argues that “a renewable energy mandate is essentially a tax on consumers of electricity that forces the use of renewable energy sources beyond what would be called for by real market forces and under conditions of real competition in generation resources.”

ALEC is known for helping advance corporate interests by writing and pushing for passage of conservative legislation at the state level. The organization has been a force in shaping conservative agendas, including voter identification laws and right-to-work policies. In the environmental sphere, ALEC has targeted states that regulate greenhouse gases and has promoted bills supporting hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”; offshore drilling of oil and natural gas; and nuclear energy. Tax documents show that Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, and other energy companies pay membership fees in order to help write legislation repealing carbon-pollution reduction programs in states across the country.

The Heartland Institute is a think tank that promotes skepticism about climate change. Recently, the organization launched a billboard campaign that linked people who care about global warming to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, murderer Charles Manson, and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. One specific billboard featured a mug shot of Kaczynski with the words, “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?” In a statement, the president of Heartland unapologetically called the billboard campaign an “experiment.”

With ALEC’s ability to successfully pass conservative legislation at the state level and the Heartland Institute’s intentions to attack policies that combat climate change, the threat that state renewable energy standard policies could be repealed needs to be taken seriously and aggressively contested.

ALEC and Heartland seem to be targeting North Carolina first. North Carolina State Rep. Mike Hager (R), a member of ALEC, says he is confident that in the upcoming session in his state’s general assembly, the votes exist to repeal or weaken the state’s renewable energy standard. Rep. Hager is the majority whip and the chairman of the Public Utilities Committee in the North Carolina General Assembly. But the bill that implemented the state’s standard passed 107-9 in the House in 2007—a resounding message Rep. Hager should recognize.

Last fall, however, fossil fuel interests funded a successful effort to defeat a constitutional amendment in Michigan that would have increased the state’s renewable energy standard from 10 percent in 2015 to 25 percent in 2025.

But voters in the eight states that have strengthened standards understand that these policies improve the environment and stimulate their state economies. California went from a 20 percent standard by 2010 to a 33 percent standard by 2020—and is currently on track to meet that 33 percent target. California’s three investor-owned utilities, or IOUs, achieved 18 percent of 2010 retail electricity sales with renewable energy. The three investor-owned utilities hit 20.6 percent renewables at the end of 2011. When California, the ninth-largest economy in the world, establishes a 33 percent renewable energy standard, it sends a clear message to every other state that renewable energy provides reliable, cost-effective clean electricity and strengthens the economy.

Long-term commitments to purchase renewable energy from wind, solar, or geothermal sources enable developers to secure financing for such facilities, allowing the market for renewable energy to stabilize and grow. Long-term commitments also lock in electricity prices, helping shield ratepayers from price volatility that is typical of electricity purchased from coal and natural gas facilities.

And California is not the only state in recent years to set a higher standard. Colorado has increased its standard twice since 2004, rising from 10 percent to its current level of 30 percent by 2020. New York originally had a 25 percent renewable energy standard by 2013, but lawmakers in 2010 increased the standard to 30 percent by 2015.

The renewable energy standard program in New York continues to yield significant economic benefits—as it does in all the states that create standards. The planning, development, construction, and operation of renewable energy facilities create short-term and long-term jobs while benefiting local governments and school districts through property taxes and other leases or royalty payments. An analysis conducted in 2009 concluded that $6 billion in direct economic benefits are expected if New York meets its 30 percent target—and this analysis did not even include estimates of the multiplier effects that can accompany direct economic impacts.

In January 2012 London Economics International LLC prepared an in-depth analysis of Maine’s renewable energy standard, required by legislation enacted in 2011. The report found that policies in Maine and New England would create 11,700 jobs in Maine alone over several years. In addition, $1.14 billion of new investment will occur in Maine as more renewable energy facilities are constructed. The report also found that electricity prices will lower for consumers as more wind energy is developed in New England.

Some politically conservative states also recognize the benefits from these standards. In Kansas, for example, House Bill 2369, enacted in May 2009 but finalized in 2010, established the state’s first renewable energy standard. The law requires investor-owned utilities to generate or purchase 20 percent of peak demand capacity electricity from renewable energy facilities by 2020. The eligible generation sources include wind, solar energy (both thermal and photovoltaics), methane from landfills or wastewater treatment, hydropower, and biomass.

The American Wind Energy Association highlights Kansas’s renewable energy standard policy as a driving factor in helping the state attract wind projects and manufacturers like Siemens. According to the Kansas Energy Information Network, 11 of Kansas’s 21 wind farms began operating between 2010 and 2012—eight of them in 2012 alone.

Empire District Electric, a Kansas utility, had already decided to purchase wind power due to the high natural gas prices at the time, and also purchased a high percentage of natural gas base load generation. Empire wrote to its shareholders, “[Wind energy power purchase agreements] decrease our exposure to natural gas, provide a hedge against any future global warming legislation and help us give our customers lower, more stable prices.”

Also prior to the renewable energy standard legislation, the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities saw wind power as “a hedge against high market purchase prices” and estimated that their 20-year power purchase agreement for wind power would save the utility $3 million during the first decade.

The Kansas Corporation Commission, which established the rules and regulations in 2010 for the state’s renewable energy standard, recognized the problems caused by volatile fossil fuel prices, noting that wind energy in a state’s energy portfolio protects consumers. The commission stated:

Natural gas, coal, and wholesale power prices have all experienced significant volatility and upward trending costs. Wind generation provides value as insurance for customers from some of the effects of unexpectedly high and volatile fuel and wholesale energy prices.

In upcoming state battles, ALEC and the Heartland Institute will almost certainly claim that renewable electricity standards raise power rates for consumers compared to states without clean energy requirements. That claim is false, however, as Richard Caperton, Director for Clean Energy Investment at the Center for American Progress, demonstrated in a CAP issue brief last April.

Therefore, with no price impact on consumers of electricity, tremendous economic benefits, and utility companies praising renewable energy standard laws, it would be a mistake for state lawmakers to enact legislation written by ALEC and the Heartland Institute that repeals such standards.

Why we should enact a nationwide renewable energy standard

In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama proposed a federal “clean energy standard,” which would require utility companies to produce 80 percent of their electricity from no- or low-carbon sources by 2035. CAP has recommended that an 80 percent clean energy standard should also include a requirement that 35 percent of electricity generation come from renewable sources and efficiency measures. This standard should be met by requiring a national target of 25 percent renewable electricity generation alongside a requirement that utilities reduce demand to save energy by 10 percent.

An analysis conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that a national standard that requires all electric utilities to increase usage of renewable electricity to at least 25 percent by 2025 would create jobs, lower energy bills, and reduce harmful pollution. The analysis specifically found that 297,000 jobs would be created, $263.4 billion in new capital investment would occur with an additional $11.5 billion going to local communities from new property taxes, and consumers would save $64.3 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2025.

Matt Kasper is a Special Assistant for the Energy Policy team at the Center for American Progress. Tom Kenworthy is a Senior Fellow at the Center.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Federal Unemployment Benefits Expire Due To Congressional Inaction

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) urged lawmakers to embrace a package that could avert the so-called fiscal cliff, noting that 2.1 million Americans have already lost federal unemployment benefits as a result of Congressional inaction. “From this point on, it is lose-lose,” Feinstein explained, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. “My big worry, is, a contraction of the economy. The loss of jobs, which could be well over 2 million in addition to the people already on unemployment.”

Indeed, the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group, projects that “more than 2 million Americans will stop receiving benefits after Dec. 29, when the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program will cease to exist.” The benefits have kept 2.3 million out of poverty last year alone, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that a full, year-long extension would lead to the creation of 300,000 new jobs.

The initiative requires recipients to search for a job while receiving payments, and one study found that unemployment recipients search harder for jobs than those who are not receiving money from the program.

Earlier this week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) demanded spending cuts to pay for the program, which would cost $30 billion. Democrats have been pushing for a full extension of benefits.

View the original article here

CNN's Gupta -- Once a Candidate for Obama's Surgeon General -- Trumpets Benefits of ObamaCare

CNN's chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta boosted ObamaCare on Friday morning's Starting Point without disclosing that he was once a candidate to be President Obama's Surgeon General, and thus the megaphone for ObamaCare.

"Since President Obama's health care law was enacted, 3.1 million people under the age of 26 are now covered by their parents' plans and preventive care is covered 100 percent by insurance companies. Seniors, in particular, have benefitted on prescription drugs," Gupta trumpeted at the start of his report on the health care plans of the presidential candidates. [Video below the break. Audio here.]

"Five-and-a-half million seniors have saved a total of nearly four-and-a-half billion dollars on prescription drugs since the law was enacted, according to the Health and Human Services Department," Gupta continued, spouting the Obama administration's own numbers.

Back in June, as on Friday, Gupta offered no disclosure of his past candidacy for Obama's Surgeon General as he warned of rising health care costs if the health care law's individual mandate was overturned by the Supreme Court. 

Gupta was more tempered towards Mitt Romney's health care plan on Friday, after he promoted the alleged successes of Obama's health care policy. "He [Romney] wants ObamaCare gone, including the prescription drug benefit for seniors. But he does want to keep one of the most popular pieces of ObamaCare, although he doesn't say exactly how his plan would work," reported Gupta.

A transcript of Gupta's report, which aired on Starting Point on September 28 at 7:52 a.m. EDT, is as follows:

(Video Clip)

Dr. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN chief medical correspondent (voice-over): Since President Obama's health care law was enacted, 3.1 million people under the age of 26 are now covered by their parents' plans and preventive care is covered 100 percent by insurance companies. Seniors, in particular, have benefitted on prescription drugs.

BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States: Seniors who fall in the coverage gap known as the donut hole will start getting some help. They'll receive $250 to help pay for prescriptions and that will, over time, fill in the donut hole.

GUPTA: Five-and-a-half million seniors have saved a total of nearly four-and-a-half  billion dollars on prescription drugs since the law was enacted, according to the Health and Human Services Department. He also plans to slow spending on Medicare.

OBAMA: I have strengthened Medicare. We've added years to the life of Medicare. We did it by getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies that weren't making people healthier.

GUPTA: By 2014, the law requires everyone to have health insurance, whether they purchase it themselves or through their employers. And insurers can't deny you if you have a pre-existing condition or increase your rates. The law has become a cornerstone of the Obama campaign.

OBAMA: I refuse to eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans who are poor and elderly or disabled all so those with the most can pay less.

GUPTA: But Romney says the Affordable Care Act is unaffordable.

MITT ROMNEY, Republican presidential nominee: We know that health care is too expensive. Obamacare doesn't make it less expensive.

GUPTA: He wants ObamaCare gone, including the prescription drug benefit for seniors. But he does want to keep one of the most popular pieces of ObamaCare, although he doesn't say exactly how his plan would work.

ROMNEY: We have to make sure that people who have pre-existing conditions are able to get insured and that folks that get sick don't get dropped by their insurance company.

GUPTA: Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, propose to cap malpractice insurance, cut Medicaid by $810 billion over the next 10 years, give states more control over their Medicaid funds, overhaul Medicare.

The overhaul, people now younger than 55, when they reach retirement, would have the option of getting a voucher to purchase private insurance or they could stick with traditional Medicare.

Rep. PAUL RYAN, (R-Wisc.), GOP vice presidential nominee: This financial support system is designed to guarantee that seniors can always afford Medicare coverage, no exceptions.

(End Video Clip)

GUPTA: I tell you, Soledad, we don't talk about Medicaid as much as you know. But a big part of ObamaCare is to expand Medicaid, give the states the option to expand the federal poverty level at which people can qualify for it. But it costs money, for the federal government and for the state government.

The Romney plan – and we've been dissecting this for a bit of time now – really turns Medicaid (Inaudible) into a block grant program for the states, let the states decide. But ultimately, there's less federal dollars going into the program, Soledad.

O'BRIEN: All right, so then since seniors are a large portion of the recipients of Medicaid, what happens to them? How are they affected?

GUPTA: Well, you know, it's interesting because I think as a physician I've been looking into this somewhat. People, they think of Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for people who are either impoverished or have disabilities. But there are about 6 million seniors who actually get Medicaid as well; they are called "dually eligible". But I think the area where it impacts them the most is probably in long term and nursing home care.

Because Medicare covers a lot of things. But one of the things where it falls a little bit shorter is in that nursing home care. So if you're a senior who falls within that poverty guideline and you need nursing home care, Medicaid often has been where that source of money has come from. I think those people are probably going to be affected the most here.

Matt Hadro is a News Analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Matt Hadro on Twitter.

View the original article here